Quantcast
Channel: Vox Cantoris
Viewing all 3701 articles
Browse latest View live

"A dark and false Church" is rising. Who will stop it?

$
0
0

I post below and excerpt from a salient article by Pat Archibald; it sums up what many of us have been saying and feeling and I urge you to read it. It saved me writing it. Thank you Pat.


To some of my readers, if you find the tone lately harsh, I apologise to you. I the future proves me wrong about my concerns about the situation, I will do public penance on this blog.

In the meantime, I cannot be silent.

The Truth About This Crisis

 Friday, October 10, 2014 9:02  
I think it is high time that we talk frankly about what is truly happening in the Church. It is quite probable that we are approaching the denouement of this horrible play, a century in the telling, in which the Synod on the Family, currently playing out in Rome, may be the opening scene of the final act.
We endlessly speculate and debate over who is with Cardinal Kasper and who is not, who will stand up and who will be quiet, and where does doctrine end and pastoral praxis begin.  Meanwhile, a “dark and false Church,” as foreseen by Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, which has grown within the Church for a century, continues its unhindered progress.


Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/the-truth-about-this-crisis#ixzz3Fvr6Ddx9

Canonist provides clarity

$
0
0
Canonist Edward Peters provides clarity!

Either the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2384 is right, or it is wrong, to call remarriage after civil divorce “public and permanent adultery,” and either Canon 915 is right, or it is wrong, to prohibit administration of holy Communion to Catholics whose protracted public conduct is gravely at odds with fundamental Church teaching. Either the Sacrament of Confession requires of penitents a ‘firm purpose of amendment’ (that is, one’s casting off the sinful act), or it does not require such resolution for absolution (CCC 1451, CIC 959), and either Jesus’ frequent words against divorce and remarriage conveyed His meaning, a meaning which the Church in turn correctly understands, or not. But, if the Catechism is right, if the Code is correct, if sacramental theology is sound, and if Jesus knew what He was saying and His Church has rightly understood Him, then, how does one countenance administration of holy Communion to the typical divorced-and-remarried Catholic without at the very least disregarding the logical principle of non-contradiction?
Canonist, Ed Peters

Synodal secrecy and spin and sodomite-mafia takeover

$
0
0
If you've not already read or heard, the Synod Fathers elected by secret ballot their representatives to write the report known as the relatio. Cardinal Raymond Burke and Cardinal Bagnasco amongst others were elected, again I repeat, by secret ballot! Most of the group was decidedly orthodox to Catholic doctrine.

What has been the response by the Bishop of Rome? 

Pope Francis appointed six others including Cardinal Wuerl of Washington -- six who seemingly take opposing views to the first group and are in line with the thinking of the Bishop or Rome.

Let me be clear.

The Bishop of Rome has no right or authority by God to change doctrine, so get off your papalotry high-horse now. The Pope, this Pope, Jorge Bergoglio, Bishop or Rome; is obligated to receive and pass on, he is a servant of the servants of God, he is not a master.

This Pope and a cabal lead by Cardinal Kasper aided by Donald Wuerl are trying to remake Catholic doctrine by stealth, make no mistake about that.

Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried without a decree of nullity is their goal, they are literally "hell-bent" on doing it no matter what.

That a Pope can allow Cardinals such as Kapser to openly create confusion and rancour is astounding. 

The fact that we cannot here what our bishops say and that it is filtered by the likes of Lombardi and Thomas Rosica, CSB is a detestable. We all know about how these men communicate, eh? We have a right, as Cardinal Muller stated, to know what our bishops say!

In the recent past, many Catholics opposed St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI for their teaching. They dissented. They were wrong as they were dissenting from the magisterial teaching of the Church be it on women's ordination, liturgical abuses, divorce and remarriage civilly with no decree of nullity, acknowledgement of same-sex relationships, contraception -- the list goes on. These people were wrong, they were not practicing Catholics. They were trying to undermine the faith.

Catholics now who have not changed their beliefs are now the dissenters -- how can this be?

If you think that those other points are not going to fall like dominoes if these scandalisers in Rome succeed in changing doctrine by stealth (the wedge is Holy Communion) then you are a bigger fool than them. Read what the German bishops write and say, and the Bishop of Antwerp (an appropriate name) and you tell me where these modernists wish to take the Church.

This is happening as the world is burning. Christians beheaded and persecuted. People crucified in 2014!!! Homes destroyed, cultural genocide, economic disruption and these men talk of no Holy Communion for some who persist in mortal sin and refuse to live the life that God has deigned and the Church has taught for two millenia.

Bishops in Africa are notably absent from the commission appointed by the Pope. The issues of this Synod are white, rich European and English world issues. The main focus has been and continues to be divorce and Holy Communion.  

The Church and this Synod is out of touch with the reality of the world. 

This Synod on the Family is a false construct and a Trojan horse.

This post started to be written with the latest article by Sandra Magister, "The Real Dilemma: Indissolubility or Divorce" as the main focus until the latest from Rome came to my attention. They are though, intricately connected and Magister gives you the inner workings in his usually well-informed manner.

Below is a link and quote from this morning at the Vatican. This is a result of the what has been unleashed at this Synod. Can we be lead to any other conclusion that the dossier handed to our beloved Benedict XVI in fact contained a plethora of information on the power and infiltration of effeminates and sodomites in the highest realms of the Church? 

http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2014/10/13/0751/03037.html

  50.        Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?
     51.        The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge. The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.
     52.        Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.

Do not be fooled. The cover-up of pederast priests was done by bishops who sympathised or were of the same ilk as them. They are now at the height of their power or else this would not be happening. 

If the Masonic Press Agency the day after a papal election issues a release from the Grand Lodge of Italy praising the man elected and stating, "nothing will be the same" you'd better believe it.

How much longer until we call out from where the problem stems? 




 



Happy now you malefactors?

Did Cardinal Burke say that the Devil is at work at the Synod? -- Calls on the Pope to declare the confirm the faith!

$
0
0
From the latest interview with Cardinal Burke: (my emphasis)

CWR: In what way is information about what is happening in the Synod being either manipulated or only partially reported and made public?

Cardinal Burke: The interventions of the individual Synod Fathers are not made available to the public, as has been the case in the past. All of the information regarding the Synod is controlled by the General Secretariat of the Synod which clearly has favored from the beginning the positions expressed in the Relatio post disceptationem of yesterday morning. 

While the individual interventions of the Synod Fathers are not published, yesterday’s Relatio, which is merely a discussion document, was published immediately and, I am told, even broadcast live. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see the approach at work, which is certainly not of the Church.
 
CWR: How is that reflected in the Synod's midterm document, released yesterday, which is being criticised by many for its appeal to a so-called "law of graduality”?

Cardinal Burke: While the document in question (Relatio post disceptationem) purports to report only the discussion which took place among the Synod Fathers, it, in fact, advances positions which many Synod Fathers do not accept and, I would say, as faithful shepherds of the flock cannot accept. Clearly, the response to the document in the discussion which immediately followed its presentation manifested that a great number of the Synod Fathers found it objectionable

The document lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium. In a matter on which the Church has a very rich and clear teaching, it gives the impression of inventing a totally new, what one Synod Father called “revolutionary”, teaching on marriage and the family. It invokes repeatedly and in a confused manner principles which are not defined, for example, the law of graduality.
 
CWR: How important is it, do you think, that Pope Francis make a statement soon in order to address the growing sense—among many in the media and in the pews—that the Church is on the cusp of changing her teaching on various essential points regarding marriage, “remarriage,” reception of Communion, and even the place of “unions” among homosexuals?

Cardinal Burke: In my judgment, such a statement is long overdue. The debate on these questions has been going forward now for almost nine months, especially in the secular media but also through the speeches and interviews of Cardinal Walter Kasper and others who support his position. 

The faithful and their good shepherds are looking to the Vicar of Christ for the confirmation of the Catholic faith and practice regarding marriage which is the first cell of the life of the Church.

Revolution on the Way

Holy Father, Cardinals, Bishops; do you want this on your conscience in time and eternity?

$
0
0
From a Facebook friend.

Frustrations of a Catholic

I’ve not been a Catholic long. Even including the three years I spent familiarizing myself with all things Catholic before I swam the Tiber, I’m an infant. There’s wisdom in recognizing the fundamental incompetence of a new Catholic to do justice to Catholic topics of great complexity — no matter his familiarity with them, no matter his intellect or confidence in discussing them. Developing interiorly is paramount.

I understand all this; I offer this not as a bombastic critique, but as an infant’s cry to his Ecclesial Mother: I’ve ceased to care whether the synod in Rome affirms Catholic dogma or not.

I no longer care whether the final result is a resounding reaffirmation, a technical affirmation of orthodoxy even as orthopraxy is corrupted, or an outright denial of dogma.

I no longer care; because it’s become obvious to me the pseudo-Catholic revolutionary does not usually mount a direct attack on dogma. No, the Catholic Church is far too old and too traditional for that. The more direct approach taken in the Church of England does not work.

Nine times out of ten our revolutionaries settle for allowing technical affirmations of dogma or even resounding ones so long as the concrete reality on the ground is changed. Our revolution is one of appearances, not the letter. Unlike the clumsy heretics of yesteryear, today’s version neither leaves the Church, nor foments change in teaching — instead, they pass themselves off as loyal sons of the Church, conceding the letter of dogma for the few who care about it, if only they’re allowed to control the image of the Church, which the masses take as their cue of belief.

This power of appearance has never been stronger than during the present pontificate. I daresay this pontificate has been more successful at using the media, via clichés, slogans, photographs, etc, than any in history.

Which brings me to the synod currently in progress. The synod has become the perfect environment for this phenomenon, which we’re seeing in a way unrivaled since the decade immediately following the close of the Second Vatican Council. Pope Benedict XVI, shortly before abdicating, spoke candidly on this effect after Vatican II, with the important distinction that he refrained from attributing it to churchmen within the Church. It’s obvious to me that influences both within and without the Church drove the image of the Church forward after the Council, with the goal in mind of changing ecclesial praxis, entirely without regard for changing the letter of dogma. Only confusion and an emerging appearance in the public eye are necessary for change in practice; so who cares what that remnant of stuffy dogmatists believes? The Church has, so to speak, moved quite beyond them in the only way that matters to the revolutionaries: in concrete reality.

So, what is my point in all this frank commentary? Simply this: I believe I, and others like me, am being played for fools. We are allowed to continue believing dogma, while the movers-and-shakers of the clergy and the secular media cooperate to create impressions that drive what the majority of Catholics and non-Catholics believe about the Church. This is actually worse than an outright assault on faith and morals, because there’s no clearly defined heresy to be rejected. It’s all ether in the wind, so to speak; all pastoral praxis, publicity, image, public opinion, and change on the ground.

And worst of all, none of the dogmatists seem to be aware of these mechanics. Continually insisting “Rome hasn’t changed dogma” almost seems the silly, stupid talk of fools, of saps to be taken advantage of. Sure, have your precious dogma; have your pie in the sky ideology; the real change-agents have wrought revolution without changing it.

I invite your prayers; I could use them. I'm really struggling.

The Synod was a Set-up!

$
0
0

The Catholic Church's teaching on sodomy is clear, it is a mortal sin and one of the four deadly sins crying out to heaven for justice. Holy Scripture is clear throughout on the abomination before God and the crime of this behaviour. Until just over 100 years ago, it was the sin of sodomy until the word homosexual was coined and until nearly 50 years ago, it was considered a psychiatric disorder. The act is sinful, it always is sinful and it can never be good, it can never be accepted. It is an act against God, it is an act against the soul, the person and it is an act against nature. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, those who practice this behaviour suffer from an "intrinsic disorder." This is the truth, it is the law, it is magisterial and it is infallible and that applies no matter what trash comes out of Rome.

Are persons suffering with same-sex attraction to be hated? Of course not; but we can hate the political and social movement of homosexualism that has taken control of our culture and clearly, our Church! 

Are people with same-sex attraction to be welcomed in the Church -- in our parishes and loved and respected? Absolutely; and I know many and one is now married to a woman and I had the pleasure to be a Lector at their wedding. 

For the last thirty years of my life, the Churches which I've attended have either offered the Mass in the traditional rite or the new rite with solid liturgy and orthodox preaching. At these churches there have been people who identified as "gay" people divorced (myself at one time) and a myriad of suffering humanity. Were they/I all accepted as brothers and sisters? 


Absolutely

So, what on earth is this synod all about?

The idiocy and evil by those at the Synod and I use those words in their full meaning, is profound. They wish to leave people suffering from same-sex behaviour in their sin. There is no call for repentance!

Look, people with SSA (same sex attraction) are not beating down the doors to get into Church. They can come just like anyone else if they choose to do so. If they repent and amend their lives they can come to Holy Communion. If they do not, they cannot. Neither can I if I live a life of adultery or fornication or drunkenness or deny just wages. Are we to reach out to them? Absolutely, with the truth! 

It is a false mercy to think otherwise.

The relator at the Synod blames an Archbishop who inserted three paragraphs without anyone knowledge. Really Eminence; we are to believe this? 

The Bishop of Rome's morning homily from the morning of the release of this document was all about the law and the "god of surprises" (the lack of a capital is intentional).

What does that tell you?

The Bishop of Rome, Jorge Bergoglio, must not only have known of these three paragraphs, he must have agreed with them!

Our good friends at Rorate are reporting today on Sandro Magister:


"The coincidence must be fortuitous, but on Monday, October 13, precisely on the very same day on which in the Italian political arena both the party of [Socialist prime-minister] Matteo Renzi as that of Silvio Berlusconi [the main "conservative" party] announced their will to legitimize homosexual unions, on the other bank of the Tiber the special secretary of the Synod on the Family, archbishop Bruno Forte, said that he also hoped for the same thing, because "it is an issue of civilization."

Has Rome, have these bishops and cardinals, has the Pope himself lost his mind?

This is a disgrace! It is a crime against the Church. It is a betrayal of our faith and of the truth. Can it be a set-up from the very beginning and from the highest office? The damage has been done, the global media will report that the Church has changed and our argument is now lost and if we stand for the truth, we will be mocked, we will now be the problem.

It is Peronism at its finest, eh? Even Saul Alinsky could not have imagined that this would actually happen and make no mistake, they are using all of his rules (for radicals). That homomafia is alive and well and still very active in Vatican City.

The Vatican is clearly backtracking today that "a value has been attributed to a document which does not correspond to its nature. As Mundabor writes, "this is not even a fig-leaf. This is like staying naked in front of the journalists and making a declaration that one is clothed." He rightly questions which is more "stupid" the Relatio or this declaration but he when he writes, "probably the text is more blasphemous and heretical, but this declaration is every bit as offensive."

A breaking report from England quotes Archbishop Nichols that  the document was "composed under pressure." If this revelation is true, and there is no reason to doubt the Archbishop, then the document is illegal and the whole legitimacy of the Synod is in doubt.

Matt C. Abbott today at Renew America quotes Cardinal Napier, "We're now working from a position that's virtually irredeemable,' said South African Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier, referring to the media coverage. 'The message has gone out that this is what synod is saying, that this is what the Catholic Church is saying,' he said. 'Whatever we say hereafter will seem like we're doing damage control." Through his own network, Matt has asked for comments and Father James Fargalia writes, "Pope Francis has correctly criticized the plague of clericalism within the Catholic Church, but Monday's document is the most disgusting example of clericalism that I have ever seen in my almost twenty-seven years as a faithful and hardworking Catholic priest. In fact, the entire synod is an example of clericalism in its most horrendous form. How many of the participants in the synod have ever served in a parish?" He continues, "I used to dismiss the conspiracy theories regarding Pope Benedict XVI's resignation. In light of Monday's horrendous Vatican document, I entertain those theories as a plausible possibility." Father Richard Perozich says that "A pastoral practice that allows sin to be mixed with grace is neither pastoral, nor compassionate, nor merciful. Any such accommodation would teach others to abandon biblical guidance, to follow human desire, and to separate themselves from God."

Now we see the agenda, eh?

This was all about Kasper and his Holy Communion for the divorce and remarried without a decree of nullity, Now, it is revealed that it is really about a blanket acceptance of sodomy, a watering down of marriage, Holy Communion for everyone, a false mercy. 

If they truly believed that Our Lord Jesus Christ was present body, blood, soul and divinity in the Blessed Sacrament would they permit this? They would admonish the sinner and they would prevent him or her from eating "unto their own condemnation." This is mercy and they can only have lost the faith. 

Father D. Vincent Twomey, S.V.D., writes today in Catholic World Report, that "It is gravely irresponsible on the part of the Synod to cause further confusion in a pastoral situation that, in the absence of little authentic instruction on the part of the bishops and priests over the past forty years, is causing havoc in people's lives."

I think the most salient quote today is this one from Father Hunwicke; "When you have a problem with some word or action, you lean over backwards to see it in the best possible light. But your duties of faithfulness to Christ do not mean that you have to be pathologically sycophantic towards whoever happens to be the current bishop of Rome." I've said it before papolatry (papal-idolatry) is not Catholic; no matter how many nice pictures and how humble the Vatican spin doctors dress this up. So, let us get over this idea that the "wonderfullest pope evah" can do no wrong. He can and he has.

The Synod is a disgrace, it is bordering on illegitimacy and is enveloped in a level of unprecedented secrecy and manipulation. This is not the working of the Holy Spirit, of that we can be certain. In Poland it is being called a "hermeneutic of treachery!"

I've read in a few places of people despairing and some say that they will leave the Church.  I am not despairing but I am bloody angry. 

Look, you cannot leave the Bride of Christ over this. Where else are we to go? The Orthodox who remain schismatic? The SSPX without Faculties

We stay right where we are. We do not have to obey on matters that dissent against the Magisterium. If these Romans do this, they call St. John Paul II a liar. If they do this, they call the man they are about to beatify, Bl. Paul VI a liar. They call St. Paul a liar. Now, I would not put it past any of these, and I mean any, to try but know what this is:

This is the devil. He has seized these men by their necks and by their hearts. They are old men, withered and bitter. They have lost the faith, they are out of touch. They are modernists, some are heretics and 100 years ago they would have already been tried for their lies, their heresy, their sodomy and malfeasance. They are sterile and they have no progeny. They represent a dead church and a dead theology.

As our beloved Benedict said, "the Church of the future will be smaller." The people behind this poisonous synod, this betrayal of the law, this new crucifixion are a declining number and they know it. They know too, as does their father of lies, that their time is short.

The next pope is there in Rome. He is witnessing this horror, and he is being called to truly rebuild and re-evangelise the Church. He will uphold the faith and he will restore all things.

The next year is going to be a trial. Then, some time in 2016; Jorge Bergoglio, Bishop of Rome will issue his Apostolic Exhortation.


A lot can happen between now and then.




Is Cardinal Kasper a racist?

$
0
0

"Don't listen to the Africans!"

From Zenit:

Cardinal Kasper: 'Growing Majority' in Synod Support Divorce-Remarriage Proposal

Says Pope Has Problems in His Own Family, Wants to See an "Opening"

Speaking as he came out of Tuesday evening’s small working group discussions, the German cardinal said the Pope has witnessed such problems in his own family and that he has “looked at the laity and seen the great majority are for a reasonable, responsible opening.” The Vatican has not denied that the Pope wants such an “opening” in this area. So, Jorge Bergoglio has some family that is divorced and remarried or have same-sex attraction and the Vicar of Christ on earth wants to change the truth --- an "opening" to make it all nicey, nice? Is Kasper mad? Is he serious? Is this what the Church has been reduced to? Nepotism? Favourtism? This is the height of clericalism and arrogance and if this is the "scent of the people" it stinks to high heaven! Preposterous!
The cardinal's proposal to administer holy Communion to some divorced and "remarried" couples after a period of penitence has been roundly criciticsed by a number of senior Church leaders, including Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Raymond Burke, prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, and Cardinal George Pell, prefect of the Vatican Secretariat for the Economy.
Cardinal Kasper also discussed his views on the synod, and appeared to suggest that African views on homosexuality -- where the issue remains a taboo -- are not listened to by the Western delegates in the assembly. Noting how “impossible” it is for Western delegates to comment on African issues, he said likewise “they should not tell us too much what we have to do.”
***
Your Eminence, how is everything going in the Synod?
Everything is very quiet now. This morning it was on fire a little bit but of course that’s because of you – the newspapers! Oh yes, Eminence, it is all the fault of John and Mary Catholic. Don't like an educated and aware laity, eh?
Yesterday we were told the “Spirit of Vatican II” was in the synod. Do you agree with this?
This is the spirit of the Council – this is very true. Yeah well, we kinda figured that! It is a "spirit" all right, but it is not the Holy Spirit, more like the "scent' of sulphur!
Have you seen some movement on the divorce and “remarriage” issue?
I hoped there would be some opening and I think the majority is in favor. That is the impression I have, but there is no vote. But I think some opening would be left [to happen]. Perhaps it would also be left to the next part of the synod. Looking for an opening, like a stratagem on a war game!
Have you seen opposition growing to your proposals in the last few days?
No. In the first phase of the synod I saw a growing majority in favor of an opening. I saw it – but it’s more of a feeling. There was no vote. There will be a vote but not yet. So, you saw it or you felt, it. Which is it? There was no vote there will be, which is it? Is it all just really about your "feelings" Eminence Griese!
Do you know how the Holy Father is viewing the synod and how it’s going so far?
He has not said – he’s been silent, he has listened very carefully but it’s clearly what he wants and that’s evident, O he hasn't said but it is clear what he wants? So, has he manipulated this process from the very beginning? What happened to collegiality? He wants a major part of the episcopacy with him and he needs it. He cannot do it against the majority of the episcopacy. So, we've reduced the Catholic Church to nothing more than a democratic NGO? Pure and unadulterated, heresy!
Is there any sense that he’s trying to push things in that direction?
He does not push. His first speech was freedom: freedom of speech, everyone should say what he thinks and what he has on his mind and this was very positive. Yes, indeedy Eminence, but don't let that busybody Catholic with a blog know what was being talked about by their bishop. Nobody is asking: what would the Holy Father think about this? No, they can see the note passing back and forth. What things can I say? This freedom of speech has been very alive here in this synod, more than in others. And so has the secrecy and manipulation.
It has been said that he added five special rapporteurs on Friday to help the general rapporteur, Cardinal Peter Erdo. Is that because he’s trying to push things through according to his wishes?
I do not see this going on in the Pope’s head. Oh really? Then why did he do it? But I think the majority of these five people are open people who want to go on with this. In other words, the other opinions do not count, after all, we're not a democracy. The problem, as well, is that there are different problems of different continents and different cultures. And some cultures are more equal than others. Africa is totally different from the West. Also Asian and Muslim countries, they’re very different, especially about gays. The Church has never labelled people by this word, it is verboten that anyone should be labelled in such a manner. We are born male and female, we are not born "gay". How dare you as a Prince of the Church use the words in this manner against what even us little plebeians know! You can’t speak about this with Africans and people of Muslim countries. It’s not possible. It’s a taboo. For us, we say we ought not to discriminate, we don’t want to discriminate in certain respects. A yes your cultural superiority is starting to show. The racism of low expectation!
But are African participants listened to in this regard?
No, the majority of them [who hold these views won’t speak about them]. Why would that be, Eminence?
They’re not listened to?
In Africa of course [their views are listened to], where it’s a taboo. But let us not learn something from our good little Africans, eh?
What has changed for you, regarding the methodology of this synod?
I think in the end there must be a general line in the Church, general criteria, but then the questions of Africa we cannot solve. Low expectation again? They're special and just not ready for our enlightenment. There must be space also for the local bishops’ conferences to solve their problems but I’d say with Africa it’s impossible [for us to solve]. But they should not tell us too much what we have to do. BINGO! Well, if Jorge Bergoglio can wants to bring his family in this then so do I. As the husband of a beautiful woman from South African that you old Germans would consider subhuman and coloured, you're a flippin' racist! What would Cardinal Napier think, or does he have too much class to tell you? You're an embarrassment to Joseph Ratzinger!
There is a lot of concern about your proposal.
Yes, yes, there’s a lot. Damn right, Eminence!
People are saying that it is causing a lot of confusion among the faithful, and are worried about it. What do you say to that?
I can only speak of Germany Really, I though you were speaking for Africa? where the great majority wants an opening about divorce and remarriage. Well, who cares what the majority of Germans that never go to Mass thinks? It’s the same in Great Britain, I though you could only speak of Germany? it’s everywhere. Not amongst my friends in Canada that go to Mass at least once a week. When I speak to laypeople, also old people who are married for 50, 60 years, they never thought of divorce but they see a problem with their culture and so every family has a problem nowadays. Then they should address it in their family. The Pope also told me that [such problems exist] also in his family, I'm sorry for that, maybe they should have been better catechised in Argentina. Who was responsible for that anyway? and he has looked at the laity and seen the great majority are for a reasonable, responsible opening.
But people feel the Church’s teaching is going to be undermined by your proposal if it passes, that it’s undoing 2,000 years of Church teaching. What is your view on this?
Well nobody is putting into question the indissolubility of marriage. Oh really? Just a watering down on the Real Presence right, because that is the logical connection. I think it wouldn’t be a help for people, but if you look to the word of Jesus, there are different synoptic gospels in different places, in different contexts. It’s different in the Judeo-Christian context and in the Hellenistic context. Mark and Matthew are different. There was already a problem in the apostolic age. The Word of Jesus is clear, but how to apply it in complex, different situations? It’s a problem to do with the application of these words. LIAR!
The teaching does not change?
The teaching does not change but it can be made more profound, it can be different. Then it must change, so which is it? There is also a certain growth in the understanding of the Gospel and the doctrine, a development. Really, after 2000 years we've gotten in wrong? Our famous Cardinal Newman had spoken on the development of doctrine. And you are distorting the Blessed! This is also not a change but a development on the same line. Same thing! Of course, the Pope wants itAh, so the Pope has manipulated the Synod from the outset, is that what you are saying? and the world needs it. No, the world needs the truth proclaimed in season and out! We live in a globalized world and you cannot govern everything from the Curia. There must be a common faith, a common discipline but a different application. Diabolical disorientation!
***

What a deceiver.

Is there any doubt that this man has heretical beliefs?

Vox.

Michael Coren's corrupted Catholicism

$
0
0

Michael Coren appeared tonight on a rather pedestrian television program from Hamilton, Ontario with Damian Goddard. The two debated each other, with the two moderators. Coren is a bully, though he called Goddard one repeatedly. Yet it was Coren that did all the interrupting. He even called Goddard a hater. 

I won't quote everything but Coren stated that Jesus never preached on homosexuality.

This statement does not merit a rebuttal.

Michael Coren, stop identifying yourself as a practicing and faithful Catholic. Stop appearing to defend the Church as if you are speaking on Her behalf. You are no theologian. You have no standing to go on regional or local television and speak for the Church. 

Your opinions are heterodox and please, stop complaining of cancellations and the loss of income from Catholics. Certainly all your new friends should be able to make up the difference.

Is Archbiship Bruno Forte a homosexual? Is silence consent?

$
0
0



After posing the question yesterday, "Is Cardinal Kasper a racist?" it is time for another one.

Is Archbishop Bruno Forte a homosexual

If the answer is yes; or at least if it is recognised that this man and the German Kasper have done more in the last few days to bring scandal and disgrace on the Church than anything in the last 500 years in addition to their disturbance of the hearts of the faithful; what does the Vicar of Christ on earth intend to do about it?

After all, these are his friends. These are the people closest to him who seem to have carried out his wishes, at least according to Kasper.

Silence is consent, Holy Father.


It was Martha

$
0
0

Originally posted, October 16, 2006 and edited for today. Please see the N.B. at the end.


A WIDOW WHO SOUGHT "THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE"

+ Martha Joan Stephen Domet +

August 15, 1915 - October 16, 2006

Martha on her 90th birthday
+++
Eight years ago today, in her 92nd year, my mother was called home to the LORD. She was a woman of great faith in God and she taught many lessons to all of those who came into contact with her. This was especially true in her last few years. She suffered the loss of her first grandson and then her first son, both from cancer and she bore much physical suffering with faith, trust and humility.

Today, October 16 according to the calendar for the usus antiquior or the Traditional Latin Mass calendar is the Feast of St. Hedwig a medieval Polish duchess who died on October 14, 1243. She was also maternal aunt of St. Elizabeth of Hungary which incidentally was my maternal grandmother's name. So it was then for me a rather serendipitous moment when at the Mass which I attended earlier that day, the Epistle was read from the First Letter of Blessed Paul the Apostle to Timothy:

"Dearly beloved: Honour widows that are widows indeed. But if any widow have children, or grandchildren, let her learn first to govern her own house, and to make a return of duty to her parents: for this is acceptable before God. But she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, let her trust in God and continue in supplications and prayers night and day. For she that liveth in pleasures is dead while she is living. And this give in charge, that they may be blameless. But if any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel. Let a widow be chosen of no less than threescore years of age, who hath been the wife of one husband having testimony for her good works, if she have brought up children, if she have received to harbour, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have ministered to them that suffer tribulation, if she have diligently followed every good work."

The Gospel was the parable about the "pearl of great price." Martha spent her life auctioning all for that pearl. I believe she found it. A few days before she died we had a conversation and she told me that whenever God was ready to call her, she was ready to go.

We often hear or read of those things that are “unexplained” except by coincidence, of course. To those who know and love God, “there are no coincidences.” Not even the fact that the Epistle at Mass chosen was one of two from the "Common of Holy Women" or that she spoke only a few days before about being "ready" nor about what you are about to read below.

That day started like many others. I woke my son for school, I got ready for work and before dashing out the door I took Roxy, our terrier mutt to stay with her, kissed both of them good-bye and while bidding her adieu the first home care girl was arriving to help her get ready for the day and stay with her whilst I was at work.

At around 1:00 PM the second caregiver, Bridget, arrived for the shift-change. As Bridget arrived she came into the family room, the other caregiver had just sat  mum down on the sofa. My mother had only moments earlier complained of difficulty breathing and then she laid back, gasped and closed her eyes. Bridget yelled out her name, “Martha, Martha!” and gently slapped her. She stirred and let out a breath, she collapsed on the sofa.

At that moment, my mother died.

I got the call at work from Bridget and on the way home it was clear from speaking to the paramedics that she was gone. They were working on her with adrenalin and the heart paddles but were not having any success. I told them to stop but they would not, there was no DNR posted.

I spoke to Bridget and told her that a priest from the local parish was on his way (the Sacrament of the Sick, what we used to call Extreme Unction had already been administered by one of her faithful Oratorian Priests a few weeks earlier.) I asked Bridget to go to my mother’s bedroom and retrieve the sick visit Crucifix from the wall above her bed. (This is a Crucifix which slides off and is placed in a stand; on either side are then candle holders and some of the necessary items for the Sacrament).

A few minutes later, I arrived screeching in the driveway the importance of which will reveal itself shortly. When I arrived my mother’s eyes were open and she was semi-conscious; technology, it seemed had triumphed, at least for now. Father arrived a few moments later and anointed her. She was transported to “St. Joe’s” where my father also died, and we removed the medical intervention around 5:00 PM., it was clear that the technology that brought her back was keeping her here and that if we did not remove this invasion she would suffer worse indignities. An Oratorian priest came to bless her again and to counsel us on the rightness of our decision to remove the intervention. Just after 8:00 P.M., I went outside for some air and a smoke with my niece. A few minutes later my sister came running to get me. She had just gone out of the room to the nurses desk to make a phone call. My sister was not out of the room a half-minute and no more than 5 metres away and our mother died. It was like she could not let herself go whilst we were with her.

So, what does this have to do with coincidence?

The next day I called Bridget and asked her to stay on for a few more days to be at the house to tidy and answer the phone and assist with guests. Bridget was quite upset to be sure. She had been with my mother daily for the last year and often spoke of how well she was always treated and “their little talks.”

She came to me with apprehension and said that she really needed to talk to me about something.

The paramedics, with all of their intervention, brought her back. It took 14 minutes from the time they began to get a pulse. Had she every regained full consciousness her life would have been horrible, we all knew that. But what was disturbing Bridget was that there was no reaction to their work; nothing, until my car screeched to a halt in the driveway.

“I have a pulse!” exclaimed the paramedic. It was simultaneous and with my arrival at home -- it was simultaneous with the screeching of my tires. 

David was home and his mom came back to see him.

But there is more, much more.

Bridget began to shake and was in tears.

“David, I had a dream Sunday night," my mother having died on Monday. She went on to say that she had typically forgotten the dream until she went to my mother’s bedroom to get the Crucifix. Upon seeing Jesus on the Cross the dream came back to her for just a moment. Again, it was gone. The house after all was a mass of confusion, police, fire-fighters, the paramedics, and eventually me, and the Priest; Bridget was now a bystander.

After we left for the hospital, Bridget was alone and tidying up and it was what happened then that she was so desperate to tell me. She will never forget it. Nor will I as Bridget recalled for me her dream.

“I was standing on a street-corner in small town with other people. We were laughing at this man dressed in a robe and with long-hair. He said his name was Jesus and we were making fun of him. Just then a young beautiful woman stepped off of the curb and started to cross the street; she turned around and looked at us, she had tears in her eyes, tears of overwhelming joy, she was happy, really happy. It was then that Jesus took her hand and walked across the road with her.”

That was Bridget’s dream.

She went on to say that when she woke up from her dream. She interpreted it that she needed to be more like the woman who walked across the street. That she needed to have “more faith in Jesus.”

I told her that it seemed like a pretty plausible conclusion.

“Wait” Bridget said, “There is more.”

I waited and listened and she started to cry again.

“David, I remembered the dream only for a moment when carrying the Cross. When I was tidying up I put the Cross on the end-table -- over there.”

“Yes, it looks nice there” I replied.

“No, David, you don’t understand, the picture, the picture beside the Cross.”

“Yes, Bridget, what is it?”

“That picture of your mother at graduation.” Bridget started to weep uncontrollably 

“It was her; it was your mother; she was the girl in my dream, it was Martha.”



and this...

Nota Bene: Please say a prayer for Bridget; I've not seen her since then but I know she suffered from the affects of an abortion forced on her by her mother and family doctor when she was 19. That doctor was a former Toronto Coroner, Member of the Legislature in Ontario and broadcaster. He also suffered from Parkinson's and was desperate for a cure, so much so that Bridget exclaimed, "Dr. (Morton) Shulman ate my baby." She was told by the nurse that he would dry out the fetus and grind it into powder and then in capsules in a desperate attempt to find a cure for the disease that ravaged his body.  

Vox, 2014

Is Cardinal Kasper racist and a liar or does he suffer from dementia?

$
0
0

It is not bad enough that Cardinal Kasper appears to be a racist with his statements about Africa, now it appears that he is also a liar. Either that, or the octogenarian Cardinal suffers from an onset of dementia and has no business being a involved with the synodal process.

The friend and confident of Jorge Bergoglio, Bishop of Rome in a conversation with Kath.net, denied the alleged statements made yesterday about Africa and its bishops published by Zenit and now removed.

“I am shocked. I have never spoken like this about Africans, and I would never do so. Zenit has, in the past days and weeks, never reached out to me, nor has it had an interview with me,” Kasper is reported to have said.

Zenit took down the interview which appears below "Is Cardinal Kasper a racist."

In response, the interviewer Edward Pentin, reprints the interview and provides the following statement:



In response to a statement from His Eminence Cardinal Kasper denying giving the interview that appeared in ZENIT Wednesday 15th October, I issue the following response:
His Eminence Cardinal Walter Kasper spoke to me and two other journalists, one British, the other French, around 7.15pm on Tuesday as he left the Synod hall.
I transcribed the recording of our conversation, and my iPhone on which I recorded the exchange was visible. I introduced myself as a journalist with the [National Catholic] Register, and the others also introduced themselves as journalists. I therefore figured the interview was on the record and His Eminence appeared happy to talk with us. In the end, I posted the full interview in ZENIT rather than the Register. ZENIT removed the article on Thursday in response to Cardinal Kasper’s denial.
His Eminence made no comment about not wanting his remarks published. It depends on the context, but normally in such a situation, comments are considered on the record unless otherwise requested.
The recording can be downloaded below. A couple of the questions came from the other two journalists and I included them as part of the interview. Some of the quality of the English has also been improved for publication.

00:00
07:53

If there was a misunderstanding, I apologise, but I stand by the interview that was published as a correct account of the exchange.
How much longer will Pope Francis allow this scandal to continue?


Warm your Catholic heart

$
0
0
Courtesy of Rorate.



Q:  What can a pastor say to a Catholic who feels bewildered by these winds of change?

A:  The faithful should take courage, because the Lord will never abandon his Church.  We should think about how the Lord calmed the sea in the storm and his words to his disciples:  “Why are you afraid, you men of little faith?” (Mt. 8:26).  If this time of confusion seems to put their faith at risk, they have to only work even harder to live a life that is truly Catholic.  But I am aware that to live in these times is a source of great suffering.

Q:  It is becoming difficult not to think of this as a time of chastisement.

A:  I think about this first of all concerning myself.  If I am suffering at this time because of the situation in the Church, I think that the Lord is telling me that I have need of purification.  And I also think that, if the suffering is so widespread, this means that the whole Church is in need of purification.  But this is not because of a God who is waiting only to punish us.  This is because of our own sins.  If in some way we have betrayed doctrine, moral teaching or the liturgy, it follows inevitably that we will undergo a suffering that purifies us to put us back again on the narrow way.

Read the rest there, including my little friend who delights in mocking everything that this humble and holy lion says.

JORGE BERGOGLIO SELLS OUT SACRED PAPAL SISTINE CHAPEL FOR MONEY FROM PORCHE -- VIOLATES NORMS OF THE CONGREGATION OF DIVINE WORSHIP - AN ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION?

$
0
0

Pope Francis allows Sistine Chapel to be rented out for private corporate event

Private corporate event run by Porsche to be held amid Michelangelo's frescoes for first time

Memebers of the public inside the Sistine Chapel at the Vatican Museums in the Vatican City in Rome
Memebers of the public inside the Sistine Chapel at the Vatican Museums in the Vatican City in Rome Photo: Alamy
Pope Francis has for the first time allowed the Sistine Chapel to be rented out for a private corporate event, with the proceeds to go to charities working with the poor and homeless.
The concert, to be performed amid the splendour of Michelangelo's frescoes on Saturday, will be attended by a select group of about 40 high-paying tourists who have signed up to an exclusive tour of Italy organised by Porsche.
But as the unprecedented deal was announced, the Vatican announced that it would limit the number of visitors allowed inside the chapel to the current total of six million, amid fears that the frescoes are being damaged by the breath and sweat of so many tourists.
The Vatican would not divulge how much it will earn from the event, but the five-day tour of Rome arranged by the Porsche Travel Club costs up to 5,000 euros per head, meaning an overall price of 200,000 euros.
Participants are promised "a magnificent concert in the Sistine Chapel, with its ceiling frescoes painted by Michelangelo".
The concert will be performed by a choir from the Accademia di Santa Cecilia in Rome, which traces its origins back to the 16th century.
They will then sit down to a "gala dinner" in the midst of the Vatican Museums, "surrounded by masterpieces by world-famous artists such as Michelangelo and Raphael".
"It's a one-off event and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity," a spokeswoman for the Porsche Travel Club told The Telegraph. "It will be the highlight of the trip."
The Pope is keen to put the Vatican's incomparable cultural heritage treasures to good use for the benefit of the needy.
Shortly after he was elected in March last year he called for a "poor Church for the poor".
Monsignor Paolo Nicolini, the administrative director of the Vatican Museums, said firms like Porsche would be asked to make a donation for the use of the Sistine Chapel, with the money then passed onto Catholic charities of the Pope's choice.
"It is an initiative which will support the Pope's charity projects. It is aimed at big companies which, through the payment of a fee, can contribute to charity activities," he said.
Concerts have been held in the Sistine Chapel before, but they have been for private Church audiences, including events held in honour of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
It is believed this is the first time that the chapel, which was built by Pope Sixtus IV between 1473 and 1484, has been leased out to a company for a commercial event.
The Vatican would not say whether it was planning to strike similar deals with other companies.
The restriction on visits to six million a year could mean the introduction of a reservations-only booking system, rather than the current free-for-all in which tourists can book visits online, through travel agencies or queue outside the gates of the tiny city state.
"I am convinced that the Vatican Museums, in particular the Sistine Chapel, have reached the maximum number of visitors possible," said Antonio Paolucci, the director of the Vatican Museums.
The chapel has been fitted with new lighting and climate control systems which are designed to reduce the damage to the delicate frescoes.

Newfoundland Archbishop calls to recognise homosexual unions!

$
0
0

As if the Catholic faithful of Newfoundland have not suffered enough at the hands of sodomite pederast priests and the corrupt Archbishops that covered up, now we have this report here by Pacheco on the Archbishop of St. John's desire that "same sex unions are accepted and respected in the church life."

You are confusing human respect with sodomite practice and sin.

You are a heretic, Sir.

You have betrayed your priesthood.


You have betrayed your people.


You are not fit to be an apostle!

You have betrayed Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. 

Bring it on boys. Come on out, All of you. Come out, come out!

O Lord, deliver us from the filth of these wolves.

Nothing will ever the same again

$
0
0
When the Masonic Press Agency tell you that the Master of the Grand Lodge of Italy says, "nothing will ever be the same again" you might want to consider it all part of their plan. 

Freemasonry was condemned by Leo XIII in Humanum genus.

United with their sodomites brothers they are now openly defying the doctrine and we are living it out.

They will not win.

They have played their hand.

God will not be mocked.



Grand Orient of Italy welcomed the election of Pope Francis

Thursday, 21 March 2013
Rome, Italy. The Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy expressed his joy regarding the election of Pope Francis. Raffi stated that: "With the election of Pope Francis nothing will ever be the same again."




REFLECTIONS A YEAR AFTER DECLARATION
OF CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Irreconcilability between Christian faith and Freemasonry



On 26 November 1983 the S. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (S.C.D.F.) published a declaration on Masonic associations (cf. AAS LXXVI [1984], 300). At a distance of little more than a year from its publication, it may be useful to outline briefly the significance of this document.
Since the Church began to declare her mind concerning Freemasonry, her negative judgment has been inspired by many reasons, both practical and doctrinal. She judged Freemasonry not merely responsible for subversive activity in her regard, but from the earliest pontifical documents on the subject and in particular in the Encyclical Humanum Genus by Leo XIII (20 April 1884), the Magisterium of the Church has denounced in Freemasonry philosophical ideas and moral conceptions opposed to Catholic doctrine. For Leo XIII, they essentially led back to a rationalistic naturalism, the inspiration of its plans and activities against the Church. In his Letter to the Italian people Custodi (8 December 1892), he wrote: «Let us remember that Christianity and Freemasonry are essentially irreconcilable, so that enrolment in one means separation from the other».
One could not therefore omit to take into consideration the positions of Freemasonry from the doctrinal point of view, when, during the years from 1970‑1980, the Sacred Congregation was in correspondence with some Episcopal Conferences especially interested in this problem because of the dialogue undertaken by some Catholic personages with representatives of some Masonic lodges which declared that they were not hostile, but were even favourable, to the Church.
Now more thorough study has led the S.C.D.F. to confirm its conviction of the basic irreconcilability between the principles of Freemasonry and those of the Christian faith.
Prescinding therefore from consideration of the practical attitude of the various lodges, whether of hostility towards the Church or not, with its declaration of 26 November 1983 the S.C.D.F. intended to take a position on the most profound and, for that matter, the most essential part of the problem: that is, on the level of the irreconcilability of the principles, which means on the level of the faith, and its moral requirements.
Beginning from this doctrinal point of view, and in continuity, moreover, with the traditional position of the Church as the aforementioned documents of Leo XIII attest, there arise then the necessary practical consequences, which are valid for all those faithful who may possibly be members of Freemasonry.
Nevertheless, with regard to the affirmation of the irreconcilability between the principles of Freemasonry and the Catholic faith, from some parts are now heard the objection that essential to Freemasonry would be precisely the fact that it does not impose any «principles», in the sense of a philosophical or religious position which is binding for all of its members, but rather that it gathers together, beyond the limits of the various religions and world views, men of good will on the basis of humanistic values comprehensible and acceptable to everyone.
Freemasonry would constitute a cohesive element for all those who believe in the Architect of the Universe and who feel committed with regard to those fundamental moral orientations which are defined, for example, in the Decalogue; it would not separate anyone from his religion, but on the contrary, would constitute an incentive to embrace that religion more strongly.
The multiple historical and philosophical problems which are hidden in these affirmations cannot be discussed here. It is certainly not necessary to emphasize that following the Second Vatican Council the Catholic Church too is pressing in the direction of collaboration between all men of good will. Nevertheless, becoming a member of Freemasonry decidedly exceeds this legitimate collaboration and has a much more important and final significance than this.
Above all, it must be remembered that the community of «Freemasons» and its moral obligations are presented as a progressive system of symbols of an extremely binding nature. The rigid rule of secrecy which prevails there further strengthens the weight of the interaction of signs and ideas. For the members this climate of secrecy entails above all the risk of becoming an instrument of strategies unknown to them.
Even if it is stated that relativism is not assumed as dogma, nevertheless there is really proposed a relativistic symbolic concept and therefore the relativizing value of such a moral-ritual community, far from being eliminated, proves on the contrary to be decisive.
In this context the various religious communities to which the individual members of the lodges belong can be considered only as simple institutionalizations of a broader and elusive truth. The value of these institutionalizations therefore appears to be inevitably relative with respect to this broader truth, which instead is shown in the community of good will, that is, in the Masonic fraternity.
In any case, for a Catholic Christian, it is not possible to live his relation with God in a twofold mode, that is, dividing it into a supraconfessional humanitarian form and an interior Christian form. He cannot cultivate relations of two types with God, nor express his relation with the Creator through symbolic forms of two types. That would be something completely different from that collaboration, which to him is obvious, with all those who are committed to doing good, even if beginning from different principles. On the one hand, a Catholic Christian cannot at the same time share in the full communion of Christian brotherhood and, on the other, look upon his Christian brother, from the Masonic perspective, as an «outsider».
Even when, as stated earlier, there were no explicit obligation to profess relativism as doctrine, nevertheless the relativizing force of such a brotherhood, by its very intrinsic logic, has the capacity to transform the structure of the act of faith in such a radical way as to become unacceptable to a Christian, «to whom his faith is dear» (Leo XIII).
Moreover, this distortion of the fundamental structure of the act of faith is carried out for the most part in a gentle way and without being noticed: firm adherence to the truth of God, revealed in the Church, becomes simple membership, in an institution, considered as a particular expressive form alongside other expressive forms, more or less just as possible and valid, of man’s turning toward the eternal.
The temptation to go in this direction is much stronger today, inasmuch as it corresponds fully to certain convictions prevalent in contemporary mentality. The opinion that truth cannot be known is a typical characteristic of our era and, at the same time, an essential element in its general crisis.
Precisely by considering all these elements, the Declaration of the Sacred Congregation affirms that membership in Masonic associations «remains forbidden by the Church», and the faithful who enrolls in them «are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion».
With this last statement, the Sacred Congregation points out to the faithful that this membership objectively constitutes a grave sin and by specifying that the members of a Masonic association may not receive Holy Communion, it intends to enlighten the conscience of the faithful about a grave consequence which must derive from their belonging to a Masonic lodge.
Finally, the Sacred Congregation declares that «it is not within the competence of local ecclesiastical authorities to give a judgment on the nature of Masonic associations which would imply a derogation from what has been decided above». In this regard, the text also refers to the Declaration of 17 February 1981, which already reserved to the Apostolic See all pronouncements on the nature of these associations which may have implied derogations from the Canon Law then in force (Can. 2335). In the same way, the new document issued by the S.C.D.F. in November 1983 expresses identical intentions of reserve concerning pronouncements which would differ from the judgment expressed here on the irreconcilability of Masonic principles with the Catholic faith, on the gravity of the act of joining a lodge and on the consequences which arise from it for receiving Holy Communion. This disposition points out that, despite the diversity which may exist among Masonic obediences, in particular in their declared attitude towards the Church, the Apostolic See discerns some common principles in them which require the same evaluation by all ecclesiastical authorities.
In making this Declaration, the S.C.D.F. has not intended to disown the efforts made by those who, with the due authorization of this Congregation, have sought to establish a dialogue with representatives of Freemasonry. But since there was the possibility of spreading among the faithful the erroneous opinion that membership in a Masonic lodge was lawful, it felt that it was its duty to make known to them the authentic thought of the Church in this regard and to warn them about a membership incompatible with the Catholic faith.
Only Jesus Christ is, in fact, the Teacher of Truth, and only in him can Christians find the light and the strength to live according to God’s plan, working for the true good of their brethren.

[Article from L'Osservatore Romano dated March 11, 1985]

Cardinal Kasper obfuscates and denies and slanders

$
0
0
German Cardinal Walter Kasper continues to obfuscate the truth of what he said in Rome about Africa and its bishops.

Two days ago, the friend of Jorge Bergoglio, Bishop of Rome said that Africans "should not tell us too much what to do." When this broke on Zenit, pressure was exerted upon Zenit to remove the story and His Eminence denied it was said.

The journalist issued his own statement (below) which included a recording and states that the interview took place in St. Peter's Square in the presence of two other journalists, the Cardinal could clearly see that he was being recorded and at no time indicated that the conversation was off-the-record.

Now, instead of simply acknowledging his error and apologising to all involved, Cardinal Kasper attempts to discredit and defame journalist Edward Pentin accusing him of not using "reputable journalistic methods."

It is time for the Pope to start acting more like the Vicar of Christ and less like Barrack Obama.

This is unbecoming of a Cardinal. It is unbecoming of a Pope to allow this kind of behaviour to continue by someone professing to speak for him.

Kyrie, eleison.

Cardinal Kasper's Confusion

 Thursday, October 16, 2014 6:43 PM Comments (12)
Cardinal Walter Kasper denies giving reporter Edward Pentin an interview after the conversation appeared on Zenit Oct. 15.  Yet the interview did take place. 
Pentin approached the cardinal outside the synod hall on Oct. 14.  The recording is here.
The problem is Pentin had identified himself at that time as a Register correspondent, which he is. And the Register did publish Pentin’s story with the Cardinal’s remarks (which can be read here).
Pentin is a freelance writer so he also pitches news to other outlets, including Zenit. After filing the story on the cardinal’s interview with the Register but before it was published online, he posted the transcript at Zenit. Pentin has since apologized for not making known to the cardinal his intention to publish at Zenit.
But the cardinal's confusion should end there. The cardinal was shocked that his words appeared at Zenit. But he shouldn’t be shocked by the interview’s content. The words are his — and now anyone can listen to them. Really the confusion is why would he say them? 


Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jdemelo/cardinal-kaspers-confusion#ixzz3GPaxNTm6





Cardinal Burke out, Cardinal Pell models St. Nicholas ... almost.

$
0
0
Cardinal Raymond Burke himself has confirmed the rumour that his time as Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura has come to an end. 

He is free now to lead the resistance against the modernist, masonic, homosexualist, heretical agenda being pushed upon the Catholic faith. 

Cardinal Pell pounds the table and demands and end to the manipulation! He will probably be fired next  by the Vicar of Christ!

Make no mistake, the Holy Spirit is not blessing this Synod, but He is there. He is there in the likes of Cardinals Burke, Napier and Pell and others. He is not there in the manipulation, the deceit, the managed game being played by Baldisseri, Rosica, Lombardi, Kasper, Forte and the rest of these men. Men that are not serving Christ and His Church and we the flock but there on own greed and lust and agenda of corruption and filth. Notes being passed back and forth like childish children or political hacks. Nods of approval or disapproval. This is not of God.

This Synod is a sham and it has been from before it even began. It is about a watering down of the faith by stealth. It is about sacrilege.

The cannot believe in the Real Presence, they cannot fear God. There can be no other explanation.

The buck stops somewhere for this disaster.

Qui tacet consentire videtur.



"Pope Francis is doing harm to the Church... Synod an excuse to weaken the Church!"

Viewing all 3701 articles
Browse latest View live