I say Deaconnettes, you say Deaconesses, Don't expect that they'll call the whole thing off!

Father Z is reporting on the founding of the commission to study "Deaconettes."  He writes two posts, first on the new commission, and then on losing ones souls for something less than even Wales, (no offense to the Welsh).

I note that Phyllis Zagano is on the commission. 

Surprise.

Zagano was in Toronto a few months ago speaking at St. Michael's College on this very subject. A few days later, Francis of Rome mused about the idea, it just popped into his head. The College is a Basilian institution.

I note that one of the panelists was Rev. Brian Clough. I attended his first Mass, oh maybe around 1967 or so. My dad was his family's barber. He was an up-and-comer to be sure and highly regarded. He went on to become seminary rector and was then sent away for more education. He returned decades ago and is still the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Toronto. I wonder what Father Clough's position is on deaconettes?

A few weeks ago, Zagano provided a screed to the NonCatholicReporter defending the claims by a certain Basilian priest that bloggers are full of vitriol and hate.

The Novus Ordo liturgy is a bastard rite. It is lead by a bastard theology and a bastard church.

Don't believe it will happen?

Well, friends. Francis has "full, immediate and universal jurisdiction." He is a Peronist and a Marxist. He refused to kneel before God in the Eucharist but grovels before man.

Don't think he'll do it?

The world is burning from a lack of faith in Christ and this Pope thinks we should have deaconettes.

Rorate reports that the sodomite pervert from Belgium, Roger Vangheluwe and protected friend of Godfried Danneels who led the campaign to place this Peronist, Bergoglio, in the Seat of Peter, authored a book on the subject of deaconettes. 

You remember Vangheluwe, right? He was the one that raped his own nephew, buggered him and then the pervert protector Daneels, the one who led the Gallen Mafia to elect Bergoglio told the nephew to back off.

Bergoglio has removed the bishops of Kansas City and Minneapolis, one in Italy as I recall, another in Central America and maybe more for not properly dealing with cases of abuse. Fine. I accept that they made mistakes. What I cannot accept is that the same vigour is not applied equally to those bishops and cardinals who have done the same or more and yet, not only survive, but prosper under this sham of a papacy.

One more thing.

Remember that the St. Gallen Mafia wanted Francis to “speed things up.” As I reported previously on Uncle Teddy McCarrick’s video presentation at Villanova University where he reflected on being lobbied by a “very brilliant man, a very influential man in Rome,” who said to him, “If we gave him five years, he could put us back on target.” He then instructed Uncle Teddy to “talk him up.”

Remember, it was Archbishop Fernandez, a man elevated by Bergoglio and the author of the art of kissing who said, “If one day he should intuit that he’s (Francis) running out of time and he doesn’t have enough time to do what the Spirit is asking him, you can be sure he will speed up.”

Hmmm, “he doesn’t have enough time” and “you can be sure he will speed up.”

So, it seems that Bergoglio knows his time is short.

So does someone else.

Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you that dwell therein. Woe to the earth, and to the sea, because the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time. Apoc. 12.12

It is all coming together friends; and it is going to fall down around all of them.

Parce Domine, Parce populo tuo. Ne in aeternum, irascaris nobis. 

Pope Francis' ghostwriter and seminary rector calls for devolution of the Catholic Church

What kind of man poses like this?

He is no man.

Even less is this man worthy to be called an Apostle of Jesus Christ.

He is an effiminate. He is a liar. He is a manipulator; and according to the Prefect of the CDF, he may even be a heretic. 

Certainly, Rome stopped him from becoming a seminary Prefect, until Pope Francis stepped in.

He is the author of "Heal Me With Your Mouth - the Art of Kissing."

He is the ghostwriter of Evangelii Gaudium and probably responsible for that ridiculous Bergoglian phrase, "self-absorbed, Promethean, neo-Pelagian," though it doesn't matter, the Pope own's it. He is the ghost-writer of much or most of Laudato Si, the environmental manifesto worthy of a Marxist undergrad, and; he is the writer of Amoris Laetitia. 

I guess he's Pope Number 3!

Now, this malefactor is calling for more power for the episcopal conferences, even over doctrine. You can read it all, and weep at OnePeterFive.

How long until the Lord will deliver His Church and His faithful from the hands of these deceitful effeminates?

Cardinal Müller Describes Main Adviser of Pope Francis as "Heretical"

Cardinal Müller Describes Main Adviser of Pope Francis as "Heretical"
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.ca/2016/06/cardinal-muller-describes-main-adviser.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheEponymousFlower+(The+Eponymous+Flower)

(Rome) In recent interview with the Herder Korrespondenz Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the CDF, described the closest adviser of Pope Francis as "heretical".

In the June issue of Herder Korrespondenz (issue 6/2006) reaffirmed the Cardinal Prefect, that "no one" should relativize the doctrine of the papacy as a divine institution, for that would mean, wanting to "correct God." Some time ago, there was someone who was presented by "certain media" as one of the "closest advisers" of the Pope, the Cardinal said. This consultant has opined that there would be no problem in transferring the seat of the Pope to Medellin in Colombia or elsewhere, and the various Curia offices could be shared among the various local Churches. This, says Cardinal Müller, is fundamentally wrong and "even heretical". On this subject, it is sufficient to read the Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" of Vatican II in order to identify the ecclesiological nonsense of such mind games. "The seat of the pope is Peter's in Rome."

Jorge Bergoglio and Víctor Manuel Fernández unmasked

Sandro Magister has done some heavy journalistic lifting with this analysis of Amoris Laetitia and ghostwriter, Archbishop of Kissing.

These men have perpetrated a fraud on the faithful and on the Catholic Church. Yes, the Synods were a fraud. They were set-up. A colossal waste of money. A  fraud.  Yes, you read that correct. These men, all of them, have perpetrated a fraud and he has been found out! The essential parts were written a decade ago by the author Kiss me, this pathetic excuse for masculinity pictured here.

When you read at the link, it will turn your stomach when you realise how much heretical nonsense this priest was spouting in Argentina and how it came to be enshrined in Amoris Laetitia, paragraph by paragraph. Note also how this Fernandez was ostracised from the university there, only to be resurrected by Pope Bergoglio who then isolated those who found Fernandez to have expressed a false theology and situational ethics.

Let us again call for Amoris Laetitia do be denounced. Who will denounce the perpetrators behind this fraud?

Friends, we are getting to them. The proof is there that they cannot take the pressure because we are on to them and their diabolical plan.

One Pope? Two Popes? No Pope?

No wonder!

Here is the evidence from Magister's work of this Bergoglian fraud!

Comparison between “Amoris Laetitia” and two articles by Víctor Manuel Fernández from ten years ago

The texts with their respective abbreviations:

AL - Francis, post-synodal apostolic exhortation “Amoris Laetitia,” March 19 2016.

Fernández 2005 – V. M. Fernández, “El sentido del carácter sacramental y la necesidad de la confirmación”, in “Teología” 42 no. 86, 2005, pp. 27-42.

Fernández 2006 – V. M. Fernández, “La dimensión trinitaria de la moral. II. Profundización del aspecto ético a la luz de ‘Deus caritas est’,” in “Teología” 43 no. 89, 2006, pp. 133-163.

Each time are indicated, alongside the abbreviations, for “Amoris Laetitia” the paragraph numbers and for the articles by Fernández the page numbers.

“AMORIS LAETITIA” 300

(AL: 300)

There can be no risk that a specific discernment may lead people to think that the Church maintains a double standard.

(Fernández 2006: 160)

In this way there is not proposed a double standard or a “situational morality.”

“AMORIS LAETITIA” 301

(AL: 310)

For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.

(Fernández 2005: 42)

Taking into account the influences that attenuate or eliminate imputability (cf. CCC 1735), there always exists the possibility that an objective situation of sin could coexist with the life of sanctifying grace.

(AL: 301)

More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values” [Footnote 339: John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation “Familiaris Consortio” (22 November 1981), 33: AAS 74 (1982), 121], or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.

(Fernández 2006: 159)

When the historical subject does not find himself in subjective conditions to act differently or to understand “the values inherent in the norm” (cf. FC 33c), or when “a sincere commitment to a certain norm may not lead immediately to verify the observance of said norm” [Footnote 45].

[Footnote 45: B. Kiely, “La 'Veritatis splendor' y la moralidad personal”, in G. Del Pozo Abejon (ed.), "Comentarios a la 'Veritatis splendor’,” Madrid, 1994, p. 737].

(AL: 301)

As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”. Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well; in other words, although someone may possess all the infused moral virtues, he does not clearly manifest the existence of one of them, because the outward practice of that virtue is rendered difficult: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues” [Footnote 342].

[Footnote 341: cf. Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 65, a. 3, ad 2; De malo, q. 2, a. 2].

[Footnote 342: Ibid., ad 3].

(Fernández 2006: 156)

Saint Thomas recognized that someone could have grace and charity, but without being able to exercise well one of the virtues “propter aliquas dispositiones contrarias” (ST I-II 65, 3, ad 2). This does not mean that he does not possess all the virtues, but rather that he cannot manifest clearly the existence of one of them because the external action of this virtue encounters difficulties from contrary dispositions: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues” (ibid., ad 3).

“AMORIS LAETITIA” 302

(AL: 302)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly mentions these factors: “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors”. In another paragraph, the Catechism refers once again to circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility, and mentions at length “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability”. For this reason, a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved [Footnote 345].

[Footnote 343: no. 1735].

[Footnote 344: Ibid., 2352; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Euthanasia “Iura et Bona” (5 May 1980), II: AAS 72 (1980), 546; John Paul II, in his critique of the category of “fundamental option”, recognized that “doubtless there can occur situations which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint, and which have an influence on the sinner’s subjective culpability” (Apostolic Exhortation “Reconciliatio et Paenitentia” [2 December 1984], 17: AAS 77 [1985], 223)].

[Footnote 345: Cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration Concerning the Admission to Holy Communion of Faithful Who are Divorced and Remarried (24 June 2000), 2].

(Fernández 2006: 157)

This appears in an explicit way in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” (CCC 1735). The Catechism likewise makes reference to affective immaturity, to the power of contracted habits, to the state of anguish (cf. CCC 2353). In applying this conviction, the pontifical council for legislative texts affirms, referring to the situation of the divorced and remarried, that it is speaking only of “grave sin, understood objectively, being that (p. 158) the minister of Communion would not be able to judge from subjective imputability” [Footnote 42].

[Footnote 42: Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, declaration of June 24 2000, point 2a].

(Fernández 2005: 42)

On the other hand, given that we cannot judge the objective situation of persons [Footnote 23] and taking into account the influences that attenuate or suppress imputability (cf. CCC 1735), there always exists the possibility that an objective situation of sin might coexist with the life of sanctifying grace.

[Footnote 23: On this point some recent statements of the magisterium leave no room for doubt. The pontifical council for legislative texts affirms, making reference to the situation of the divorced and remarried, that it is speaking of “grave sin, understood objectively, being that the minister of Communion would not be able to judge from subjective imputability”: Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, declaration of June 24 2000, point 2a. In the same way, in a recent notification of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, it is maintained that for Catholic doctrine “there is a precise and well-founded evaluation of the objective morality of sexual relations between persons of the same sex,” while “the degree of subjective moral culpability in individual cases is not the issue here”: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification regarding certain writings of Fr. Marciano Vidal, February 22 2001, 2b. Evidently, the foundation of these affirmations is found in what the Catechism of the Catholic Church defends in point 1735, cited at the end of the text of this article].

“AMORIS LAETITIA” 305

AL: 305

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. Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits.

[Footnote 351: In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. . .].

(Fernández 2006: 156)

This Trinitarian dynamism that reflects the intimate life of the divine persons can also be realized within an objective situation of sin (p. 157) as long as, because of the burden of influences, one is not subjectively culpable.

(Fernández 2006: 159)

A “realization of the value within the limits of the moral capacities of the subject” [Footnote 46]. So there are “possible goals” for this influenced subject, or “intermediate steps” [Footnote 47] in the realization of a value, even if they are always aimed at the complete fulfillment of the norm.

[Footnote 46: G. Irrazabal, “La ley de la gradualidad como cambio de paradigma,” in “Moralia” 102/103 (2004), p. 173].

[Footnote 47: Cf. G. Gatti, “Educación moral,” in AA.VV., “Nuevo Diccionario de Teología moral,” Madrid, 1992, p. 514].

(Fernández 2006: 158)

“There is no doubt that the Catholic magisterium has clearly admitted that an objectively evil act, as is the case with a premarital relationship or the use of a condom in a sexual relationship, does not necessarily lead to losing the life of sanctifying grace, from which the dynamism of charity draws its origin.

(Fernández 2005: 42)

On the other hand, given that we cannot judge the subjective situation of persons and taking into account the influences that attenuate or eliminate imputability (cf. CCC 1735), there always exists the possibility that an objective situation of sin may coexist with the life of sanctifying grace.

(Fernández 2005: 42)

Does this not justify the administration of baptism and confirmation to adults who may find themselves in an objective situation of sin, on the subjectively culpability of whom no judgment can be made?

“Amoris Laetitia” Has a Ghostwriter. His Name Is Víctor Manuel Fernández

Startling resemblances between the key passages of the exhortation by Pope Francis and two texts from ten years ago by his main adviser. A double synod for a solution that had already been written

by Sandro Magister




ROME, May 25, 2016 – They are the key paragraphs of the post-synodal exhortation “Amoris Laetitia.” And they are also the most intentionally ambiguous, as proven by the multiple and contrasting interpretations and practical applications that they immediately received.

They are the paragraphs of chapter eight that in point of fact give the go-ahead for communion for the divorced and remarried.

That this is where Pope Francis would like to arrive is by now evident to all. And besides, he was already doing it when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires.

But now it is being discovered that some key formulations of “Amoris Laetitia” also have an Argentine prehistory, based as they are on a pair of articles from 2005 and 2006 by Víctor Manuel Fernández, already back then and even more today a thinker of reference for Pope Francis and the ghostwriter of his major texts.

Further below some passages of “Amoris Laetitia” are compared with selections from those two articles by Fernández. The resemblance between the two is very strong.

But first it is helpful to get the broad picture.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351303?eng=y

Apostolic excruciating mess

The Bishop of Rome has set the Catholic Church on a path of doctrinal dissolvement. The brief passages I have read so far are not good. You know every paragraph that starts to sound Catholic has a "but" coming. It's all over it.

Different strokes for different folks is what he is advocating. This is not Catholic. It is heretical. He has also adopted Canada's "Winnipeg Statement" on conscience and elevated to papal teaching. Another heresy. The reference to homosexual "orientation" is a heretical phrase adopted from the secular world. There is no "orientation" there is sin! While on one hand he condemns "gender ideology" on the other he adopts their mantra. The "internal forum" is now the arbiter. This Pope, and yes, for better or worse, he is the Pope; this Pope assumes that mercy has never been a part of parish life. I know priests who are deeply hurt by his condemnation of them for an apparent "lack of mercy." The German menace in this document and papacy is profound. There is a schism but it is not those of us faithful to the Church who are in schism. 

Complete heresy by the Bishop or Rome himself! Sin is no longer, sin.

301. For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. 

Do you remember this?

The Promoter

"Will this Pope re-write controversial Church doctrines? No. But that isn't how doctrine changes. Doctrine changes when pastoral contexts shift and new insights emerge such that particularly doctrinal formulations no longer mediate the saving message of God's transforming love. Doctrine changes when the Church has leaders and teachers who are not afraid to take note of new contexts and emerging insights. It changes when the Church has pastors who do what Francis has been insisting: leave the securities of your chanceries, of your rectories, of your safe places, of your episcopal residences go set aside the small minded rules that often keep you locked up and shielded from the world."

With that quote, (originating at the NCReporter) Father Thomas J. Rosica, on numerous occasions, laid out the plan of the Synods on the Family and Pope Bergoglio. You can bet your sweet bippy (since we are back in the 1970's) the at the likes of Rosica and the rest of the clericalist twitterati will be praising this document. 

Oh, they have won, for now and they will have their reward, you can be sure.

Let's look at some of what I've read so far; right away in paragraph 3:

3. Since “time is greater than space”, I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium. Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it. This will always be the case as the Spirit guides us towards the entire truth (cf. Jn 16:13), until he leads us fully into the mystery of Christ and enables us to see all things as he does. Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs. For “cultures are in fact quite diverse and every general principle… needs to be inculturated, if it is to be respected and applied”.

Paragraph 79, as an example, is a deception. On one hand, it gives the reader assurance that what is being said is in the great Familiaris Consortio of John Paul II. Yet, while it refers to what it wants to state from 84 in FC, it does not add the rest of it:

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.
Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."[180]Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.
By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.
With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord's command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity.

In paragraph 186, we are told:

The Eucharist demands that we be members of the one body of the Church. Those who approach the Body and Blood of Christ may not wound that same Body by creating scandalous distinctions and divisions among its members. This is what it means to “discern” the body of 142 the Lord, to acknowledge it with faith and charity both in the sacramental signs and in the community; those who fail to do so eat and drink judgement against themselves (cf. v. 29). The celebration of the Eucharist thus becomes a constant summons for everyone “to examine himself or herself ” (v. 28), to open the doors of the family to greater fellowship with the underprivileged, and in this way to receive the sacrament of that eucharistic love which makes us one body. We must not forget that “the ‘mysticism’ of the sacrament has a social character”.207 When those who receive it turn a blind eye to the poor and suffering, or consent to various forms of division, contempt and inequality, the Eucharist is received unworthily. On the other hand, families who are properly disposed and receive the Eucharist regularly, reinforce their desire for fraternity, their social consciousness and their commitment to those in need.

Quoting Pope Benedict XVI, one again there is an attempt to show continuity, but while Pope Benedict writes of the Eucharist as "the reality both of being loved and loving others" and that if not, it is "intrinsically fragmented" Benedict does not use secular and worldly terms which take on Marxist rhetoric and equate them with mortal sin! Christ did not come to bring unity, though He certainly prayed for it in the Garden, he came to "bring a sword." He came to bring "division." We must have "contempt" for radical ideologies and the people that advocate them and seek to destroy our culture. "Inequality?" While people may be equal before the law, or should be, cultures are not. The behaviour of certain ethnic groups is not acceptable. This is sheer Marxist rhetoric and to equate it with being improperly disposed for Holy Communion is abominable. Nowhere in this document is this stated over sodomy but tell the kid to stop washing your window as you stop at a red light and you'll go to Hell.

Paragraph 297 is a complete contradiction and confusing jumble of platitudes. Are we or are we not to permit open adulterers, abortionist, sodomites to read at Mass or not? Now, if we all went to the traditional Mass, this would not be an issue!

297. It is a matter of reaching out to everyone, of needing to help each person find his or her proper way of participating in the ecclesial community and thus to experience being touched by an “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous” mercy. No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves. Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf. Mt 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion. Yet even for that person there can be some way of taking part in the life of community, whether in social service, prayer meetings or another way that his or her own initiative, together with the discernment of the parish priest, may suggest. As for the way of dealing with different “irregular” situations, the Synod Fathers reached a general consensus, which I support: “In considering a pastoral approach towards people who have contracted a civil marriage, who are divorced and remarried, or simply living together, the Church has the responsibility of helping them understand the divine pedagogy of grace in their lives and offering them assistance so they can reach the fullness of God’s plan for them”,328 something which is always possible by the power of the Holy Spirit.

What a bunch of jesuitical bile speaking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. So, there is no Hell? The Gospels are wrong? Jesus lied?

As for 299, they are not "excommunicated" and get off this sentimentalist claptrap of "feelings."

What a bunch of 1970's bile. Will the felt banners be at the next Papal Mass?

Paragraph 301-306 are pure an unadulterated, if you'll pardon the pun, heresy! The door is open for Kasper and the rest of these heretics to drive a locomotive through. This is a schismatic document issued from the Bishop or Rome himself!

The Pope backs sex-education in schools. This is not Catholic, it belongs in the home, period!

Pure idiocy from which, I dissent!

The author

Abortion bears hardly a mention. Where is the call to arms to families? Where is the demand that Catholic parents rid themselves of pornography and ensure that this pernicious evil never enters the family domain? Where is the call to be more like "rabbits" and rebuild the culture? Where is the demographic crisis discussed and the effect this will have on Catholic families? Mercy, mercy, mercy me? I've heard about enough of this mercy crapola.

On a positive note, the scripture reflections are quite nice. 

The Presenter

The hidden men behind this document are modernists, Marxists, heretics and sodomites! May God convert them or damn them all to Hell. 

I'm sick of them, I'm sick and tired of these rotten liberals as Mother Angelica, may she even now see Him face to face, opined. I've had enough of what they did to my childhood faith. What they did to our heritage, our Catholic culture and our lives. They have done this. These bishops and cardinals, these theologians and twitterist clerics - they are responsible for what has happened to the family. They have done this.

You, Catholic out there. You have been misled. You have been lied to. Get up and educate yourself. You have no excuse anymore. These are evil men destined for eternal damnation, do not be amongst these goats.

May the Bishop of Rome enjoy his time at Lesbos. If he likes it enough there, maybe they can make room for him. He'll wash their feet and worship their same god as he bows to the vagina asteroid!  

A future Pope will fix this. May it be the next one and sooner rather than later.


Pat Archbold "shameful and a grave evil"
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2016/04/the-shameful-document.html


Francis advances "situational ethics"
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/eef697b31863ac4b1bb8405c418215e8-561.html

One Peter Five's - intial view
http://www.onepeterfive.com/pope-francis-departs-from-church-teaching-in-new-exhortation/

One Peter Five - home page for additional
http://www.onepeterfive.com/

Rorate Caeli
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/04/summary-of-amoris-laetitia.html

Father Alan Macdonald
http://southernorderspage.blogspot.ca/2016/04/heres-summary-as-posted-by-rorate-caeli.html

Dr. Edward Peters
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/first-thoughts-on-the-english-version-of-pope-francis-amoris-laetitia/

How CNN spins the Pope's ambiguity!
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/08/europe/vatican-pope-family/index.html

Voice of the Family
http://voiceofthefamily.com/catholics-cannot-accept-elements-of-apostolic-exhortation-that-threaten-faith-and-family/

Full bile 
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia.html

Prepare for the worst but don't lose your wits!

Knowing Hilary's manner, you can bet what's coming is not good. She is bang-on. You must rise up! 

The author

The conservative Catholic must make a choice. The neo-Cath must make a choice. You, must make a choice. 

After tomorrow, you will either be a Catholic or you will be a heretic!

Either you will be with our Lord Jesus Christ and the sheep on the Last Day or you will be with the goats.

The Presenter

People - laity, priests, bishops, cardinals and popes are going to burn in Hell.

Don't be with them.

Every one of them must be denounced and resisted. Do not follow them into the fiery furnace.

Remember the Prophesy of Ezekiel in the third chapter and the eighteenth verse: 

18 Si, dicente me ad impium: Morte morieris, non annuntiaveris ei, neque locutus fueris ut avertatur a via sua impia et vivat, ipse impius in iniquitate sua morietur, sanguinem autem ejus de manu tua requiram.

18 If, when I say to the wicked, Thou shalt surely die: thou declare it not to him, nor speak to him, that he may be converted from his wicked way, and live: the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand.

18 When I threaten I the sinner with doom of death, it is for thee to give him word, and warn him, as he loves his life, to have done with sinning. If not, he shall die as he deserves, but for his undoing thyself shalt be called to account.

Lutheran heretic "bishop" declares Pope has Catholic "enemies" limiting his freedom to speak - Bishop Kiss Me is back at work!

In Edward Pentin's National Catholic Register report on the scandalous provision of Holy Communion to Lutheran heretics there was a paragraph that seems to have escaped attention:

Mr. Salmi

What does Mr. Salmi mean by "unity between different denominations?" He states that the Bishop of Rome "repeatedly indicated" it. Is Salmi a liar or is it true? If it is true, what does the occupant on the Seat of Peter think about the Church, that She is just one of many "denominations?" That those who separated from Her need to returning? Is this not true ecumenism? 

More concerning of course is the homosexualist Salmi's next disclosure, that "Pope Francis has theological enemies" and that he "may be limited in how freely he can speak."

Should we presume that this is something that the Pope indicated to Salmi in a private conversation? as that is the take-away from such a statement - "Help, they're keeping me prisoner." 

Does Mr. Salmi think that it is Catholics against the Pope? One would have to assume that since he mentions "theological enemies in the Vatican" one must conclude, based on the evidence in front of us, that it is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or other "Catholics" who Francis who seem to intimidated the Pope into not speaking his mind.

Well, either Mr. Salmi is a liar or he is right based upon his report of his meetings with Francis. If he is right, and this is what the Pope thinks, then the Pope must reassess what it is he thinks about Catholic Theology.  

Frankly, (pardon the pun) Pope Francis seems to have no fear or limit to what he says.

One cannot be at war with oneself unless you are suffering under a serious mental defect or condition, and that may very well be the case. It is against the Law of Non-contradiction. You are either Catholic or you are not and that goes for laity and Pope alike.

Read now what Victor Manuel Fernandez had to say. If that is not someone you recall, this will help. He is the Pope's "ghostwriter" of Evangelii Gaudium, Laudato Si and presumably the Apostolic Exhortation on the Family, now moving back and forth between Francis and the CDF. He is also the author The Art of Kissing. 

This warped prelate is also suspected to be writing the Apostolic Exhortation expected soon according to Rorate. How bad will it be given what we've seen already from this errant cleric.

So, where is the truth? Is it as Mr. Salmi states or Archbishop Kissing? And who was that "powerful and influential man" that McCarrick spoke about who said, "Bergoglio can put us back on track." 

For those who say there is no crisis, I have some ice to sell in Nunavut.

Trusted theologian says Francis is stronger than adversaries inside the curia

Robert Mickens, Rome

The theologian widely acknowledged as the principal ghostwriter of Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, says the Jesuit pontiff has already begun changing the Church in ways that cannot be reversed.

Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, rector of the Catholic University of Argentina, said that, even if the pope’s adversaries tried to turn back the clock in the next pontificate, the People of God would not stand for it.

“The people are with (Francis) and not with his few adversaries,” he said in an exclusive published Sunday in the Italian daily, Corriere della Sera.

The 52-year-old Fernandez is one of the pope’s principal theological advisers. Francis, who had to fight Vatican opposition to name his fellow countryman university rector in 2009, appointed the theologian titular archbishop only two months after he became pope.

The archbishop said the 78-year-old Jesuit pope is patiently laying the groundwork for reforms that cannot be undone. 

“No, there’s no turning back,” he told the paper’s highly respected political analyst, Massimo Franco.

“If and when Francis is no longer pope, his legacy will remain strong,” the archbishop said.

“For example, the pope is convinced that the things he’s already written or said cannot be condemned as an error. Therefore, in the future anyone can repeat those things without fear of being sanctioned,” he added.

Archbishop Fernandez is one of the leading theological aides to the pope, who last year was appointed to a special commission inside the Synod of Bishops.

Below is our English translation of the bulk of his interview in the May 10 edition of Corriere della Sera.

*********

Archbishop Fernandez, in the two years since the pontificate began has resistance to the pope inside the Vatican increased or diminished?

“I don’t live in Rome and I can only talk about what I see when I go there. You have to make distinctions. I saw that some people in Rome were shocked at first, but now they understand the meaning of what Francis is calling for and they’re happy to be part of this path (he’s set out) for the Church, and they are helping the pope. Others tend to say: we’ll do what we can, go along with him as long as he’s here, because in the end he’s the pope. This group seems to be in the majority, even though I can’t confirm that. Others — really just a few — are, instead, going their own way. And from what one can see, they tend to ignore Francis’ teachings.”

Could you give us an example?

“I’ve read that some people say the Roman Curia is an essential part of the Church’s mission, or that a Vatican prefect is the sure compass that prevents the Church from falling into ‘light’ thought; or that this prefect ensures the unity of the faith and guarantees a serious theology for the pope. But Catholics, reading the Gospel, know that Christ assured special guidance and enlightenment for the pope and bishops all together, but not for a prefect or another structure. When you hear such things it almost seems as if the pope were their representative, or was someone who came to cause trouble and needs to be controlled.”

It doesn’t seem like that’s a line that’s being followed, though.

“It’s not, because most of the People of God love Francis. Maybe the council of nine cardinals could help to better clarify how far the jurisdiction of the most important prefects extends. But the thing that worries me most is that theologians are not offering new analyses on the Church, the theological reasons for its structures, the jurisdiction of national and regional episcopal conferences and the proper place of the Roman Curia in relation to the pope and the College of Bishops.

Some say Francis is isolated. Do you think that’s true?

“Not at all. The people are with him and not with his few adversaries. This pope first filled St. Peter’s Square with crowds and then began changing the Church. Above all, for this reason he is not isolated. The people sense in him the fragrance of the Gospel, the joy of the Spirit, the closeness of Christ and thus they feel the Church is like their home. But I would also say that he has a wide circle of people from whom he asks advice on various issues. He listens to more people than just those in the dicasteries of the curia, and in this way he is closer to the different voices in the Church and in society. I’m referring to those people he receives at Casa Santa Marta, to the requests that arrive in letters, to the encounters in the squares. It’s exactly for this reason that today the Church is listened to more in the international debates and world leaders look at her with great respect.”

No doubt, and in a deep and clear way, especially at the beginning. And yet, more recently, there’s a certain anxiety. Thing are proceeding more slowly. The reform of the curia seems to be stalled.

“The pope goes slow because he wants to be sure that the changes have a deep impact. The slow pace is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the changes. He knows there are those hoping that the next pope will be turn everything back around. If you go slowly it’s more difficult to turn things back. He makes this clear when he says ‘time is greater than space.’”

When Francis says he will have a short pontificate doesn’t this help his adversaries?

“The pope must have his reasons, because he knows very well what he’s doing. He must have an objective that we don’t understand yet. You have to realize that he is aiming at a reform that is irreversible. If one day he should intuit that he’s running out of time and he doesn’t have enough time to do what the Spirit is asking him, you can be sure he will speed up.”

Would it be possible to have a pope without Vatican or away from the Vatican?

“The Roman Curia is not an essential structure. The pope could even go and live away from Rome, have a dicastery in Rome and another one in Bogota, and perhaps link-up by teleconference with liturgical experts that live in Germany. Gathered around the pope, in a theological sense, is the College of Bishops in order to serve the people.”

Aren’t you worried that his pontificate will quickly be tossed aside after he’s no longer pope?

“No, there’s no turning back. If and when Francis is no longer pope, his legacy will remain strong. For example, the pope is convinced that the things he’s already written or said cannot be condemned as an error. Therefore, in the future anyone can repeat those things without fear of being sanctioned. And then the majority of the People of God with their special sense will not easily accept turning back on certain things.”

Don’t you see the risk of “two Churches”?

“No. There’s a schism when a group of important people share the same sensibilities that reflect those of a vast section of society. Luther and Protestantism came about that way. But now the overwhelming majority of the people are with Francis and they love him. His opponents are weaker than what you think. Not pleasing everyone does not mean provoking a schism.”

Isn’t this idea of the pope having a direct rapport with the people something risky, while the Church’s ecclesiastical class feels marginalized?

“But the Church is the People of God guided by their pastors. Cardinals could disappear, in the sense that they are not essential. The pope and the bishops are essential. Then again, it is impossible that everything a pope does and says will please everyone. Did everyone like Benedict XVI? Unity does not depend on unanimity.

Do you think a conclave would re-elect Francis today?

“I don’t know, possibly not. But it happened, and everything one could image before or after the conclave is not important. The only thing that matters and that’s important is that the voting is done in the conclave, with the special assistance of the Spirit. We believe the Holy Spirit guides the conclave and you cannot contradict the Holy Spirit. If some (cardinals) now have regrets it doesn’t change anything.”

Do you think Francis could be forced to leave Casa Santa Marta for security reasons, because of a terrorist attack by Islamic fundamentalists?

“He doesn’t think like that. And I haven’t found any decisive arguments for that to happen. Then again, I think those that organize these big attacks have a certain intelligence and are able to distinguish between the United States of Bush and the Vatican. Certainly, there could be an isolated fanatic … No, I think Francis will remain at Casa Santa Marta, strong and with great confidence.