Can you help Chris O'Leary? Click the photo for the story and to find out how. God bless you.

Can you help Chris O'Leary? Click the photo for the story and to find out how. God bless you.
http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2018/09/chris-oleary-victim-abused-and-ignored.html

Monday, 11 December 2017

But deliver us from Francis

Why did the Bishop of Rome raise the matter of the translation of The Lord's Prayer, specifically, "Lead us not into temptation?" Did he have this discussion with some minion stroking his self-confidence while holding court in the Vatican Motel's Ristorante Greasy Spoono? Was it something inspired by his "god of surprises" due to the odour of franks-incense emanating from his morning flatulence and thus, being a divine inspiration? 

Or is it perhaps to direct our intention away from his heretical proclamation in the Offical Acts of the Apostolic See or perhaps the facts disclosed in The Dictator Pope?

Regardless, allow us to expand on the post below.

The Aramaic is pretty well translated as, "And let us not be put to the test, but deliver us from the Evil One."

The Aramaic, at least liturgically, has the same original source as we do in the West. It is from Greek. 

The Greek was translated into Latin by St. Jerome as, "Et ne nos inducas in tentationem." Which is well translated into English as "And lead us not into temptation." It was at the command of St. Damasus, Bishop or Rome and Pope whose feast day is today that St. Jerome began his work.

In the Divine Office for today, we note in the third reading from Isaiah 13:9-11.

"Behold, the day of the Lord shall come, a cruel day, and full of indignation, and of wrath, and fury, to lay the land desolate, and to destroy the sinners thereof out of it."

I am no scriptural scholar, I understand not Greek nor Aramaic, I speak no other language other than English and can understand some basic Latin due to absorption of 35 years of liturgical music and chant. But even to this ignorant soul, I know that the phrase from Our Lord never meant that "He" would lead us into temptation. It seemed to me to always be what it was, -- prevent us from falling into temptation and from being susceptible to Satan.

From Paul Anthony Melanson:

"The RSV records the Lord’s Prayer as follows:
6:9 Pray then like this: Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread; 6:12 And forgive us our debts, As we also have forgiven our debtors; 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil.
The Greek text is accurately rendered by the RSV, "Lead us not into temptation" with God understood as the subject. However, we should not understand this to mean that God actively tempts us to sin but that He allows us to undergo testing, including at the hands of the Tempter. In fact, this is precisely what happened to the Son of God who was driven or led by the Spirit into the wilderness, wherein He was tempted by Satan.  

Father Hunwicke in his usual manner gets right to it. 


Lead us not into temptation. It is unlikely that the Greek and Latin words translated by temptation meant the sort of thing we mean by 'temptation' in the confessional ... the 'temptation' to steal something, or to speak uncharitably, or to suspend the Custody of the Eyes. Peirasmos has been thought to refer much more probably to the time of testing, that is to say, of being tortured or intimidated to give up our Faith. Scripture teaches us that the End Times will indeed be marked by just such testings or persecutions. It is natural to ask God, whose providence disposes the times, to spare us this. [See for example Mt 26:41; Luke 8:13; Apocalypse 2:10 and 3:10.]
(And, by the way, Evil could be either masculine or neuter (tou ponerou). Many, probably most,  people think it refers to the Evil One.)
So, in my opinion, PF is proposing a revision which is not, as he appears to have been told, a revised translation but a radical change in the meaning of the Greek original. With sorrow, I have to say that this new example of his gigantic self-confidence does not surprise me.
What repeatedly ... it seems, almost daily !! ... irritates me about PF is his endless propensity to treat the Depositum Fidei, the Universal Church and what she has inherited from the Apostles or from the generations since, as something which is at his disposal to change, to criticise, or to mangle in any way that appeals to his personal whimsy at any particular moment. He is like a toddler who has been given toys to play with ... a big, boisterous and wilful child who likes to play with them rather roughly; whose commonest phrase is "I want ...". If anyone suggests that he should perhaps handle them rather more gently, he throws a tantrum.

O Lord, deliver us from Francis.


8 comments:

Jack Collinson said...

It's Satan that tempts us, but God does lead us into temptation (and out of it). It's in God's Providence how many temptations we will endure, so we ask Him, out of humility and distrust of ourselves, not to lead us into many.

Peter Lamb said...

Perfidious bergoglio is a pernicious heretic, but it is up to the Cardinals to make that declaration. Bergoglio is pope in law and jurisdiction because he sits in the chair. It’s the reality. It’s a fact.

And so it is indeed - IN TERMS OF MAN MADE CANON LAW. Canon law, or "Church law" is promulgated by men (Popes, Church authorities) as an essential element of Church governance and as means to guide the Faithful towards their sanctification. These laws are subject to amendment, or abrogation according to the prevailing times and circumstances.

Now bergoglio has LEGALLY, (canon law), been elected Pope by the proper church authorities, (College of Cardinals.) So, he is LEGALLY Pope. We call him "Pope materialiter". His ELECTION is valid - in terms of CANON LAW. Men designate the Pope and then God gives the elect HIS authority.

However, we are agreed that bergoglio is a formal heretic. This we know because we were taught the Faith and we have intelligence enough to know when a man denies what the Faith teaches - eg. there is no hell.
So, in terms of canon law, we know that bergoglio is guilty of the CRIME of heresy against CANON LAW. This our God-given faculties tell us. Now if one were to witness a man murdering another, one would know that he is a murderer, but in law he is an alleged murderer until tried and proven guilty. Only then is he designated a murderer.

So, we know that bergoglio is an heretic, but the proper authorities must try him and find him guilty of his crime before they can depose him and elect a new Pope. So, in the meantime we cannot say that perfidious jorge is not the Pope. Not so? NOT SO!

NO MAN CAN JUDGE THE POPE! ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE THE POPE! Nobody on Earth is superior to him. The Pope is the sovereign Vicar of Christ. This is Catholic dogma!

So how can the college of Cardinals try and convict the Pope????!!!!
The simple answer is that THEY CANNOT!!!

Now one understands that those who persistently clamour for a trial and formal judgement BEFORE bergoglio can be called a formal heretic and be deposed, are CLAMOURING, STUBBORNLY, IN THEIR IGNORANCE, FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE.

But guess what? The Cardinals CAN try bergoglio. Why? BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO LAWS - DIVINE LAW AND CANON LAW!!!

The former is of GOD and precedes that of man.
Catechism 1,01: An heretic excommunicates HIMSELF from the Church by committing the SIN of heresy against DIVINE LAW. When bergoglio uttered his first heresy, he excommunicated himself from the Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. From that minute he was out of the Church. NOW he is only a non-Catholic MAN. He is no longer Pope "formaliter". GOD has long deposed him and withdrawn all His authority as Pope. NOW the Cardinals may try him for his crime against Church law and depose him, because he is no longer Pope formaliter, i.e. a true Pope - he is just Joe Soap. It's as simple and logical and Catholic as that.

And by the way, there has NEVER been an heretical Pope in the history of the Church according to Dr. St. Robert Bellarmine and Vatican I, who both examined the question in detail. How can one who is not a Member of the Mystical Body be its Visible Head? That doesn't even work at the local golf club!

Review the shenanigans at the conclave of 1958. White smoke issued forth for five minutes, by the clock. Habemus Papam! The election of the new Pope was officially announced on Vatican Radio. Ceremonial Officers were instructed to get ready. Then the smoke went black. The masons HAD to have a false pope to do their bidding - the Holy Ghost would NOT allow a true Pope to do so. He would drop him dead before he could preach heresy to the Faithful!

Bear in mind we cannot be certain that there is not an impeded Pope in the world. It is not an impossibility. One day we will know everything. In the meantime, we do know, sure as God made little apples, that perfidious jorge is not Pope formaliter!!!

Tom A. said...

But all the Cardinals are heretics too, Peter. He was elected by heretics.

Irenaeus said...

Tom A. - That's not true. My Cardinal is a good man. He's no heretic. Neither are Cardinals Sarah and Burke, among others.

Peter Lamb said...

Perhaps it's best to start at the beginning. Padre Pio had a vision of Our Lord who asked him to summon a young Priest, Fr. Villa and to send Fr. Villa to Pope Pius XII, who commissioned Fr. Villa to ferret out judeo-masons in the Vatican. Father Villa was given Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci as mentors. Father Villa devoted his life to this work. He established that roncalli, ("pope"John XIII)and montini, ("pope"Paul VI), joined the same masonic lodge on the same day. Father Villa discovered their membership numbers; their masonic code names etc.

roncalli and montini excommunicated themselves that day they joined the judeo-masons. According to Pio Benedictine canon law, (1917), Catholics suffer automatic excommunication by becoming judeo-masons. Judeo-masons worship lucifer. They are satanists.

There are requirements for eligibility for election to the Papacy: The Candidate must be a male; He must be of sound mind: He must be Baptized; He must profess the Catholic Faith in its entirety; He must not be under any canonical censure. Consequently, as excommunicants, neither roncalli, nor montini were eligible for election to the Papacy in the first place.

Nevertheless, ineligible as excommunicated heretics, or not, they were serially elected "pope" BY DUE PROCESS. Now this brings us to the difference between "Total" sedevacantists and "sedeprivationists". The former argue that they were not eligible for election and therefore their elections were illegal and meaningless. The latter argue that election is a process and because the process was legal, their elections were void, (worthless), but nonetheless legally valid, making roncalli and montini popes materialiter, but not formaliter. These are purely legal arguments, far above my pay grade, which will eventually be resolved by canon lawyers. Practically, both opinions are agreed - neither roncalli, nor montini were "true" Popes formaliter.

Obviously, if roncalli was not a true Pope, then he had no authority whatever to summon a Council of the Catholic Church. For the same reason, montini had zero authority to promulgate said Council.
Consequently, Vaticnan II is totally false and invalid, as is everything that flows from it.

Peter Lamb said...

It must be emphasized that there has never been an heretical Pope in the entire history of the Catholic Church. Saint Robert went so far as to propose that this was a sign from Heaven that there never would be. Semi-traditionalists consider bergoglio et al to have been true Popes, who fell from grace by committing heresy, but who continue as true Popes, ( who they obey, or disobey at their own will), until they are deposed by the Cardinals. The fallacy of this argument has been explained in my first comment. This idea of a true Pope committing heresy has never happened and likely never will. But IF, IF, IF, such a thing were to happen, then St. Robert, Vatican I and numerous authorities teach that such a Pope would immediately be deposed by God, automatically losing all authority. To sum up, the conciliar "popes", all demonstrable heretics, were never true Popes in the first place.

As explained above, all NWO church alterations, novelties innovations to the Sacraments, Liturgy etc. are invalid including the NWO rite of episcopal consecration. "Cardinal" is an administrative position. The "fullness" of the Priesthood resides in a Bishop. Therefore, all the "cardinals" consecrated in the new rite, by "bishops" consecrated in the new rite are no more than laymen. They are not priests, bishops, or cardinals. Any who are not masons themselves, have all sworn allegiance to the conciliar heretics and acknowledge them as true Popes - including Sarah, Burke, Schneider et al. They are all guilty of at least aiding and abetting and consorting with heretics, which will bring the reward which unrepentant heretics receive.

You recognize Hitler as Fuhrer; You are a card-carrying Nazi; You attend their rallies and then you tell me you are not a Nazi? Sure buddy - I believe you!


Unknown said...

The Roman Church altered the Nicene Creed by adding the filoque. Why not the Lords Prayer as well?

Seattle kim

Vox Cantoris said...

Seriously?

Because the Nicene Creed is a Church proclamation.

The Lord's Prayer is scriptural.

The Latin Vulgate is a direct translation of the Greek and our English is direct from the Latin and confirmed in the ancient Greek which was the language in which Saints Matthew and Luke wrote it!

That's why!