Saturday, 30 January 2016

Will the Apostolic Exhortation serve to undermine "the natural moral law"?

Dates are important as are symbols. When Pope Francis issued his motu proprio watering-down the annulment process, that he signed it on the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, issued it on her Nativity day and brought it into force on the feast of her Immaculate Conception. I heard speculation here in Toronto and then articulated by a contact in Rome that the Pope had chosen March 19, the Feast of St. Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church, as the date for the release of the apostolic exhortation on the family. Dates are indeed important and I wrote on the potential of that date last weekThe rumour has been also been stated now by Edward Pentin.  

Did  your read that?

A recognized moral theologian has said he was "deeply disturbed" and that the document would undermine that "natural moral law."

Pentin is not an alarmist; his credentials are solid. So, we wait and in the meantime we pray and ensure that we do not let up one iota on our protest, denouncement and resistance to what we expect is coming. If we are wrong and it is does not happen, then we will know that we were right and did our job because every indication is that the worst will happen.

And then, all hell will break loose, quite literally I should think.

St. Joseph, intercede for the Church!


Anonymous said...

Well Said Vox, Keep putting on the pressure, there is no doubt Cardinal Jorge knows that *real* Catholics are not going to sit back and watch him attempt to destroy the Most Holy Catholic Church.

Anonymous said...

Our squawking amounts to a hill of beans if our cardinals and bishops don't step up to the plate.

Dorota said...

Church teaching is clear on marriage and homosexuality. All is required of Jorge Bergoglio is to confirm it. No sodomy supporters would be able to attack him effectively. Instead they would reveal their ignorance and ungodly agenda. They would have no valid arguments. The abominable sins of infidelity and sodomy can not be excused by reference to God's love, unless one is an idiot.

All Bergoglio needs to do in respect to advocates of sodomy and infidelity is to read from existing laws, set in stone. He would be beyond reproach.

Yet he refuses to speak truth and to teach it. Why should we expect anything different from him than what we have witnesses thus far?

Peter Lamb said...

If Bergoglio undermines the natural moral law, what difference will it make? It will just be one more heresy from a man who has already committed a list of heresies as long as his arm. We all know he's a manifest, formal, pertinacious heretic. Those who persist in recognising this heretic as the Vicar of Christ, will continue to do so and won't do anything concrete about just another heresy. There are no Catholic prelates left in the novus ordo church. If there were one, he would have stood up and taken positive action long ago. Those of us who know he is not a Pope formaliter, do what we can to oppose him and then just watch and pray. Our Lady has warned us that this Great Apostasy is going to get worse and will eventually be so bad that it will seem that there are no Faithful left. That is when Divine intervention will occur. The Church will be restored in all her glory and the Immaculate Heart will triumph. In the meantime, just imagine how many souls these men are leading to hell. No! I must be wrong somewhere. I mean Bergoglio is the Pope, the Visible Head of the indefectible Catholic Church outside of which there is no salvation. The Church which the Holy Spirit will not permit to teach error, or anything harmful to the salvation of souls. So we better just submit and follow Bergoglio as Catholic dogma tells us to do.

Anonymous said...

If Pope Francis allows communion for public adulterers (which I believe he cannot), the Catholic Church would be defecting from her essential mission to save souls. The Church cannot officially endorse mortal sin (i.e. lead souls to hell) in her ordinary Magisterium...theologians teach that this is morally certain.

Thus, should this happen (again, I believe that this is impossible), the only way out is to conclude that Pope Francis could not have been the Pope before he promulgated it. By continuing to recognize Francis as Pope after that, one would be sinning (at least materially) mortally, by remaining in visible communion with a defective Church (which cannot be the Catholic Church) as well as a manifest heretic.

John the Mad said...

The "signs of the times" if I may use a phrase beloved of more heterodox Catholics, are not propitious. Francis is not a defender of doctrine and tradition and this may well become very ugly. Saint Michael pray for us.

Anonymous said...

C Jorge is not the Pope, Period!

Anonymous said...

Vox Cantoris said...

No, you are incorrect. Pope Francis is the Pope. Even if the election was tainted by some who were conspiring, that would not change the fact that he has been accepted as Pope, "in peace" by the bishops and Catholic faithful throughout the world.

He is the Pope in law and in fact.

Dorota said...

My brother was forced in courts of law to become single and childless. His wife of 19 years and two sons left the country where they lived, to "start fresh", with a man she met long before (before she had my brother's sons) and for whose divorce she waited patiently. Now she is coming after my brother's apartment. When he pleads that he will nowhere to sleep, and the apartment will be needed for the boys one day, she responds: I had nothing when I first started, and so should they.

The younger boy is a so called high functioning autistic child. While his speech was delayed before he left for a different country with a different language, now he doesn't speak any more. Doctors are saying now that he will be incapable to live on his own, while before there were no such concerns. He was been able to read and write at 4, now he is considered a moron. It all happened with permission of court psychologists.

The woman left with the claim: I am entitled to happiness.
How lucky for her, who claims to be a Catholic, and her new "husband", who claims to be a Catholic, that they live in Germany, where all this progress happens. In no time they will receive Communion, if they don't already.

This inhumane mercy that so many propose today, one granted despite an absolute lack of any remorse, is despicable. We have so many victims in my family: the children, their father, the children's grandparents, even me, who while writing this down is experiencing chest pains as usual.

My brother fasts and prays. He has lost half of his body weight. I imagine John the Baptist might have looked like my brother does today - as though mad. Pray for him, just once, if you read this. It will help.

Peter Lamb said...

Anonymous @ 7:40 pm, - absolutely spot on!
Dear Vox, nota bene:
"6.(i) the promotion or elevation, [as Roman Pontiff] even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;"
(Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Pope Pius IV, 1559.)

Vox Cantoris said...

Peter, I cannot accept the sedevacantist position. We must resist the situation but he is Pope in of Canon Law, as we know it.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Dorota I most certainly will. I have added you and your brother to my Rosary list.
Dear Vox, I know you can't, but I live in hope that someday you will.:) You are a good and brave man. I am very grateful that you allow me to comment on your blog. I have been banned from quite a few sites for being sedevacantist. I can't see how banning the opposition promotes serious debate among Catholics, but it's their perogative to do so. I quite agree that Bergoglio is Pope materialiter according to 1917 canon law, if he became a heretic after his election. However, if he was a heretic before his election, then in terms of 6.i of Cum ex and c.188.4 of 1917 law the election was null and void and Bergoglio is nothing more than a non-Catholic layman.
If you argue that Cum ex is abrogated, legally speaking, and that 1983 canon law now applies, I would respond that 1917 law (c.188.4)applied at the time of Roncalli's and Montini's elections - long before JP II promulgated the 1983 canon law. Both Roncalli and Montini were proven, practicing masons (proven by Fr. Luigi Villa), before their elections and therefore already excommunicated, in terms of the prevailing canon law, before their elections.

Vox Cantoris said...

Hoe gaan dit Peter! I would never ban you. The "dialogue" as we are told so often is what we must do, "dialogue, dialogue, dialogue."

I think it not a coincidence that these Romans waited for Fr. Villa's death to announce the beatification of Paul VI.

As for the seat being vacant, I don't believe it. However, if you are right, and I don't believe you are, then at some point in the fullness of time, it will be revealed and declared.

What you and I both pray for is a truly holy Pope who will "restore all things in Christ." May we not need to wait much longer.

Peter Lamb said...

Liewe Vox, dit gaan B.G.! Baie dankie ou maat! :)
Ja, ons moet "dialogue" - ROFL!
"What you and I both pray for is a truly holy Pope who will "restore all things in Christ." - amen, en weer n keer amen!!!

Anonymous said...

Vox, I am not a sedevacantist either...but, given the circumstances I outlined in the post at 7:40pm above, it becomes a logical necessity to believe that Pope Francis cannot be the Pope, or else the Catholic faith is false.

Because you, and every Catholic, has to believe that the Church is indefectible. She is infallibly safe in her disciplines.

It makes no sense to continue to remain is visible communion with an ecclesial body that endorses (officially) mortal sin. That ecclesial body cannot be the Catholic Church anymore. That is theologically certain.

Also, how will you know the Church successfully deposes him? Will a 67% vote of the cardinals give you certainty, or 50%? Or do all the Bishops of the world need to vote on his papacy?

Just to be clear though: I firmly believe that Pope Francis cannot allow communion for public adulterers. If he does (per impossibile), I will likely become a sedevacantist the instant he officially promulgates it. There is no conceivable way that he could still be Pope.

St. Columba

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Anonymous @12pm,
"... every Catholic, has to believe that the Church is indefectible. She is infallibly safe in her disciplines."
This is Catholic dogma set in concrete. Not only in her disciplines, but also in her teachings on Faith, Morals and Governance. Christ is immutable and consequently His Church's doctrine is immutable. The main mission of the church is the salvation of souls. The Catholic Church cannot teach error! A hierarchy which teaches error, cannot be a Catholic hierarchy. You are so correct!
I'll bet you a six-pack of beer that Bergoglio will OK sacrilegious Communion for public adulterers. Only last week Lutheran heretics received the Eucharist in the Vatican!!! He might not say it straight out, but it will be allowed to happen without remonstrance and in no time, will be common practice.

Peter Lamb said...

Anonymous, I'm wondering why you are waiting for the next sacrilege before drawing conclusions? Surely numerous previous sacrileges - Assisies, putting a budda on top of the Tabernacle; Kissing the koran; voodoo blessing; praying with Jews and heretics; the recent pope video; Communion in the hand, etc., etc. are sufficient sacrilegious precedent - just as mortally sinful?

Unknown said...

Shame on you all!

Peter Lamb said...

LOL! OK Don Jay, I'm feeling suitably ashamed (and I hope Vox and the others are too), but I'm not sure just what we should be ashamed of? Could you be a little more specific? :)