Please consider supporting this campaign to support a Seminarian from Toronto at the ICRSS

Please consider supporting this campaign to support a Seminarian from Toronto at the ICRSS
Click on photo for direct link to secure donation page

Saturday, 30 July 2016

Open Letter to Confused Catholics


33 comments:

susan said...

One of the BEST books EVER written!...Thank you Vox!!!

Deo gratias.

Mark Thomas said...

Vox, here are hundreds upon hundreds of Catholics who aren't confused. They are one with His Holiness Pope Francis.

Massive waves of Catholic youth in communion with and blessed by the Vicar of Christ...

https://twitter.com/search?q=World%20Youth%20Day&src=typd&lang=en

If I may say...each Catholic blogger should have spent the past few days focused upon the holy beauty and greatness of World Youth Day in the great Catholic nation of Poland.

Please...let's not dwell always upon perceived negatives in regard to Pope Francis. Let us rejoice in the good times as well.

Vox, perhaps tommorow, when WYD concludes, you could post a reminder to pray for Pope Francis, those who accompanied him, as well as all WYD pilgrims. Let us be reminded to pray for their safe return home.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Karl Rahner Jr. said...

His canonisation cause will be opened one day. It has only been 50 years since the Council that "changed everything."

Vox Cantoris said...

Yes Karl, one day. One day, the Church will publicly acknowledge that the Holy Spirit was acting through this man. I defy anyone to find any picture of him, as a young priest, a young bishop, or later and not seen in his countenance, grace and peace.

susan said...

Mark Thomas....try reading the book...you might actually learn something about Catholicism.

Karl Rahner Jr. said...

As long ago as 1966, he was making the following observations... Imagine if he could see something like the theology of the bawdy and the recent Vatican sponsored sex-ed programme, not to mention the Amoris Laetitia fallout:

"The normal result of pride is the burgeoning of the concupiscence of the eyes and of the flesh. Perhaps one of the most frightful observations to be made about our epoch is to note to what a level of moral degradation most Catholic publications have descended. They speak without the least reticence about sexuality, birth control by any means, the legitimacy of divorce, of co-education of dating, of dances as a necessary part of Christian education, of priestly celibacy, etc."

Mark Thomas said...

Vox, here are 1,600,000 Catholic youth tonight in Poland who aren't confused. They know what to believe and do.

https://twitter.com/search?q=Eucharistic%20adoration%20WYD&src=typd

What a beautiful sight. It is a shame that except to have focused upon perceived negatives, the Traditional Catholic blogosphere has refused to report the many, many holy and uplifting declarations and actions offered by His Holiness Pope Francis...the many, many holy and uplifting scenes of hundreds of thousands of peaceful, young Catholics, interacting with the Vicar of Christ.

Literally, from his opening remarks in Poland, Pope Francis has issued pro-life declarations. Why didn't Traditional Catholics seize upon and promote Pope Francis's pro-life comments?

Traditionalists claim that Pope Francis "never" or "rarely" addresses pro-life issues. That, of course, is nonsense. The problem is that more than a few Traditionalists have refused to report Pope Francis' numerous pro-life comments.

Why didn't Traditionalists promote the following?

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/07/29/pope-francis-condemns-abortion-unborn-children-must-always-be-welcomed-and-protected/

-- Pope Francis Condemns Abortion: Unborn Children “Must Always be Welcomed and Protected”

"Upon his arrival in Poland, Pope Francis immediately began by speaking in defense of the unborn, Zenit reported. The pope started his five-day trip by reminding the Polish people that “life must always be welcomed and protected. These two things go together – welcome and protection, from conception to natural death. All of us are called to respect life and care for it,” he said."

Again, the following is the kind of uplifting news that trumps negativity (and I admit that I'm guilty of that...but I hope to correct my flaw (among many).

https://twitter.com/search?q=Eucharistic%20adoration%20WYD&src=typd

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Peter Lamb said...

Archbishop Lefebvre said:

“This Council represents, in our view and in the view of the Roman authorities, a new Church which they call the Conciliar Church.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“The Church which affirms such errors is both schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is therefore not Catholic.” (July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)

“To whatever extent pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis).

“This union which liberal Catholics want between the Church and the Revolution is an adulterous union – adulterous. This adulterous union can only beget bastards. Where are these bastards? They are [the new] rites. The [new] rite of Mass is a bastard rite. The sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know whether they are sacraments that give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. (…) The priests emerging from the seminaries are bastard priests.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000.)

“If we think that this reformed liturgy is heretical and invalid, whether because of modifications made in the matter and form or because of the reformers’ intention inscribed in the new rite in opposition to the intention of the catholic Church, evidently we cannot participate in these reformed rites because we should be taking part in a sacrilegious act. This opinion is founded on serious reasons…” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions.)

“The radical and extensive changes made in the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and their resemblance to the modifications made by Luther oblige Catholics who remain loyal to their faith to question the validity of this new rite. Who better than the Reverend Father Guérard des Lauriers to make an informed contribution to resolving this problem…?” (Foreword contributed to a book in favour of the thesis of invalidity by Fr Guérard des Lauriers. Écône, February 2, 1977.) [Fr. des Lauriers is author of Cassiciacum Thesis. Moreover Archbishop Lefebvre personally conditionally re-ordained many priests who had been ordained in the 1968 rite and re-confirmed those purportedly confirmed in the new rite or by the new bishops.]

“The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by antichrists, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below (…) This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the antichrists.” (Letter to the future bishops, 29 August 1987.)

“…we do not belong to this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We belong to the old religion, the Catholic religion, not to this universal religion as it is called today. It is no longer the Catholic religion…” (Sermon, June 29, 1976.)

Peter Lamb said...

“I should be very happy to be excommunicated from this Conciliar Church… It is a Church that I do not recognize. I belong to the Catholic Church.” (Interview July 30 1976, published in Minute, no. 747.)

“Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of election are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976.)

“…these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with protestants, Animists and Jews, are they not an active participation in non-catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258§1? In which case I cannot see how it is possible to say that the pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986.)

“It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the Truth which he must transmit, for he cannot – without as it were disappearing from the papal line – not transmit what the popes have always transmitted.” (Homily, Ecône, September 18, 1977.)

“If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000.)

“While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976.)

“That is why I beseech Your Eminence to …do everything in your power to get us a Pope, a true Pope, successor of Peter, in line with his predecessors, the firm and watchful guardian of the deposit of faith. The…eighty-year-old cardinals have a strict right to present themselves at the Conclave, and their enforced absence will necessarily raise the question of the validity of the election” (Letter to an unnamed cardinal, August 8, 1978.)

“We believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of Vatican II, i.e. by analysing the texts and studying the Council’s ins and outs, that by turning its back on tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976.)

“We consider as null…all the post-conciliar reforms, and all the acts of Rome accomplished in this impiety.” (Joint Declaration with Bishop de Castro Mayer following Assisi, December 2, 1986.)

“Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. These are not words in the air. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy… They have left the Church… This is sure, sure, sure.” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône.)

John Paul II “now continually diffuses the principles of a false religion, which has for its result a general apostasy.” (Preface to Giulio Tam’s Osservatore Romano 1990, contributed by the Archbishop just three weeks before his death.)

TLM said...

Mark Thomas-

Yes, the Pope has indeed said many beautiful and truly Catholic things.........and many heretical things mixed in. A drop of poison into the well poisons the entire water supply. Just the way it is. Many a seer has been denied legitimacy from their Bishop because of one small error in their 'messages', DEMANDING and ORDERING their faithful completely ABANDON them and their messages. A small chance that they will be led astray.

Michael Dowd said...

Thanks Vox. If someone were to ask me, where is the real Catholic Church, I would say it resides with SSPX. The faux Catholic Church is the one of Pope Francis who every day is slouching more and more to Lutheranism. He is not so much a defender of the faith than an exploiter of the simple minded Catholics who cannot see the wolf for the sheep's clothing. God have Mercy on him and God help all the Catholics who think he represents the truth of the Catholic Church.

susan said...

Mark Thomas said, "(t)here are 1,600,000 Catholic youth tonight in Poland who aren't confused. They know what to believe and do"

uhhhhh....really?.....

http://mahoundsparadise.blogspot.com/2016/07/pope-francis-to-youth-god-prefers-us-to.html

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-releases-explicit-sex-ed-for-teens-that-leaves-aside-parents-and-mo

bergoglio is a clear and present danger to the Catholic Faith. And as to leading the kids into sin, well, Matt 18:6 kinda says it all.

Peter Lamb said...

Bergoglio said:
"The weaker we are, the more God's mercy can transform our lives... Today, the Lord wants us to feel ever more profoundly his great mercy ... We may think that we are the “worst” on account of our sins and weaknesses ... However, this is how God prefers us to be, in order that “his mercy may spread ... Let us take advantage of these days to receive all of the mercy of Jesus!"

Martin Luther said:
"If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner." A Letter From Martin Luther to Melanchthon, Letter no. 99, 1 August 1521"

“Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not
everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has he been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalene , and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was
so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.” (Table Talk , Weimar edition, vol. 2.,
no. 1472, April 7 - May 1, 1532; Wiener, p. 33).

“But Christ took upon Himself all of our sin, and thus He died upon the cross. Therefore he had to become that which we are, namely a sinner, a murderer, evildoer, etc....For insofar as he is a victim for the sins of the whole world, He is not now such a person as is innocent and without sin, is not God’s Son in all glory, but a sinner, abandoned by God for a short time. Psalms 8:6.” (Detailed Explanation of the Epistle to the Galatians, part 2, fourth argument, Walch edition, vol. 8, p. 2165, nos. 321-324).

I'd say Luther and Bergoglio are two little peas out of the same pod! Wouldn't you?

F said...

If Vox allows this link, you can download the book in pdf format here:
https://mega.nz/#!2FFg2KgS

F said...

Vox, that last link isn't working. Don't post it, sorry. This one works:
http://goo.gl/ud4yfv

susan said...

Peter Lamb...You forgot this francis quote:

"When we go to confession, for example, it isn’t that we say our sin and God forgives us. No, not that! We look for Jesus Christ and say: ‘This is your sin, and I will sin again’. And Jesus likes that, because it was his mission: to become the sinner for us, to liberate us. “

So much for, "I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, amend my life, avoid the near occasion of sin, and sin no more."

This is a must read....

http://www.barnhardt.biz/2016/06/27/antipope-bergoglio-confesses-lutheranism/

Elizabeth said...

This is one of the very best books to read for all Catholics. I read it as a convert while I was struggling to understand where the Catholic Church that I converted to was. I converted and started attending a run-of-the-mill Novus Ordo parish and it's like a different religion. This book helped me tremendously. Beautifully and clearly written.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Susan, All I can say is WOW! WOW!! WOW!!!
I did not know about that one. It is absolutely unbelievable! It is identical to Luther. I must admit it shocks me silly. How can any Catholic call this monster anti-Christ Pope? Bergoglio can say that and the whole "clergy" stays silent? Not a single one says anything? There is not a single Catholic left among them. They have all sold their souls. When did he make this statement?

It really makes me feel like giving up. What a waste of time talking Catholic theology, doctrine, quoting magisterium etc. to try and convince people of Catholic truth, when bergoglio can say that, it be ignored and they happily go on calling him the Vicar of Christ; insist that the NWO church is the Catholic Church; pray with him, seek recognition from him and the SSPX wants to join him?

The reason the Remnant will be so very small that when Our Lord returns, there might be doubt as to whether there is one, is because 99% of Catholics do not want to know the truth! They are too comfortable becoming protestants. There are bags and bags of irrefutable evidence for them to see, but they simply refuse to see it. They do not want to see it. They consciously, intentionally keep their eyes and ears tight shut. Each will have a day of reckoning, when they can quote Salza te al.

Just for the record, here's another:
Satanist bergoglio said:
“No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!” Amoris Laetitia 297.

The gospel says:
“The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 13:41-42, 49-50.

“And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire…where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ For everyone will be salted with fire.” Mark 9:43, 48-49.

Mark Thomas said...

“What is reconciliation? Taking one from this side, taking another one for that side and uniting them: no, that’s part of it but it’s not it … True reconciliation means that God in Christ took on our sins and He became the sinner for us. When we go to confession, for example, it isn’t that we say our sin and God forgives us. No, not that! We look for Jesus Christ and say: ‘This is your sin, and I will sin again’. And Jesus likes that, because it was his mission: to become the sinner for us, to liberate us. “

That "controversy" is old hat.

Ann Barnhardt failed to report:

1. The phrases, "and I will sin again," as well as "Jesus...become the sinner for us...", are, absent from the original sermon offered by His Holiness Pope Francis. The person who translated the sermon into English inserted the phrases into the English version.

2. The phrases are also absent from the Spanish, and Portuguese versions as the Spanish and Portuguese translators obviously had a solid grasp of the Pope's original comments.

http://www.news.va/es/news/el-cristiano-no-piensa-en-su-paz-anuncia-la-de-cri

3. Pope Francis did not utter the two phrases in question. The remainder of Pope Francis' sermon, which Ann Barnhardt attacked as unorthodox, is 100 percent Catholic.

Pope Francis referenced Corinthians. How on earth did Ann Barnhardt fail to recognize that fact? If Pope Francis' comments in question are heretical, then Corinthians, and, for that matter, Galatians, and Isiah, contain heresy.

2 Corinthians, Chapter 5, verses 20-21:

"We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. ******* For our sake he made him to be sin ******* ----------- who did not know sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him."

Galatians 3, 13: "Christ ransomed us from the curse of the law ******* by becoming a curse for us *******, for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree."

Isiah 53, 7-9: "Though harshly treated, he submitted and did not open his mouth;
Like a lamb led to slaughter or a sheep silent before shearers, he did not open his mouth."

"Seized and condemned, he was taken away. For he was cut off from the land of the living, struck for the sins of his people."

******* "He was given a grave among the wicked, a burial place with evildoers, Though he had done no wrong..." *******

Ann Barnhardt failed to recognize Catholicism 101. She failed to recognize that Pope Francis referenced classic Catholic teaching. Ann Barnhardt is convert who has forsaken the Church as she has embraced schism. She even advances the bizarre claim that that the Roman Canon contains an "illicit/mistaken" prayer.

Ann Barnhardt would do well to read again Pope Francis' 100 percent orthodox sermon in question. Then she should open her Bible to read the Biblical teachings that Pope Francis referenced.

Pope Francis is clearly far more versed in the Holy Bible and Catholic teaching than Ann Barnhardt, who failed to recognize the ancient Catholic teaching that Pope Francis had referenced.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

susan said...

"The phrases are also absent from the Spanish, and Portuguese versions as the Spanish and Portuguese translators obviously had a solid grasp of the Pope's original comments."

The Spanish and Portuguese translators (you reference) dropped it from their transcripts cause they know how UTTERLY DEMONIC IT IS!

Mark...wake up. time is obviously very short now. wake up.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Mark, You are the best spin dokter I have ever read. You leave Jimmy Akin in the dust. Does Hillary's team know about you? :)

Anyway, here is Bergoglio's statement with the allegedly fraudulent words removed. (I can't read Spanish, or Portuguese.):

"What is reconciliation? Taking one from this side, taking another one for that side and uniting them: no, that’s part of it but it’s not it … True reconciliation means that God in Christ took on our sins and He became the sinner for us. WHEN WE GO TO CONFESSION, for example, IT ISN'T THAT WE SAY OUR SIN AND GOD FORGIVES US. NO, NOT THAT! We look for Jesus Christ and say: ‘THIS IS YOUR SIN. And Jesus likes that, because it was his mission: to liberate us."

Do you see the blatant heresy left even after pruning the statement as you advise?

Bergoglio states that Confession is not where we say (confess) our sins and receive absolution! That is bald-faced heresy; Bergoglio denies and repudiates the Sacrament of Confession! Bergoglio denies the words of Christ Himself: "Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven." Is this not heresy enough? This is the Vicar of Christ speaking? Spin this one!

We look for Christ and THIS IS YOUR SIN? Christ's sin? No fool, it is your own sin! "Him (Christ) who knew no sin" (v.21); who never sinned; who was not capable of sinning; who is God Almighty! Attributing sin to Christ? Another heresy. Spin this one too!

Bergoglio:“No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!”

Now he denies eternal hell fire! Another heresy. Spin this one? The Vicar of Christ a repetitive formal (public) heretic? I don't think so! If this spawn of satan doesn't repent before his death and gets there, he's gonna get the surprise of his life!

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Vox, are you aware that a large photo appears where the "Denzinger Bergoglio" is listed in the left hand column of your blog list? It obscures your text, or comments. If it's intentional - no problem, but I thought it might be a glitch?

Vox Cantoris said...

Hi Peter, Yes I have seen it. It is from their feed, not a picture on my blog. I'm hoping the next time they post it will disappear. One could click on the post title and the page will open with it on the top to avoid it.

Peter Lamb said...

I right clicked on the photo and then adblocked it. Worked perfectly. Picture gone, but D-B title and its text remain. Not bad for an amateur? :)

Mark Thomas said...

susan said... "The Spanish and Portuguese translators (you reference) dropped it from their transcripts cause they know how UTTERLY DEMONIC IT IS!"

1. You are 100 percent wrong.

2. The phrases in question did not appear in Vatican Radio's Spanish and Portuguese translations as the translators worked from Pope Francis' original sermon.

3. In Pope Francis' original sermon, it is an absolute fact that Pope Francis did not utter the phrases "and I will sin again," as well as "Jesus...become the sinner for us...".

4. The Italian original does not contain the phrases in question. That is why the Spanish and Portuguese translators, who worked from the original sermon, did not included the phrases in question as again, Pope Francis never uttered those phrases.

5. Unbeknownst to Ann Barnhardt, the "heretical" portions of Pope Francis' sermon referred to Corinthians, and reflected Sacred Scripture from Galatians and Isiah.

6. How on earth can Ann Barnhardt's claim of "heresy" be taken seriously when, in obvious ignorance, she was clueless to the fact that Pope Francis presented ancient Catholic teachings that are direct from Sacred Scripture.

The bottom line is that Ann Barnhardt, a schismatic who has attacked the Roman Canon as containing an "illicit/mistaken" prayer, embarrassed herself via her attack against Pope Francis.

Ann Barnhardt revealed that she is ignorant of Sacred Scripture and the Church's ancient teachings in regard to Jesus and his relation to our sins.

Note to Ann Barnhardt: Read 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Isiah.

-- "For our sake he made him to be sin...so that we might become the righteousness of God in him."

-- "Christ ransomed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree."

-- "Seized and condemned, he was taken away. For he was cut off from the land of the living, struck for the sins of his people. He was given a grave among the wicked, a burial place with evildoers, Though he had done no wrong..."

The above is "heretical" if Ann Barnhardt is to be believed.

Ann Barnhardt has embraced schism, which is of Satan. She has declared that the Roman Canon features an "illicit" prayer. She has condemned as "heretical" a sermon offered by Pope Francis that was 100 percent in line with Sacred Scripture.

We need to pray for the very, very confused Ann Barnhardt. She converted to the Church but clearly was, or has become, woefully deficient in basic Catholic teachings.

Via her decision to enter into schism, which is of Satan, she has placed herself above God and His True Church. Therefore, her motto is "Non Serviam."

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Sorry, Peter Lamb. You analysis of Pope Francis' sermon is incorrect.

The Pope's sermon is 100 percent orthodox.

You have misrepresented the Pope's sermon to the point that you claimed that he repudiated the Sacrament of Confession. You are talking about a Pope who has promoted Confession to the hilt. Therefore, it is impossible to have interpreted the Pope's sermon as you did. Sorry, Peter Lamb. You have misinterpreted Pope Francis.

Pope Francis' sermon is 100 percent reflective of Corinthians, which he referenced (not to mention Galatians and Isiah.)

Those of you who have throw in with and defend Ann Barnhardt's nonsense — a woman who has embraced schism and insists that the Roman Canon contains an "illicit" prayer, who has denounced the manner in which holy Catholic women dress at Mass — well...good luck to each of you.

Sorry, I don't have any use for schism. I don't have any use for Ann Barnhardt's very, very deficient understanding of Catholicism.

Most certainly, she is not qualified remotely to analyze the Pope's sermon as she failed to recognize Pope Francis clear references to Sacred Scripture. In her column that condemned Pope Francis' sermon, she linked his remarks to Martin Luther.

Again, she did not recognize that Pope Francis had referenced Sacred Scripture. That is unbelievable. Even more amazing is that there are Catholics who look upon Ann Barnhardt as an "expert" on Catholicism.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Mark,
1. I did not analyse a sermon, I analysed a quotation.
2. You have agreed that in this quote Bergoglio said: "... WHEN WE GO TO CONFESSION ... IT ISN'T THAT WE SAY OUR SIN AND GOD FORGIVES US. NO, NOT THAT! We look for Jesus Christ and say: ‘THIS IS YOUR SIN. And Jesus likes that ..." (The phrases which you disputed are erased.)
Well, let me try to restate that statement in plainer, simpler English:
"In confession, we don't confess our sins and receive absolution. No! Don't think that! We attribute our sin to Christ and that pleases Him ..."
Where is the misrepresentation?
Can there be a plainer denial of the Sacrament?
If that is not a repudiation of Confession and blasphemy, please will you explain to me what his quoted words mean and please limit yourself to the quoted words.
The rest of your comment is smoke screen and does not relate to me, to whom you addressed your comment.
I note you do not dispute that Bergoglio denies the existence of eternal hell.


Mark Thomas said...

susan said..."The Spanish and Portuguese translators (you reference) dropped it from their transcripts cause they know how UTTERLY DEMONIC IT IS!"

Please support your claim. I supported my claim. You offered a claim without the slightest bit of support. You also violated Church teaching.

CCC #2478: To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:"

You don't have a shred of proof that the Vatican translators (Spanish, Portuguese) doctored the Pope's sermon. In fact, they did not doctor the Pope's sermon as the original Italian did not contain the phrases that Ann Barhardt claimed that Pope Francis had uttered.

Please note also that I don't ascribe devious intent to the English-language translator(s) who interested into the sermon two phrases that Pope Francis did not utter. I don't know why the translator(s) did so. For all I know, it was a honest mistake.

Anyway, the bottom line is that you are unable to support your claim as the original Italian rendition of the Pope's sermon proved that he did not utter the two "heretical" phrases that you posted here.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Peter Lamb said..."Dear Mark, You are the best spin dokter I have ever read. You leave Jimmy Akin in the dust. Does Hillary's team know about you? :) "

What spin? I pointed out simply that Susan (via schismatic Ann Barnhardt) presented two phrases from a Pope Francis sermon, "and I will sin again," as well as "Jesus...become the sinner for us...", that are absent from the original sermon offered by His Holiness Pope Francis. You, in turn, accepted Susan's post as valid.

The True Church teaches us that it is our grave duty to support truth and defend our brothers and sisters against unjust attacks. False charges were issued against His Holiness. As he is my brother in Jesus Christ, I defended his name and reputation against the false claim that he had uttered this and that during a sermon.

Peter Lamb, as a Catholic, shouldn't you join me in defense of our brother, Pope Francis?

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2477: "Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury."

2478: "Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it."

2479z: "Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity."

Is it permissible to lodge false claims against His Holiness Pope Francis?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Mark, I only respond directly to you, when you direct comment specifically to me. The statement you quote of mine, is in response to your comment to me - not your comment to Susan.
There have been no unjust attacks against Bergoglio. In terms of Catholic doctrine he merits them all - only you refuse to see. As a Catholic Mark, should you not denounce a heretic with me? Burn the "Catechism of the Catholic Church - it's heretical.
No point in starting a tennis match ol' chap. We both know where we stand. Pax et Bonum.

Anonymous said...

Mark, you need to say what you need in far fewer words. Your comments are 10 times longer than Vox's original post! Please cut it out.

susan said...

Mark Thomas.....

http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-the-christian-life-proclaims-the-road-to-reco

OFFICIAL VATICAN NETWORK!

Now knock off the calumny.

Lynda said...

Yes, every Catholic ought to read it. It explains how the mission of the Church became completely corrupted and subverted by evil ideologies.