The "ad orientem" fight in the Nervous Disorder, is on! Who will win? -- UPDATE - Not Cardinal Sarah, he's now been thrown under the Vatican bus!

This past week, I decided, in consultation with the Pastor where I have been singing the Ordinary Form on Saturday for the past eight years, to resign. My frustration has been building for a while now. I have come to the conclusion that no matter how faithful the priest, the people are just so distracting and so disrespectful and so utterly stupid, that I could no longer bear it. The actions against Cardinal Sarah now have affirmed my decision.

The contrast between the Novus Ordo in general and the Mass on Sundays two dioceses away where I direct the music in the traditional Rite is like night and day. It has become, for me, simply too much to bear.

Dysfunction of the liturgy is embedded

The inherent dysfunction of the Novus Ordo, is impossible to reform. Priests who have tried to do it have been, and continue to be, persecuted.  Cardinal Sarah is now open to being persecuted already by Federico Lombardi!

I have given it 30 years. I was once denounced publicly from the Ambo on Good Friday by the Pastor of the parish I grew up in for delivering a Good Friday liturgy in accord with the Novus Ordo Roman Missal. He was a priest of the Polish Congregation of St. Michael the Archangel, and even denied my mother's funeral in her parish church because the request was for it to be in Latin, and according to the Novus Ordo! Another, a "baby priest" at 27, wagged his finger after Mass in front of the parishioners at me and said, "I told you never to sing in Latin, I am the priest and you must obey!" To which I responded, "No Father, you told me not to sing that which was not in Catholic Book of Worship II and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops have put it in the hymnbook, perhaps you should take it up with them." Fortunately, that effeminate and rageful clericalist is no longer in Toronto but now in the Archdiocese of Detroit and is a Pastor. Keep him away from you boys, he was once also from the CSMA.

I will give the Novus Ordo, no more of my time. It is a useless exercise. It is a liturgy which was an error and remains so. It was and remains, an abomination. It cannot be reformed, it will not be reformed until the Pope and Bishops find the determination to do it. Nice words from Cardinals are not enough as we have no seen.

"Person" centered worship

It was not from the Holy Spirit. It is simply not possible. It is a cult of man, not of God. It is illogical and blasphemous to think that it could be from the Holy Spirit. 

Look at the fruits!

God knows all things. Sees all things. He knows the future. Father, Son and Holy Spirit know all, see all. This great God could see the damage to souls and the faith that the new order of the Mass has produced. He saw it all. Why would He cause it? He permitted it, to be sure, but the Novus Ordo and the theology that formed it has caused the literal collapse of the faith because it is the point at which most Catholics come together. Why would God debase a liturgy that is meant to worship Him and sanctify us? It is simply not possible that this was from the Holy Spirit, it simply defies logic.

Valid? 

Yes. That is a different matter.

Yet it remains a liturgical abomination, I am convinced of it. After 30 years, of labour, there is no fruit, there are no seeds sprouted, the ground is barren. My time and talents will now be spent exclusively with the traditional Latin Mass. Week by week, we see the fruit, the growth, the faith.

Cardinal Sarah himself has stated that the "faithful are now unfaithful." He also knows why.

I raise the possibility of looking again at the Constitution and at the reform which followed its promulgation because I do not think that we can honestly read even the first article of Sacrosanctum Concilium today and be content that we have achieved its aims. My brothers and sisters, where are the faithful of whom the Council Fathers spoke? Many of the faithful are now unfaithful: they do not come to the liturgy at all. To use the words of Pope Saint John Paul II: many Christians are living in a state of “silent apostasy;” they “live as if God does not exist” (Apostolic Exhortation, Ecclesia in Europa, 28 June 2003, 9). Where is the unity the Council hoped to achieve? We have not yet reached it. Have we made real progress in calling the whole of mankind into the household of the Church? I do not think so. And yet we have done very much to the liturgy!

The Novus Ordo and any reform of the reform is a dead letter. Unless it is put in the Missal and ordered by the Pope, it will not be carried out. It will not be fixed, not by this Pope. Leave it. If you wish to remain Catholic, get yourself to the traditional Mass.

The proof is for all to see

Anthony Spadaro's little tweet is evidence of this. It may also disclose what Francis thinks as Spadaro is a confidant. Cardinal Sarah's recent talk in Rome was just that, talk, and his views, virtually alone.

Spadaro is also wrong. He is not only wrong, he is manipulative. The paragraph in the GIRM appears again at the Pax Vobiscum. Why? Because it is presumed that one is actually, not "FACING THE PEOPLE" or the direction would not be there.

In the original Latin, the GIRM, presuming the priest has just incensed the altar and performed the Lavabo, states:

146. Ad medium altaris deinde reversus, sacerdos, stans versus populum, extendens et iungens manus, populum ad orandum invitat, dicens: Oráte, fratres, etc. Populus surgit et responsionem dat Suscípiat Dominus. Deinde sacerdos, manibus extensis, dicit orationem super oblata. In fine populus acclamat: Amen. 146. Upon returning to the middle of the altar , the priest , facing the people , extending and then joining his hands, invites the people to pray , saying : Pray, brothers and sisters, etc. The people rise and make their response May the Lord accept . Then the Priest, with hands extended , says the Prayer over the offerings. In the end, the people make the acclamation, Amen.

Why would it say, "facing the people" it it were not the norm? It specifically instructs him to face the people thereby presuming that he was not, previously!

Not only Spadaro, but now Cardinal Nichols of Westminster has ordered his priests to ignore the Cardinal's request; saying that is not for priest to “exercise personal preference or taste,” citing GIRM 299. 

Again, like Spadaro, Nichols displays his twisted logic and in fact, discloses his bias.

GIRM 299 states:

The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the centre toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns. The altar is usually fixed and is dedicated.’”

Note that? 

"Can" not must. 

"Desirable" not mandatory.

Father Z addresses the matter at his blog.

It seems that that this Cardinal Nichols knows how to pray to pagan gods but he won't permit his priests to face the True God?

Is he even Catholic?

The Congregation for the Liturgy and Discipline of the Sacraments has already address this in  Prot. No 2086/00/L

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has been asked whether the expression in n. 299 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani constitutes a norm according to which the position of the priest versus absidem [facing the apse] is to be excluded.
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, after mature reflection and in light of liturgical precedents, responds:
Negatively, and in accordance with the following explanation.The explanation includes different elements which must be taken into account. First, the word expedit does not constitute a strict obligation but a suggestion that refers to theconstruction of the altar a pariete sejunctum (detached from the wall). It does not require, for example, that existing altars be pulled away from the wall. The phrase ubi possibile sit (where it is possible) refers to, for example, the topography of the place, the availability of space, the artistic value of the existing altar, the sensibility of the people participating in the celebrations in a particular church, etc.

Benedict XVI wrote in the Spirit of the Liturgy that Mass facing the people was a community "turned inwards on itself." He had the opportunity to order this change. He did not. Now Cardinal Sarah voices the desire and immediately, it is rejected by a prominent Cardinal and a confidant of the Bishop or Rome.

Lombardi contradicts

Just after the announcement that he is being replaced by a layman, professional journalist Greg Burke, Federico Lombardi said:

"There are therefore no new liturgical directives foreseen from next Advent, as some have wrongly inferred from some of the words of Cardinal Sarah, and it is best to avoid using the expression ‘reform of the reform’ when referring to the liturgy, as it's sometimes been a source of misunderstandings.”

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/father-lombardi-cardinal-sarahs-ad-orientem-suggestion-misinterpreted

Exactly padre, they're already there!

How much longer do we need to keep repeating the same thing over and over again whilst expecting a different result? That is insanity!

What will happen in Toronto?

This photo is of then Archbishop and now Cardinal Thomas Collins celebrating a Latin Ordinary Form Mass at the Toronto Oratory, he is celebrating "ad orientem." After the Mass, which I attended, I greeted him downstairs. I kissed his ring and thanked him for what he did at Mass. His response? "I think I should do this in the Cathedral some time."

Yes, he said that to me.

Those writing last week with effervescent enthusiasm were premature. Until Rome orders it and authorises it in writing and prohibits the persecution of priests by bishops for doing it, nothing will change.

Mass facing the people is illogical. It is the single worst problem with the Novus Ordo and it is not even mandated! It is against 1,935 years of liturgical history. It is against the practice of our Jewish forefathers in faith. It points to man, not God. 

The Reform of the Reform of the Novus Ordo is a dead letter. Spadaro and Nicholls prove it.

There is only one option.

Take it.

Vigil of Pentecost, June 7, 2014, Solemn Mass in the Presence of a Greater Prelate

Thomas Cardinal Collins, Archbishop of Toronto together with Diocesan priests and seminarians at St. Lawrence the Martyr Parish in Scarborough, Ontario

Jesuits demand Holy Communion for all!

From the magazine published by Anthony Spadaro, S.J., a particularly close  Bergoglian confidant.

Communion For All, Even For Protestants

In addition to the divorced and remarried, for Luther’s followers as well there are those who are giving the go-ahead for the Eucharist. Here is how “La Civiltà Cattolica” interprets the pope’s enigmatic words on intercommunion

by Sandro Magister

http://www.chiesa

ROME, July 1, 2016 – In his way, after encouraging communion for the divorced and remarried, in that it “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak,” Pope Francis is now also encouraging Protestants and Catholics to receive communion together at their respective Masses.

He is doing so, as always, in a discursive, allusive way, not definitional, leaving the ultimate decision to the individual conscience.

Still emblematic is the answer he gave on November 15, 2015, on a visit to the Christuskirche, the church of the Lutherans in Rome (see photo), to a Protestant who asked him if she could receive communion together with her Catholic husband.

The answer from Francis was a stupefying pinwheel of yes, no, I don’t know, you figure it out. Which it is indispensable to reread in its entirety, in the official transcription:

“Thank you, Ma’am. Regarding the question on sharing the Lord’s Supper, it is not easy for me to answer you, especially in front of a theologian like Cardinal Kasper! I’m afraid! I think the Lord gave us [the answer] when he gave us this command: ‘Do this in memory of me’. And when we share in, remember and emulate the Lord’s Supper, we do the same thing that the Lord Jesus did. And the Lord’s Supper will be, the final banquet will there be in the New Jerusalem, but this will be the last. Instead on the journey, I wonder – and I don’t know how to answer, but I am making your question my own – I ask myself: “Is sharing the Lord’s Supper the end of a journey or is it the viaticum for walking together? I leave the question to the theologians, to those who understand. It is true that in a certain sense sharing is saying that there are no differences between us, that we have the same doctrine – I underline the word, a difficult word to understand – but I ask myself: don’t we have the same Baptism? And if we have the same Baptism, we have to walk together. You are a witness to an even profound journey because it is a conjugal journey, truly a family journey, of human love and of shared faith. We have the same Baptism. When you feel you are a sinner – I too feel I am quite a sinner – when your husband feels he is a sinner, you go before the Lord and ask forgiveness; your husband does the same and goes to the priest and requests absolution. They are ways of keeping Baptism alive. When you pray together, that Baptism grows, it becomes strong; when you teach your children who Jesus is, why Jesus came, what Jesus did, you do the same, whether in Lutheran or Catholic terms, but it is the same. The question: and the Supper? There are questions to which only if one is honest with oneself and with the few theological lights that I have, one must respond the same, you see. ‘This is my Body, this is my Blood’, said the Lord, ‘do this in memory of me’, and this is a viaticum which helps us to journey. I had a great friendship with an Episcopalian bishop, 48 years old, married with two children, and he had this concern: a Catholic wife, Catholic children, and he a bishop. He accompanied his wife and children to Mass on Sundays and then went to worship with his community. It was a step of participating in the Lord’s Supper. Then he passed on, the Lord called him, a just man. I respond to your question only with a question: how can I participate with my husband, so that the Lord’s Supper may accompany me on my path? It is a problem to which each person must respond. A pastor friend of mine said to me: ‘We believe that the Lord is present there. He is present. You believe that the Lord is present. So what is the difference?’ – ‘Well, there are explanations, interpretations…’. Life is greater than explanations and interpretations. Always refer to Baptism: “One faith, one baptism, one Lord”, as Paul tells us, and take the outcome from there. I would never dare give permission to do this because I do not have the authority. One Baptism, one Lord, one faith. Speak with the Lord and go forward. I do not dare say more.”

It is impossible to gather a clear indication from these words. Of course, however, by speaking in such a “liquid” form Pope Francis has brought everything into question again, concerning intercommunion between Catholics and Protestants. He has made any position thinkable, and therefore practicable.

In fact, in the Lutheran camp the pope’s words were immediately taken as a go-ahead for intercommunion.

But now in the Catholic camp as well an analogous position statement has come, which presents itself above all as the authentic interpretation of the words Francis said at the Lutheran church of Rome.

Acting as the pope’s authorized interpreter is the Jesuit Giancarlo Pani, in the latest issue of “La Civiltà Cattolica,” the magazine directed by Fr. Antonio Spadaro that has now become the official voice of Casa Santa Marta, meaning of Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself, who reviews and adjusts the articles that most interest him before their publication.

Taking his cue from a recent joint declaration of the Catholic episcopal conference of the United States and of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Fr. Pani dedicates the entire second part of his article to the exegesis of the words of Francis at the Christuskirche in Rome, carefully selected from among those most useful for the purpose.

And he draws the conclusion from them that they marked “a change” and “a progress in pastoral practice,” analogous to the one produced by “Amoris Laetitia” for the divorced and remarried.

They are only “small steps forward,” Pani writes in the final paragraph. But the direction is set.

And it is the same one in which Francis moves when he declares – as he did during the return flight from Armenia – that Luther “was a reformer” with good intentions and his reform was “medicine for the Church,” skipping over the essential dogmatic divergences between Protestants and Catholics concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist, because – in the words of Francis at the Christuskirche in Rome – “life is greater than explanations and interpretations.”

So here are the main passages of the article by Fr. Pani in “La Civiltà Cattolica.”

____________

On intercommunion between Catholics and Protestants

 

by Giancarlo Pani, S.J.

On October 31, 2015, the feast of the Reformation, the Catholic episcopal conference of the United States and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America published a joint declaration that summarizes the history of ecumenism over the past half century. [. . .] The text was released after the closing of the synod of bishops on the family and in view of the shared commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation in 2017. [. . .]

The document concludes with a significant positive proposal: “The possibility of occasional admission of members of our churches to Eucharistic communion with the other side (communicatio in sacris) could be offered more clearly and regulated more compassionately.” [. . .]

The visit of Pope Francis to the Christuskirche of Rome

Two weeks after the promulgation of the declaration, last November 15, Pope Francis visited the Christuskirche, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Rome. [. . .]

During the meeting, there was also a conversation between the pope and the faithful. Among the various contributions was that of a Lutheran lady, married to a Catholic, who asked what could be done so that she could participate together with her husband in Eucharistic communion. And she specified: “We have lived together happily for many years, sharing joys and pains. And therefore we are very much hurt by being divided in faith and not being able to participate together in the Lord’s Supper.”

Responding, Pope Francis posed a question: “Is sharing the Lord’s Supper the end of a journey or is it the viaticum for walking together?”

The answer to this question was given by Vatican II, in the decree “Unitatis Redintegratio”: “Yet worship in common (communicatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity. There are two main principles governing the practice of such common worship: first, the bearing witness to the unity of the Church, and second, the sharing in the means of grace. Witness to the unity of the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians, but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends this practice. The course to be adopted, with due regard to all the circumstances of time, place, and persons, is to be decided by local episcopal authority.”

This position is reiterated and expanded by the instructions for the application of the principles and norms on ecumenism of 1993, approved by Pope John Paul II, where it says: “The sharing of spiritual activities and resources must reflect this twofold reality: 1) the real communion in the life of the Spirit that already exists among Christians and is expressed in their prayer and in liturgical worship; 2) the incomplete character of this communion on account of differences of faith and because of ways of thinking that are irreconcilable with a full sharing of spiritual gifts.”

The instructions therefore place the accent on the “incomplete character of the communion” of the Churches, from which follows the limitation of access to the Eucharistic sacrament. But if the Churches recognize each other to be in apostolic succession and admit each others’ ministers and sacraments, they enjoy greater access to the sacraments themselves, which in any case, according to the document, must not be general and indiscriminate. Sacramental sharing instead remains limited for the Churches that do not have a communion and unity of faith on the Church, apostolicity, ministers, and sacraments.

Nonetheless, Catholic theology wisely maintains guidelines of ample breadth, in such a way as to consider case by case – as the decree “Unitatis Redintegratio” recalls – with a discernment that belongs to the local ordinary. In this sense, at least after the promulgation of the instructions, it can no longer be said that “non-Catholics can never receive communion in a Catholic Eucharistic celebration.” It is interesting to note how the same logic of “pastoral discernment” has been applied by Pope Francis in his apostolic exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” (nos. 304-306).

Can there be shared participation in the Lord’s Supper?

At this point it comes back to Pope Francis, who continues: “But do we not have the same baptism? And if we have the same baptism, we have to walk together. You [the pope is referring to the lady who posed the question] are a witness to a journey that can be profound, because it is a conjugal journey, truly a family journey, of human love and shared faith. [. . .] When you feel that you are a sinner – I too feel I am quite a sinner – when your husband feels that he is a sinner, you go before the Lord and ask forgiveness; your husband does the same  and goes to the priest and requests absolution. They are ways of keeping baptism alive. When you pray together, that baptism grows, it becomes strong. [. . .]  The question: and the Supper? There are questions to which only if one is honest with oneself and with the few theological lights that I have, one must respond the same. [. . .] ‘This is my body, this is my blood,’ said the Lord, ‘do this in memory of me,’ and this is a viaticum that helps us to journey.”

But then can there be shared participation in the Lord’s Supper? In this regard the pope has made a distinction: “I would never dare give permission to do this because I do not have the authority.” Then he added, recalling the words of the apostle Paul: “One baptism, one Lord, one faith (Eph 4:5), and he exhorted, continuing: “It is a problem to which each person must respond. [. . .] Speak with the Lord and go forward.”

Here there comes into play the Church’s main mission, also formulated in the Code of Canon Law as “salus animarum, quae in Ecclesia suprema lex esse debet” (cf. 1752). The necessity of a concrete evaluation on each individual case is absolutely reiterated from that which is the primary mission of the Church, the “salus animarum.” By virtue of which, in the face of extreme cases, access to the life of grace that the sacraments guarantee, above all in the case of the administration of the Eucharist and of reconciliation, becomes a pastoral and moral imperative.

The pastoral approach of Pope Francis

The pope’s position seems to be a reaffirmation of the instructions of Vatican II. But there is no overlooking the fact that a change has taken place, and it can even be understood as progress in pastoral practice. In fact Francis, as bishop of Rome and pastor of the universal Church, in reiterating what was affirmed by the Council inserts that practice within the historical journey that the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue carried out with regard to the sacrament of reconciliation and of the Eucharist. The 1993 instructions already noted that “in certain circumstances, by way of exception and under particular conditions, admission to these sacraments can be authorized and even recommended for Christians of other Churches and ecclesial communities.”

Moreover, ten years before, the Code of Canon Law dictated the conditions under which the faithful of Churches born from the Reformation (Lutherans, Anglicans, etc.) can receive the sacraments in particular circumstances: for example, if they “cannot approach a minister of their own community and seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed” (can. 844 § 4).

Pope John Paul II, in the 2003 encyclical letter “Ecclesia de Eucharistia,” clarified several points in this regard, asserting that “these conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases,” like that of “the danger of death or some other grave necessity.” The intention of these clarifications is always the pastoral care of persons, with special attention that this not lead to indifferentism.

Here it must be made clear that if on the one hand the prudential and restrictive measures that the Church set up in the past were based on sacramental theology, on the other its pastoral mission and the salvation of souls that it has at its heart reveal the value of the Lord’s grace and the sharing of spiritual goods. Pope Francis has expressed particular attention for the problems of persons in the “communicatio in sacris,” in the light of the developments in Church teaching from the Council to the 1993 instructions on principles and norms of ecumenism, from the 1999 joint declaration on the doctrine of justification to the 2013 text “From conflict to communion,” up to the latest declaration of 2015.

This is a matter of small steps forward in pastoral practice. Norms and doctrine must be guided ever more by the evangelical logic of mercy, by the pastoral care of the faithful, by attention to the problems of the person and by the enhancement of the conscience illuminated by the Gospel and by the Spirit of God.

Vatican again intercedes into United States Presidential Politics!

In the last few months, we have seen the invitation of socialist Bernie Sanders to the Vatican, including an intentional set-up for him to just happen to run into Pope Francis by accident. 

Not long before that, and for some reason beyond the grasp of this simple fellow, Tom Rosica, CSB, Executive Producer at Salt + Light Television interviewed the man who covets The White House and who spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union.

This came just a few weeks after the same Bishop of Rome stated that anyone who wants to build a wall, is not a "Christian" with reference to Donald Trump's intent on securing the border of the southern United States.

Barona at Toronto Catholic Witness has discovered a little interesting information in La Civiltà Cattolica; a magazine with the main confidant of the Jorge Bergoglio as its editor and publisher. It is fair to say that Spadaro's influence is a dangerous thing.

Barona asks the question at Toronto Catholic Witness.

Anthony Spadaro, S.J. - Francis has removed all limits on integration! As with Kasper, Spadaro believes the Church has been wrong for 1600 years!

They're smiling now. All happy and joyful. Will this be their expressions when they answer to Our Lord Jesus Christ for how their work has led people to continue to live in their sin?

Anthony Spadaro is the mastermind behind this papacy. He is a confident of Pope Bergoglio. If the Pope does not correct these remarks then are we to assume that he endorses them?

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351273?eng=y

Francis and Antonio, a Couple in Excellent “Society”

The pope has in Fr. Antonio Spadaro, a Jesuit like him, his authorized translator. Here is how “La Civiltà Cattolica” restates in clearer words what “Amoris lætitia” presents in allusive form

by Sandro Magister

ROME, April 12, 2016 – It was an easy prediction to make when the Jesuit Antonio Spadaro, (in the center of the photo, next to the superior general of the Society of Jesus) pontificated last November that “on access to the sacraments the ordinary synod has effectively laid the foundations, opening a door that at the previous synod had instead remained closed.” And this in spite of the fact that in the “Relatio finalis” of the synod the words “communion” and “access to the sacraments” do not appear even once:

> Francis Is Silent, But Another Jesuit Is Speaking For Him

In presenting the post-synodal exhortation “Amoris Lætitia” today, in the latest issue of “La Civiltà Cattolica” - promptly released in conjunction with the publication of the papal document - Fr. Spadaro shows no hesitation in declaring that prophecy to have been fulfilled.

Francis - he writes confidently - has removed all the “limits” of the past, even in “sacramental discipline,” for “so-called irregular” couples: a “so-called” that is not Spadaro’s but the pope’s, and that in the judgment of Church historian Alberto Melloni “is worth the whole exhortation,” because all by itself it absolves such couples and makes them “eligible for the Eucharist.”

And this in spite of the fact that this time as well in the 264 pages and 325 paragraphs of the papal exhortation there is not even a single word in favor of communion for the divorced and remarried, but only a couple of allusions in two minuscule footnotes, numbers 351 and 336, this latter promptly defined by Melloni as “crucial.”

Fr. Spadaro is not just any Jesuit. He is director of “La Civiltà Cattolica,” which historically has always been “the pope’s magazine” and is so now more than ever, “because of the interest that Pope Francis shows concerning some statements of the magazine that accompany his magisterium,” as attested to last March by a witness of sure reliability, Fr. GianPaolo Salvini, its former director:

> "La Civiltà Cattolica" ha un direttore super: il papa

For Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Fr. Spadaro is everything. Adviser, interpreter, confidant, scribe. There is no counting the books, articles, tweets that he incessantly writes about him. Not to mention the pontifical texts that bear the imprint of his hand.

He was part of the circle that worked on the drafting of “Amoris Lætitia” in the closest contact with the pope.

And as procedure would have it, the presentation that Spadaro made of it in “La Civiltà Cattolica” was given to Francis to read before it was sent to press. One more reason to take this exegesis of the document as authorized by him, and therefore revealing of his real intentions.

Reproduced below are some of the passages of the 12 pages, out of 24 in all, that Fr. Spadaro dedicates to the question of “so-called irregular” couples and their access to Eucharistic communion.

With striking craftiness even John Paul II and Benedict XVI are made a part of the same “journey of healing” that Francis is now bringing to the point of Eucharistic communion for the divorced and remarried, with no more impediments as before.

But the whole article is worth reading, on the website of “La Civiltà Cattolica":

> "Amoris lætitia". Struttura e significato dell'Esortazione post-sinodale di Papa Francesco

While here is a link to the complete text of the exhortation:

> "Amoris lætitia"

__________

“Without putting limits on integration, as appeared in the past...”

by Antonio Spadaro, S.J.

The exhortation incorporates from the synodal document the path of discernment of individual cases without putting limits on integration, as appeared in the past. It declares, moreover, that it cannot be denied that in some circumstances “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified” (“Amoris Lætitia” 302; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1735) because of various influences. [. . .]
Therefore, the pontiff concludes, if one takes into account the innumerable variety of concrete situations, “it is understandable that neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases. What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recognize that, since ‘the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases’, the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same” (AL 300). [. . .]
So the consequences or effects of a norm do not necessarily have to be the same, which “is also the case with regard to sacramental discipline, since discernment can recognize that in a particular situation no grave fault exists” (AL 3000, footnote 336). “Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end” (AL 305).
And - it is specified - this help “in certain cases can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, ‘I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy.’ I would also point out that the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak’” (AL 305, footnote 351).

FROM JOHN PAUL II TO FRANCIS

If we go back to “Familiaris Consortio,” we can verify that the conditions it set up 35 years ago were already a concretization more open and attentive, with respect to the previous time, to personal experience.
On the civilly divorced and remarried, the apostolic exhortation of Saint John Paul II (1981) affirmed: “I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life” (FC 84).
On access to the sacraments, John Paul II reiterates the previous norm, and nonetheless affirms that the civilly divorced and remarried who are living their conjugal life together, raising their children together and sharing in everyday life, can receive communion.
But he sets up a “condition” (which is at another level with respect to the norm): that of taking on “the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples” (ibid.).
So in “Familiaris Consortio” the de facto norm does not apply always and in all cases. In the situation described there is already an “epieikeia” concerning the application of the law in a concrete case, because if continence eliminates the sin of adultery, it nevertheless does not suppress the contradiction between the conjugal rupture with the formation of a new couple - who nonetheless live bonds of an affective character and of coexistence - and the Eucharist.
With regard to sexual relations, the formulation of Saint John Paul II required that the couple “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence.” In “Sacramentum Caritatis” Benedict XVI had incorporated this concept, but with a different formulation: “The Church encourages these members of the faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship in fidelity to the demands of God's law, as friends, as brother and sister” (SC 29). The “encouragement to commit themselves” implies a journey and places the accent better and in a more adequate way on the personal dimension of conscience.
Pope Francis moves forward in this direction when he speaks of a “dynamic discernment” that “must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized” (AL 303). An irregular situation cannot be turned into a regular one, but there are also journeys of healing, of exploration, journeys in which the law is lived step by step. [. . .]

NOT A “CHURCH OF THE PURE,” BUT OF JUST AND SINNERS

“Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors,” the pontiff writes, “we can add that individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage” (AL 303). This is a culminating point of the apostolic exhortation, in that it attributes to conscience - “the most secret core and sanctuary of a man, where he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths” (GS 16; AL 222) - a fundamental and irreplaceable spot in the evaluation of moral action. [. . .]
The conscience “can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal” (AL 303).
This passage of the exhortation opens the door to a more positive, welcoming, and fully “Catholic” pastoral practice, which makes possible a gradual exploration of the demands of the Gospel (cf. AL 38).
In other words, it does not say here at all that one’s weakness should be taken as a criterion for establishing what is good and what is evil (this would be what is called the “gradualness of the law”). Nonetheless there is affirmed a “law of gradualness,” meaning a progressiveness in knowing, in desiring, and in doing the good: “Reaching for the fullness of Christian life does not mean doing that which abstractly is most perfect, but that which is concretely possible.” [. . .]
With the humility of its realism, the exhortation “Amoris Lætitia” situates itself within the great tradition of the Church, reconnecting with an old Roman tradition of ecclesial mercy for sinners.
The Church of Rome, which since the 2nd century had inaugurated the practice of penance for sins committed after baptism, in the 3rd century was just about to provoke a schism on the part of the Church of northern Africa, led by Saint Cyprian, because it did not accept reconciliation with the “lapsi,” those who had become apostates during the persecution, who were in fact much more numerous than the martyrs.
In the face of the rigidity of the Donatists in the 4th and 5th centuries, as later in the face of the Jansenists, the Church of Rome always rejected a “Church of the poor” in favor of the “reticulum mixtum,” the “composite net” of just and sinners of which Saint Augustine speaks in “Psalmus contra partem Donati.”
The pastoral practice of “all or nothing” seems more sure to the “rigorist” theologians, but it inevitably leads to a “Church of the pure.” Valuing formal perfection before all else and as an end in itself brings the risk of unfortunately covering up many behaviors that are in fact hypocritical and pharisaic.

Cardinal Burke on Synodal report paragraphs: "deceptive in a very serious way!"

Barona at Witness Blog, in addition to his kind words, has brought this interview to our attention. We have always had confidence that notwithstanding the hirelings, there are shepherds and Raymond Cardinal Burke is one of them.

In this interview, he lays out with clarity the errors in the Synod document and nails squarely, the skulduggery of Anthony Spadaro, S.J., a close confidant of Francis, Bishop of Rome.

The comment "deceptive in a very serious way" justifies all of our previous concern over the machinations and manipulations that this blogger has been warning about for 15 months and for which Thomas J. Rosica, CSB. attempted to sue into silence.

Rosica was outed for his disgusting action. He has brought ill repute upon himself for it for the world to see. It discredited his entire commentary at the Synod and he brought it on himself.

Spadaro is another one. He is a very dangerous man, in terms of the faith. It will take the likes of true shepherds, such as Cardinal Burke to stop him.

My Catholic brothers and sisters, do not be lulled into sleep. The wolf is prowling and the hirelings have, for the most part, abandoned the flock.

http://thewandererpress.com/breaking/interview-with-cardinal-burke-insights-on-the-state-of-the-church-in-the-aftermath-of-the-ordinary-synod-on-the-family/

Interview With Cardinal Burke . . . Insights On The State Of The Church In The Aftermath Of The Ordinary Synod On The Family

January 4, 2016

By DON FIER

Part 1

(Editor’s Note: His Eminence Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, recently traveled from Rome to the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in La Crosse, Wis., a magnificent place of worship which he founded and dedicated.
(His Eminence graciously granted an extensive interview to The Wanderer during which he shared his insights on a variety of topics, including the recently concluded Ordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family and his recommendations for how we should contend with the uncertainty and confusion that is currently prevalent among the clerical and lay faithful.)

+ + +

Cardinal Burke rebukes Pope Francis advisor Jesuit Anthony Spadaro

Raymond Cardinal Burke has written a commentary in the National Catholic Register rebuking the writing of Anthony Spadaro, S.J. and his assertion that the Synod has approved through the "internal forum," Holy Communion for adulterers.  

God bless Cardinal Burke!

The Truth About the 14th Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops?  

COMMENTARY

by CARDINAL RAYMOND BURKE

In the Nov. 28 issue of La Civiltà Cattolica, Jesuit Father Antonio Spadaro, director of the journal and a synod father, presents a summary of the work of the 14th Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, dedicated to the vocation and mission of the family (pp. 372-391).

Although the author makes various affirmations about the nature and work of the Synod of Bishops, which demand critical comment in a longer study, one affirmation which necessitates immediate comment is summarized thus by the author:

The synod has also desired to touch wounded persons and couples to accompany them and heal them in a process of integration and reconciliation without barriers. Concerning access to the sacraments for those divorced and remarried civilly, the synod has formulated the way of discernment and of the “internal forum,” laying the foundations and opening a door which, on the contrary, had remained closed in the preceding synod.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-truth-about-the-14th-ordinary-assembly-of-the-synod-of-bishops/#ixzz3tDMB7PKW

Pope Francis stumbles in more ways than one

Reuters is reporting that the Bishop of Rome stumbled yesterday at Mass at the Lateran Basilica on his way up to the altar for the celebration of the Feast of its dedication. This is the second time in three days, the first being Saturday at St. Peter's Basilica. He is aging, stressed no doubt, and may have a brain tumour. We have sympathy for him as a man.

But let me be perfectly clear; he has stumbled in more ways than this.

If there had been any doubt that his appointment of Jozef de Kesel as Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels is a disaster for the faith, erase it from your Catholic mind. The man is a heretic and advocate of sacrilege.

As Carl E. Olson writes at Catholic World Report: 

If an archbishop-elect thinks the word "mercy" is  "somewhat condescending", what must he think of words such as "sin", "damnation", "hell", and "orthodoxy"? We don't know for certain, but perhaps that is just as well, if only for the sake of keeping one's stomach comments in place. The prelate in question is Jozef De Kesel of Mechelen-Brussels, interviewed by Kerknet and translated into English by Mark de Vries of "In Caelo et in Terra", who covers Catholic news in the Netherlands. The fuller quote: You did not take part in the Synod on the family, but will probably get to work with its proposals. What will stay with you from this Synod? “The Synod may not have brought the concrete results that were hoped for, such as allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion. But it is unbelievable how much it was a sign of a Church that has changed. The mentality is really not the same anymore. I may be a careful person, but I do not think we should be marking time. Mercy is an important word for me, but in one way or another it is still somewhat condescending. I like to take words like respect and esteem for man as my starting point. And that may be a value that we, as Christians, share with prevailing culture.” 

You can read his full report together with his erudite commentary and the link to the full interview and its official English translation.

De Kesel needs to be concerned more with esteem for Christ, than "esteem for man." He needs to have some concern for his own soul as well. 

Sandro Magister also reports of a little Jesuitical infighting. It seems there are a few Catholic Jesuits left in the world. Anthony Spadaro, S.J., of the #SpadaroBlockParty which is not quite as busy as the #RosicaBlockParty which actually trended on Twitter a few weeks back, is not one of them. He is the cause of this little storm. The reader may recall our work of this past Saturday on Spadaro based upon Magister's previous letter. The conclusion can only be that Spadaro is, in fact, speaking for the Bishop of Rome and that can be confirmed by the challenge thrown at him by his brother Jesuit at Boston College, of all places. 

Particularly striking was the peremptoriness with which Fr. Spadaro drew from the “Relatio finalis” of the synod - a text in effect open to multiple interpretations - a one-way orientation: in favor of communion for the divorced and remarried. The following commentary, however, shows how the director of “La Civiltà Cattolica” and confidant of Francis cannot disguise the fact that his conclusions contradict “the teaching of the Church” that the “Relatio sinodi” itself insists must be respected. In particular, he shows how one cannot shield oneself behind a few lines of John Paul II’s “Familiaris consortio” to draw conclusions opposed to those that are written there. The author of the commentary is a priest of the diocese of New York, Robert P. Imbelli, professor emeritus of theology at Boston College and an authoritative contributor to “L'Osservatore Romano,” in addition to “America” and “Commonweal.” An author of works of Christology and of Trinitarian and liturgical theology, his latest book is entitled: "Rekindling the Christic Imagination: Theological Meditations for the New Evangelisation". 

It's only Tuesday and it's been quite a good start to the week revealing to all, the heresiarchs and homosexualists amongst us in the Church. We've had an abomination, blasphemy and sacrilege in New York City at Our Saviour Church with the Hindu ritual, the same Archdiocese's Cardinal Dolan dancing it up withthe Rockette's (hey, their women, let's cut him some slack), the dear in the headlights Diarmuid Martin in Dublin telling all that the Church "must change" and the little episode yesterday in Buffalo promoting the sodomite agenda which the pastor deny but photos betray.

But it does not stop there. Earlier today in Florence, the Bishop of Rome spoke at the Fifth National Ecclesial Convention Annual saying once again resurrecting his lectures that those who follow the law are Pelagians. Edward Pentin has the story at National Catholic Register. So there we have it. Follow the two thousand year old Law of the Church, obey and preach the Ten Commandments and the words of Jesus, "If you love me, keep my commandments" and you're a Pharisee. Disagree with Francis of Rome, you're a Pelagian. You think that you're "superior" and you're not following the "breath of the spirit." I urge you to read The Radical Catholic's post on this speech drawing the parallels between Jorge Bergoglio and Martin Luther regarding their views on the Catholic Church and the heresy of Pelagianism.  Here is a quote courtesy of Southern Orders where you can also more: 

“We are not living in an era of change but a change of era. ... Before the problems of the church it is not useful to search for solutions in conservatism or fundamentalism, in the restoration of obsolete conduct and forms that no longer have the capacity of being significant culturally. ... Christian doctrine is not a closed system incapable of generating questions, doubts, interrogatives — but is alive, knows being unsettled, enlivened, ... It has a face that is not rigid, it has a body that moves and grows, it has a soft flesh: it is called Jesus Christ.”

For a complete repudiation of Jorge Bergoglio's statement today, given on All Saints Day visit:

http://reginaprophetarum.org/audio/20151101-Do-We-Have-Faith-of-Our-Fathers.mp3

There, did you drink it in? Do you have the Faith of Our Fathers or do you wish to sing a new church into being by these "modernist tyrants" where "even the documents of Vatican II and St. John Paul II are passé."

Do not be discouraged, all of this must come out. Do not let it get you down, Keep faith in Our Lord and His promise that the "gates of Hell will not prevail." Rejoice that we have this vehicle, the Internet - blogs, Facebook, Twitter, Email -- all these tools that our parents and grandparents did not have.

The Reuters story on the stumbling Bishop of Rome refers to the reputed tumour, perhaps, in its denial, the Vatican, “doth protest too much.” If the Pope has a brain tumour there is no way he should be making any decisions along the lines of what Spadaro, Kasper and De Kesel advocate. These men are heretics and malefactors. Does Francis really want to seek counsel from them? Will he soon make De Kesel, Cardinal and add to that the heresiarch and homosexualist Cupich for good measure? Now that Danneels is well over 80 and Cardinal George is dead, what is stopping him. Will he make the faithful Archbishops in Philadelphia and Montreal Cardinals, or will he bypass them because they stand for the faith?

He muses about a short papacy. May it be so. Not that I wish him any ill will, not at all. May he be inspired by to go for that slice of pizza and mate at a little cafe in Buenos Aires. He should consider it before December 8 and the gross insult to Our Blessed Mother with the motu proprio on Catholic Divorce. 

Benedict XVI has shown him the way. The door is open to him.