"RORATE" Traditional Latin Mass in the Archdiocese of Toronto

Wednesday, 20 April 2016

Does no one care for his soul?

This is not for the faint of heart. Some Catholics may find this scandalous.

In spite of all the insults to Catholics, the name-calling, the insinuations, the mocking of faith, the berating to get with his program, the division and marginalisation, the three years of chaos and all the commentary, nothing; nothing has been as direct and real as this from Hilary White.

This pope, apparently hardened in his wicked ideology, is a habitual blasphemer, and, I will dare to say, given his apparently unshakable belief that these assertions are true and opposed to the teaching of the Church, is a wanton heretic, someone who believes himself to be above the Law of God, indeed, to have the power to overturn it at will.
Ask yourselves for a moment which “spirit” is the one most interested in abrogating the Law of Christ. Which spirit is opposed to Christ? It isn’t the Holy Ghost. (It is interesting, and has been commented upon before, that in addition to apparently never genuflecting (yet, as this writer has stated, he can manage to grovel to wash feet, so it can't be a back or knee problem) before the Blessed Sacrament, Pope Francis follows the odd though trendy liberal churchman’s habit of referring most often to “the Spirit” instead of specifying which one. In the Vatican Radio report on that homily, a search reveals that he spoke of “the Spirit” 22 times in his directly quoted remarks. He specifies the “Holy Spirit” twice.)
Pope Francis has decided that “the Spirit” is telling him and his followers that these words of Jesus Christ are void. That the words and commands of the Author of Life no longer apply. They are outdated. They are hard and unforgiving, unmerciful. Therefore, anyone who still wants to adhere to the teaching and commands of Jesus Christ are “resisting the Spirit”. And he blasphemously demands that we be “docile” to this monstrosity.
Is there a Catholic left who would hear those words, and stand up, and say, “Holy Father, that’s blasphemy! That’s heresy! You must not commit such a horrible sin!” Does no one care for his soul? Will no one spare a thought for the terrible condition that awaits him in the next life? Or call for him to repent and avoid it?
I will. I hope and pray, for the love of his soul and for the love of Christ, that others will too.

Read it all at 


Peter Lamb said...

According to St. Robert Bellarmine and Vatican I, there had never been an heretical Pope up to their times. Saint Robert considered this fact akin to a sign from heaven that a true Pope is protected from becoming a manifest heretic. An heretical Pope would obviously make nonsense of the dogmas of Papal Infallibility and the Indefectibility of the Church.
The origin, the instigation and the strategies for the destruction of the Church by the judeo-masonic luciferians are all documented and known to many. The numerous heresies, by word, by letter, by actions and by omissions, of ALL the conciliar popes are documented and well known to many. Bergoglio is just the most blatant heretic to date. Catholic doctrine on these matters is well documented, but apparently, nowadays, not so well known. Those of us who do know, may take courage from Fr. Villa:
"St. Jerome says: «Why shouldn’t I report of things which others do not blush to do?» And St. Gregory the Great writes: «It is better that scandal arise than that truth be concealed.» Even St. Thomas Aquinas says: «There being an imminent danger for the faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects.» Our Lord Jesus Christ adds: «Who does not have a sword, sell his cloak and buy one.» (Luke 22, 35-36). I remember, here, the cry of St. Paul: «Beware of the dogs.» (Phil. 3: 2-3). Today, even the Church of Vatican II is full of dogs. St. John, the beloved of Jesus, has even written: «If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house nor greet him.» (2 Jn. 10) Today, however, the subverters of the doctrine of Christ, are not only greeted but also welcomed into the home, into the Church, and are honored and awarded with prestigious positions, although they are poisoners of souls and protesters of every “Truth” which in [the] past, were always believed. Therefore, my position was always a “crusade” even for the right to remonstrate, for the right to be able to fulfill my duty as an “alter Christus,” to proclaim, in fact, the “Truth.”"

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Vox, Completely OT and in case some find it interesting:
I have been interested in the Shroud of Turin for years. It is the most intensively examined artifact on Earth, and there is no longer any reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
Crucified persons die from asphyxiation. Their diaphragm is splinted and they have to lift themselves upward, by pulling on their arms, or pushing upwards on their feet, to be able to breath.
Professor Juan Manuel Minarro of the University of Seville, created a sculpture of Our Lord according to exact information gleaned from the shroud. This is a must see to properly comprehend the physical severity of the Passion.
"This Christ is the result of the work of a multidisciplinary team of scientists who are researchers of the Shroud. It is the only Shroud-based Crucifix in the world and it reflects, up to the last detail, the multiple traumatisms of the corpse, as they are reflected in the Shroud of Turin. The image represents a body, 1.80 m tall, according to the studies of the Shroud by the universities of Bologna and Pavia. The arms and the cross form a 65 angle. In it, the wounds of the Man in the Shroud of Turin are reproduced exactly."
I would have gone the whole hog on this and left out the loin cloth in the interests of authenticity. The stripping of Our Lord's garments at the tenth station was an intentionally inflicted gross humiliation. I can think of five anatomical reasons why nothing shocking to Victorian eyes would have been visible.
See the crucifix here: http://shroudnm.com/docs/Shroud-Crucifix.pdf
The Shroud demonstrates that the right shoulder was dislocated. The Gospel tells us that He gave a loud shout just before He died. Dislocation of the shoulder is very painful and I think the dislocation caused the loud shout of pain and no longer able to pull Himself up to breath, Our Blessed Lord died.
Now here is something very interesting:
In 1651 in the outskirts of Lima, in Peru, an African slave painted an image of Jesus on the cross, with the Blessed Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene, on a wall. This painting is called "The Lord of Miracles" and its history can be read here:
Now for the stunning bit! Note in the painting that the right arm is taughtly stretched, while the left is slightly flexed at the elbow - Our Lord was crucified asymmetrically. See the right pectoral muscles are elevated much beyond the left. This conforms with the Shroud - dislocation of the right shoulder. How did an African artist know that?

Vox Cantoris said...

In the Dolorous Passions of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich was quite clear that Our Blessed Lord was naked, completely. This was part of the total humiliation inflicted by the Romans. He was a "worm" as He said in the Psalm and treated as such. I cannot recall if she named the person, but a Centurion gave permission for one of the women to wrap a loin cloth around him after he had been raised.

Vox Cantoris said...

We also now have a scientific investigation proving the the Sudarium in Spain is of the same "man" on the Shroud.


Catholic Mission said...

The only key to the correct interpretation of Amoris Laetitia is the constant teaching of the Church and her discipline that safeguards and fosters this teaching...
In other words, a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, by its very nature, does not propose new doctrine and discipline, but applies the perennial doctrine and discipline to the situation of the world at the time.- Cardinal Raymond Burke, ‘Amoris Laetitia’ and the Constant Teaching and Practice of the Church, National Catholic Register

How would Hilary respond to Cardinal Burke's statement ?
Even Dr.Joseph Shaw at LMS Chairman says Pope Francis is not in heresy and that Amoris Laeitia is in accord with the contemporary official theology.
Could Pope Francis and Cardinal Schonborn be using the same moral theology as Cardinal Burke and Prof. Joseph Shaw ( LMS Chairman)?
Would you agree with the following blog post I asked Hilary but she said nothing.

Cardinal Schonborn could respond to Christopher Ferrara saying,'You accept the new moral theology, like Cardinal Burke, so why are you complaining ?
-Lionel Andrades


This reasoning is irrational however it is being used in the new theology on faith and morals.This is the moral theology of Pope Francis.

Amoris Laetitia is based on personally knowing exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.This is objectively false.

Pope Francis is referring to Cardinal Schonborn as a theologian.So theology is important for him.This issue is theological

Amoris Laetitia is the official approval of the new moral theology based on hypothetical cases being objectively known exceptions and exceptions make the rule : it supports the errors of Fr.Charles Curran http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/amoris-laetitia-is-official-approval-of.html

Steve Skojec, why do you say doctrine has not been changed?

Cushingism is not part of the whole Tradition of the Church. Cardinal Burke interprets Vatican Council II and the dogma EENS with Cushingism: Amoris Laetitia is based on the new moral theology, the heretical theology

The two popes and most of the Jesuits assume there is known salvation outside the Church. Upon this irrationality(personally knowing people saved or about to be saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water) they have based their new theology in faith and morals

This error is all over Vatican Councl II and it should be enough for any one to reject the Council if they wanted to :its also there
in Amoris Laetitia

The present two popes are heretical and non traditional since
they interpret EENS and Vatican Council II with Cushingism.
So Vatican Council II (Cushingite) emerges as a break with EENS
( Feeneyite).

The precise trick: how it was applied in the Exhortation Amoris

Heresy in Amoris Latitiae ?

Catholic Mission said...

Cardinal Burke accepts the 'contemporary official magisterium' and does not consider Amoris Laetita heretical, since he uses the same heretical magisterial new moral theology


Catholic Mission said...

Cardinal Raymond Burke and Prof. Joseph Shaw assume hypothetical factors or theories are explicit exceptions to the traditional de fide teaching on faith and morals.

The only key to the correct interpretation of Amoris Laetitia is the constant teaching of the Church and her discipline that safeguards and fosters this teaching...
In other words, a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, by its very nature, does not propose new doctrine and discipline, but applies the perennial doctrine and discipline to the situation of the world at the time.- Cardinal Raymond Burke, ‘Amoris Laetitia’ and the Constant Teaching and Practice of the Church, National Catholic Register 1

Joseph Shaw says:
Cardinal Burke lays great stress on interpreting Church documents in light of the whole tradition of the Church...
We are deeply interested in setting out our case in(sic) way which is comprehensible to mainstream Catholic theologians and people in the Roman Curia...

Our approach is, in fact, about looking at facts squarely in the face. These facts include the way the document is going to be understood by liberals and by the media. They also include the precise theological and canonical assertions a document is and is not making, and the light shed on the issues by the Church's whole teaching and tradition. Ignoring any of these facts cripples one's ability to deal rationally and appropriately with the situation.2

Cardinal Raymond Burke and Prof. Joseph Shaw both assume hypothetical factors or theories are explicit exceptions to the traditional de fide teaching on faith and morals. So with this heretical theology they interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.A rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

They also accept Amoris Laetitia n.301 when it is a break with Tradition.It is a rupture with the traditional understanding of mortal sin.

If they say hypothtical factors or theories are not explicit exceptions to the traditional teaching on faith and morals, they will be affirming the 'rigorist' interpretation of the dogma EENS and also traditional mortal sin.

This would place them in conflict with the 'contemporary official magisterium' which also assumes hypothtical factors and theories, are objective.

This would be telling the whole world that non Catholics are oriented to Hell without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14) in the Catholic Church and that so many well known people are in mortal sin and that there are so many ecclesiastics committing sacrilege.

So they will use the false reasoning, and accept the new theology, 'interpreting Church documents in light of the whole tradition of the Church...' which assumes hypothetical factors and theories are known exceptions to Tradition. They are a rupture with Tradition on faith and morals.In this way there is no tension with the magisterium and the influential political Left.

They appreciate Amoris Laetitia for 'its precise theological asssertion' in harmony with 'the Church's whole teaching and tradition'.-Lionel Andrades


‘Amoris Laetitia’ and the Constant Teaching and Practice of the Church

Skojec and Burke on the significance of Amoris Laetitia



Anonymous said...

Did the Pharisees not also change the Word of God on marriage ,allowing divorce ?

Anonymous said...

I hope 2017 won't be too late to let him know his errors while visiting Indonesia, especially my Hometown, Pontianak.

The Lonely Sheep

jzreparatrix said...

I do. See Reparatrix.org