More Bergoglian WYD Lisbon sacriledge and scandal - absolutely demonic

 

I use these to store Christmas lights.

Four people take Him seriously.

Clown

Bundle of sticks

https://twitter.com/davidsm74079804/status/1688259930594140161?s=12&t=7PR15aW5AYG9od63qZQBtA

To Bergoglio and his WYD sycophants, the value of Blessed Sacrament is a (plastic), sorry, cheap ceramic bowl from IKEA!

I will let the pictures speak for themselves.

But the Latin Mass is the problem.

Catholics "scandalised" over woman carrying Monstrance. Are you scandalised when a woman (or layman) distribute the same Sanctissimum?

What are you all so outraged for?

Yes, it's abuse. Yes, its sacrilege. 

How is this difference from an EMHC?

Methodist Mayor of Chicago Lightfoot received the Holy Eucharist at Officer's Funeral!

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, a lesbian and a member of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church attended the funeral of Officer Ella French, may she rest in peace, and was given Holy Communion at the funeral presided over by Cardinal Blase Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago. Church Militant has the video. https://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/even-2021-08-19?mc_cid=fcc43a2dec&mc_eid=a55afee013

 

JESUS TO-GO IN AN ENVELOP: Pax Christi Catholic Church - Archdiocese of ...

Did you notice Susan of the Parish Council and all her Karen friends.

The only "man" is that clown masquerading as a priest of Christ. 

Don't do this!

Cardinal Sarah: "No Inter-Communion between Catholics and non-Catholics."

The potential for open schism grows. Cardinal Sarah states clearly that Holy Communion is not to be given to Protestants!

CARDINAL SARAH: "NO INTER-COMMUNION BETWEEN CATHOLICS AND NON-CATHOLICS. YOU MUST BE CATHOLIC”

by Matteo Orlando

"Inter-communion is not allowed between Catholics and non-Catholics. It is necessary to confess the Catholic faith. A non-Catholic cannot receive communion. This is very, very clear. It is not a matter of freedom of conscience. " This is how Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Divine Worship Congregation, responds to those who have seen an intercommunion between Catholics and Lutherans in a response given by Pope Francis to a Lutheran during his recent visit to the Lutheran community of Rome. "We give communion to Catholics," giving communion to everyone is "a nonsense," says the African Cardinal.

"There is no intercommunion between Anglicans and Catholics, between Catholics and Protestants. If they go together, the Catholic can go to communion, but Lutherans or Anglicans do not. " Without a union in faith and doctrine, opening the doors to intercommunion "would promote profanation." "We cannot do it. It is not that we must speak to the Lord to know if we can make Communion. We need to know whether we are in agreement with the rules of the Church. Our consciousness must be illuminated by the rules of the Church that says that, in order to communicate, we need to be in a state of grace, without sin, and have faith in the Eucharist. It is not a desire or a personal dialogue with Jesus that determines whether we can receive communion in the Catholic Church. A person cannot decide whether he is able to receive Communion. Must be Catholic, in a state of grace, properly married [if conjugated] ". The inter-communion does not allow unity because "the Lord helps us to be one if we receive it properly, otherwise we will eat our condemnation, as St. Paul says (1 Corinthians 11: 27-29). We cannot become one thing only if we participate in communion with sin, with contempt for the Body of Christ. "

Does the CCCB liturgy head, Father Terry Fournier, believe in Transubstantiation?

Nota Bene: I have most certainly written to the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops regarding this. They have not responded. They never do. They have had plenty of time to respond to my letter and to this article. They have not. 

Do not sit out there and accuse this writer of "grave sin" because I reported what the priest interviewed should have corrected right after it appeared in the press. Did he not read it? Did he not see what the reporter wrote? Should he not have contracted the reporter to retract or clarify? Should he not have written here or responded to the email stating that he asked The Star for a correction or clarification?

How dare you sit in judgement of this writer.

Go ask the priest!

There has been apoplectic hysteria in the secular media about the circular letter from the Church on the proper matter for the bread to become consecrated as the Body of Our Lord at the Holy Mass. The issue has been quite misconstrued and distorted by an ignorant press. The fact is, the Church has always held this position, since the matter of "gluten-free" anything became an issue. 

We have Monsignors using money from who knows where to buy cocaine for a sodomite orgy in the Vatican - a situation totally ignored by the secular press, but this is what they have spent a week reporting to discredit the Church for the few Celiac sufferers who cannot consume Blessed Sacrament under one species, even though the other is available.

Anyone who cannot receive Body of the Lord under the form of bread, can receive the Blood of Christ under what was wine, even a child and even at the traditional Latin Mass.

Look, if there is no gluten, then it is not wheat flour, it does not make bread and there is no confection of the Blessed Sacrament, no transubstantiation, period!

This is not a new instruction by the Church, it is simply a restatement of the facts for the reason that the abuse is occurring by errant priests and bishops and the result is that the Sacrament simply isn't!

Invalid matter does not make for a Sacrament!

The Toronto Star is a notorious and near-bankrupt rag of anti-Catholic bigotry and leftism and it has joined the parade. What the Star writes on the matter is not the point, it is who is interviewed and what is said that must be exposed to the Catholic faithful.

Andrea Adam, a rather poorly catechized Catholic mother has a child suffering from Celiac's disease. Mrs. Adam would not accept her parish priest's decision that gluten-free hosts would not be provided. The Toronto Star reporter states that "in the end, Adam took her daughter to Ottawa, where she was able to receive Holy Communion with a gluten-free host."

I've got news for Andrea Adam.

Your daughter was not, "able to receive Holy Communion."  She received a substance made from non-wheat flour that was nothing more than that.

Did know priest ever tell the poor woman this? 

Note that this was Ottawa, under the nose of Archbishop Terence Prendergast, S.J.!

Now, for more.

Terry Fournier is a priest of the Diocese of Sault Ste. Marie and is National Director of Office of Liturgy (English Sector) for the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. Fournier is quoted in the Toronto Star article as follows:

Did you catch that?

"Symbolizes the blood of Christ."


The reporter does not place the phrase, which symbolizes the blood of Christ, in quotation marks. 

Why is this? Did Father say, "don't quote me," with a wink, wink and a nudge, nudge? Is there a reason why the writer quotes him, but does not, at the same time?

I think Father Terry Fournier and Bishop Crosby, President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, should confirm whether the Grand Pub-ha of the liturgical mess of the mass that occurs in Canada actually believes in Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharistic species under the appearance of bread and wine.

Yes, or no, Father Fournier, which is it?

Oh, and, Your Grace, what of that parish in Ottawa with the invalid matter?

An Archbishop, a Prime Minister and Sacrilege

A Mass was held earlier this week at the majestic Notre-Dame Basilica in Montreal to celebrate the historic founding of that once great Catholic city.

The picture below is of the Archbishop of Montreal. A man whom all my contacts there say displays love of the Blessed Sacrament, prays continually, invited in the FSSP, strengthened Opus Dei, lead Eucharistic processions and borne the rebuke of up to 70% of whatever is left of the effeminate Montreal clergy.

Why then do we have him giving Holy Communion, the veritable body, blood, soul and divinity of the God-man to the Prime Minister of Canada? A poor measure of a man who has ushered in euthanasia, legalised marijuana, dresses like a Mohammedan in a mosque, prohibits anyone from running for election in his party who has a pro-life position, advocates for the murder of babies in the womb, has just forced through $600,000,000.00 CDN to fund abortions overseas and forces genderist ideology on Canadians.

What should we expect, really?

It was the Catholic "Church" of Canada Inc., that did everything they could to get this degenerate elected.

How much do those of us in the English-speaking world owe Sandro Magister. For years now, this blogger has frequently linked and quoted him. He is true in faith and erudite in his analysis. He has suffered for it at the hands of Vatican apparatchiks.

Once again, we see the villains that have taken over Rome

http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2017/02/16/communion-for-all-catholics-and-protestants-words-of-kasper-or-rather-of-the-pope/

Remain true friend. Do not despair. Pray your Rosary, pray the Divine Office linked to the right above, or if need be, the modern Liturgy of the Hours, also linked above. I cannot stress enough the importance of attending the traditional Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. 

16 Feb

Communion For All, Catholics and Protestants. Words of Kasper, Or Rather of the Pope

The obscurity with which Pope Francis loves to speak and write on the most controversial questions is one of the constants of his magisterium, an obscurity that reached its summit in the response that he gave on November 15, 2015 to a Lutheran woman married to a Catholic, who was asking him if she too could receive communion at Mass:

http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2017/02/16/communion-for-all-catholics-and-protestants-words-of-kasper-or-rather-of-the-pope/

Shared Communion would be blasphemy and sacrilege? Not according to the once Deacon Tom Rosica, CSB

Remember when Pope Bergoglio visited that Martin Luther Heretic Centre in Rome and told the Lutheran woman enquiring about Holy Communion to use her conscience and "go forward?"

How about the latest from Kasper the UnFriendly Cardinal who suggested that intercommunion should occur between Lutherans and Catholics, notwithstanding that our understanding of Transubstantiation and their "con" substantiation are two immensely different things?

The most important Catholic journalist today, Edward Pentin is reporting on comments by Msgr. Nicola Bux, that such a thing would be "blasphemy and sacrilege."

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/theologian-shared-communion-with-protestants-would-be-blasphemy-and-sacrile

Remember our old friend Thomas J. Rosica, CSB?

Well, we can't be sure what old Father Tommy thinks now, but we sure know what Deacon Thomas J. Rosica, of the ever collapsing Congregation of St. Basil, once thought:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=pfBfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ilMMAAAAIBAJ&dq=tom-rosica&pg=3306,762230&hl=en

Pitchforks, torches and brooms.

It's time to take down these heretics in Rome and sweep out the stables.

Or drain the Tiber swamp, if you prefer.

Heresiarch Kasper calls on Bergoglio to permit Inter-Communion with Protestants!

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, comes this report from Avvenire,  an interview with Walter Kasper published four days ago and now made available to us courtesy of LifeSiteNews. 

Walter Kasper, the same who convinced the Bishop of Rome, to issue the heretical Amoris Laetitia provision for Holy Communion for those in adultery, is now moving more aggressively in his push to destroy the Faith. Lest anyone doubt this possibility, it was fellow German heresiarch Lehmann that urged for these modernists to push for more, "while Francis is still Pope," no doubt sensing the pushback coming upon these malefactors and Bergoglio's imminent octogenarian status.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-kasper-continues-to-push-for-intercommunion

Given Kasper's influence, make no mistake that Bergoglio may very well undertake this sacrilege fitting well with that in Amoris Laetitia. This is nothing new for those surrounding Bergoglio. Father Thomas J. Rosica, CSB, whilst still a Deacon and active in Canadian ecumenical outreach advocated this very position. 

Bishops and Cardinals must not allow Heresiarch Kasper to push this evil agenda forward as he did previously. How can Bergoglio be trusted to uphold the faith in this regard given the influence that the evil Kasper has already had over him?

There was a time when a public excommunication for Kasper would have been routine.

Let them be anathema!

Black Mass Sacrilege on this Holy Day. - O Mary assumed into heaven, ever-glorious Virgin Mother of God, pray for us.

https://gloria.tv/article/qz6ooBQUJPGwJnDnnToAo8z7i

Urgent Prayer Request - Cardinal Burke; Planned Black Mass: Please help take action

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

I am outraged and most profoundly saddened by the news that a public sacrilegious Black Mass is scheduled to take place in Oklahoma City on the 15th of August, the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I have also been informed that, after the horrible sacrilege of the Black Mass, a further blasphemy will be perpetrated directly against the Blessed Virgin Mary. All of this is being done with the official sanction of the legitimate authorities.

For this reason, let us turn to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, through the recitation of the Holy Rosary, to storm Heaven with our prayers to make reparation for these sins and blasphemies that further provoke God's just wrath upon our beloved Nation.

It is the fundamental obligation of every faithful Catholic to stand up for the honor and glory of God and the honor of the Mother of God. In this critical hour, may we not fail to fulfill our obligation of love and devotion toward Our Lord and His heavenly mother.

I ask and beseech each of you to unite with me on this day as I offer Holy Mass and pray a Holy Rosary in reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Let us also pray for the poor souls that are perpetrating these blasphemies.

I urge you to invite your family members, your friends and other fellow Catholics to join in this act of reparation.

Yours devotedly in the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary,

Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke

* ** *** **** ***** ****** ***** **** *** ** *
Take Immediate Action:

Call the Mayor of Oklahoma City, Mick Cornett, and the governor of Oklahoma, Mary Fallin, to voice your opposition to a Black Mass to be followed by the desecration of a Blessed Mother statue, scheduled to take place by satanists at their civic center on Monday, the Feast of the Assumption.

Both offices are taking calls and keeping a tally. Unbelievable that they are allowing this on the grounds of free speech! This situation begs for a moral compass to be applied.

In the United States, call:
Mayor Mick Cornett - 405-297-2424

Toronto parish of St. Leo's Mimico denies Holy Communion on the tongue

All the new marble and art work and beautification of a what had been a dirty, dilapidated, unworthy and terribly wreckovated Toronto church, means absolutely nothing. 

As much effort that was put into this has become worthless. Worthless if the liturgy is not worthy. As worthless as Canon Law and the Instructions from the Church, such as Redemptionis Sacramentum, as when a priest decides on his own what he will follow. His own clericalism, pride and modernist mindset.

"You denied me Communion," said the parishioner, a man known to me for at least a decade. "No," he replied, "I offered and you rejected Communion." 

This after the Communicant, who presented himself at the end of the Communion line with his little daughter in tow, knelt and put out his tongue to receive the Lord. 

This is clericalism. It is arrogance and a violation of the Law to dismiss the rights of the faithful. But with our current Pope, who cares about the Law? This is the Francis effect in the peripheries. The smelly sheep mean nothing to these men.

The renovation above is but a shell and fraud if this kind of abominable un-priestly behaviour continues.

There were twenty people at the Mass this morning and the father and his little daughter were the youngest. He was denied Communion on the tongue and told it was be "his choice," if he never came back. 

This generation of priests have no fruit to show. It is all a facade, just like much of what you see above.

This issue has been addressed previously on this blog, so many times and it keeps coming back. Within the last year, a similar situation happened at St. Pius X Church on Bloor Street, not far from St. Leo's, when another faithful Catholic was harassed over Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling.

Unacceptable!

Fathers, is this what it takes to stop this? Do you have to be publicly "outed" to get it through your heads that you cannot do this?

It is not acceptable. It is scandalous and clericalist.

Far be it from me to target every priest with this statement, not all of you to be sure, some of you are friends and acquaintances so please forgive me -- but the rot from the Pocock, Carter and Ambrozic eras has a stench to it of effeminacy, modernism, clericalism and Arianism that is nothing more than a pussification of the priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It needs to be lanced no matter how putrid the smell.   

STOP IT NOW FATHERS, AND YES, I'M YELLING!

You will be held accountable for these games and you may even end up in Hell for it. 

Catholic people, do not let these clericalists and liturgical fascists manipulate you.

Oh, he'll be calling; you can count on it; and the last memory the little girl will have of this parish is to have this priest tell her father, "I don't care if you here for Mass anymore.

After 50 years of priesthood Father? Surely, you can do better than that.

Postcript.

Neil MacCarthy ‏@neilmaccarthy  1h1 hour ago

@VoxCantoris @archtoronto The GIRM is clear in its instruction. I'd encourage those concerned to speak to the priest or archdiocese.

I thank the Director of Communications, Neil MacCarthy, for the public statement, affirming what the GIRM states. Clearly, the Cardinal and Chancellor, in spite of the many, many problems on their desks, don't need this. 

Priests of Toronto, smarten up! 

The laity do not need your shenanigans!

With everything else going on, does Cardinal Collins or the Chancellor, Father Camilleri really need to deal with this kind of thing!

From the General Instruction on the Roman Missal (Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite)

160. ... In the Dioceses of Canada, Holy Communion is to be received standing, though INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL MAY CHOOSE TO RECEIVE COMMUNION WHILE KNEELING.... WHEN RECEIVING HOLY COMMUNION ON THE TONGUE, THEY REVERENTLY JOIN THEIR HANDS;...

161. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the Priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, The Body of Christ. THE COMMUNICANT REPLIES, AMEN, AND RECEIVES THE SACRAMENT [EITHER] ON THE TONGUE,or... As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes the whole of it.

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.

Is Jorge Bergoglio skirting around what appears to be a heretical notion on the Holy Eucharist?

In a stunning address to the ecclesial community of the heretic Martin Luther in Rome, Jorge Bergoglio Bishop of Rome came as close as he could to mock the Holy Eucharist and hint at his desire for inter-communion with the heretical Lutherans.  He actually had the temerity to joke about "being scared" before Kasper and that he "dare not say anything more" concluding his diatribe.

Does Jorge Bergoglio believe Catholic dostrine in the Euchar

His remarks are insulting and demeaning to every Catholic who believes in the Body, Blood. Soul and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ truly present in the Holy Eucharist. He refuses to genuflect at the altar to Christ, truly present yet he can grovel on the floor to wash the feet of a Muslim. Is it his health or does he just not believe? How can it be his health if he can wash feet on the floor. 

Does his belief actually coincide with that of the heretic, Martin Luther? The Lutheran understanding of the Holy Eucharist is not Transubstantiation but consubstantiation, a heretical doctrine attempting as outlined in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

This heretical doctrine is an attempt to hold the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist without admitting Transubstantiation. According to it, the substance of Christ's Body exists together with the substance of bread, and in like manner the substance of His Blood together with the substance of wine. Hence the word Consubstantiation. How the two substances can coexist is variously explained. The most subtle theory is that, just as God the Son took to Himself a human body without in any way destroying its substance, so does He in the Blessed Sacrament assume the nature of bread. Hence the theory is also called "Impanation", a term founded on the analogy of Incarnation. 

Lutheranism is heresy

Lutheran bishops have no apostolic succession. They don't even try to argue the point that they do have it, as Anglicans insist upon doing. Their ministers have no power to consecrate bread and wine to Our Lord's Body and Blood. They do not have the belief, nor the intent to confect the Holy Sacrament, let alone the power.

When the Missal of Paul VI was issued it contained a blatant heresy that was corrected; or was it?

ORIGINAL TEXT OF November 1969 Missal of Paul VI

“ The Lord’s Supper or the Mass is the sacred assembly or gathering together of the people of God, under the presidency of a priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. That is why the promise of Christ  : ‘ Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them ’ (Mt 18.20) applies in a special way to this local gathering of Holy Church. ”

CORRECTED TEXT OF MAY 1970

“ In the Mass or the Lord’s Supper, the people of God come together, under the presidency of a priest who represents Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or Eucharistic sacrifice. That is why the promise of Christ  : ‘ Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them ’ (Mt 18.20) applies in a special way to this local gathering of Holy Church. ” For in the celebration of the Mass, in which the sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated, Christ is really present in the very community which has gathered in His name, in the person of the minister, in His Word, and indeed substantially and continuously under the Eucharistic species.

Does the Bishop of Rome believe the heresy of the Preface to the Missal of Paul VI, the Novus Ordo Missae? It was corrected, did he acknowledge the correction or does he subscribe to the heresy?

The Eucharist is not a "supper!" It is the Propitiatory Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ on Calvary brought forward in time and re-presented in an unbloody manner on the Altar. 

Does the Pope believe this or not?

Bergoglio of Rome is telling this woman to deal with it as her conscience dictates. If he is telling her to approach for Holy Communion what is the doctrinal basis for this? What does this say about where he intends to take the Church? Is he giving us yet another clue of what he intends to do as a follow-up to the recent Synod?

Jorge Bergoglio, stop this insanity. You are the Bishop of Rome! You are creating division and anxiety amongst the Catholic faithful. You are creating confusion. You are playing with heresy. You have told this woman to commit sacrilege. 

Step back from the brink of heresy

Bergloglio is on the verge of heresy. History will condemn him.

Is this enough for Bishops and Cardinals to intervene?

Now, read below all of his words in answer to a question by a woman in a “mixed” marriage where she referred to "the hurt we've felt together due to [their] difference of faith" and asked about their ability "to finally participate together in Communion."

The question on sharing the Lord’s Supper isn’t easy for me to respond to, above all in front of a theologian like Cardinal Kasper – I’m scared! I think of how the Lord told us when he gave us this mandatum to “do this in memory of me,” and when we share the Lord’s Supper, we recall and we imitate the same as the Lord. And there will be the Lord’s Supper in the final banquet in the new Jerusalem – it’ll be there! But that will be the last one… in the meantime, I ask myself and don’t know how to respond – what you’re asking me, I ask myself the question. To share the Lord’s banquet: is it the goal of the path or is it the viaticum [etym. “to accompany you on the journey”] for walking together? I leave that question to the theologians and those who understand.
 It’s true that in a certain sense, to share means that there aren’t differences between us, that we have the same doctrine – underscoring that word, a difficult word to understand. But I ask myself: but don’t we have the same Baptism? If we have the same Baptism, shouldn’t we be walking together? And you’re a witness of a likewise profound journey, a journey of marriage: itself a journey of family and human love and of a shared faith, no? We have the same Baptism.
 When you feel yourself a sinner – and I’m much more of a sinner – when your husband feels he’s sinned, you go forward to the Lord and ask forgiveness; your husband does the same and also goes to the priest and asks absolution, [thus] I’m healed and kept alive in my Baptism. When you pray together, that Baptism grows, becomes stronger. When you teach your kids who is Jesus? Why did Jesus come? What did Jesus do for us?, you’re doing the same thing, whether in the Lutheran language or the Catholic one, but it’s the same.
 The question [Pope draws question mark with his finger]…. The supper? There are questions that only if one is sincere with oneself and the little theological light one has, must be responded to on one’s own. See for yourself. This is my body. This is my blood. Do it in remembrance of me – this is a viaticum that helps us to journey on.
 I once had a great friendship with a bishop who went a little wrong – 48 years old, he married [then had] two children. This made for great discomfort in him – a Catholic wife, Catholic children, him a bishop. He accompanied them on Sunday, his wife and children, to Mass, and then went to worship with his community…. It was a step toward his participation in the Lord’s Supper. Then he went forward, then the Lord called him [to realize] “I’m not right.”
 I can only respond to your question with a question: what can I do with my husband that the Lord’s Supper might accompany me on my path? It’s a problem that each must answer [for themselves], but a pastor-friend once told me that “We believe that the Lord is present there, he is present” – you believe that the Lord is present. And what's the difference? There are explanations, interpretations, but life is bigger than explanations and interpretations. Always refer back to your baptism – one faith, one baptism, one Lord: this Paul tells us; and then consequences come later.
 I would never dare to give permission to do this, because it’s not my own competence. One baptism, one Lord, one faith. Talk to the Lord and then go forward. [Pauses] And I wouldn't dare – I don’t dare say anything more.

Source: http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.ca/2015/11/life-is-bigger-than-explanations-to.html

Good plan not to say "anything more." 

You've said quite enough!

The days are coming, indeed, they are already here

Originally published on June 26, 2015 and in light of the Abomination of Desolation which took place at Our Saviour's Parish Church in New York City and the heretical and potentially sacrilegious treatment of the Holy Eucharist by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I am re-posting this today as solemn warning.

The Days Are Coming, and Are Already Here

by Giacomo Cardinal Biffi 

The Antichrist, says Soloviev, was "a convinced spiritualist." He believed in goodness, and even in God. He was an ascetic, a scholar, a philanthropist. He gave "the greatest possible demonstrations of moderation, disinterest, and active beneficence."

In his early youth, he had distinguished himself as a talented and insightful exegete: one of his extensive works on biblical criticism had brought him an honorary degree from the University of Tübingen.

But the book that had gained for him universal fame and consensus bore the title: "The Open Road to Universal Peace and Prosperity," in which "a noble respect for ancient traditions and symbols was joined with a sweeping, audacious radicalism toward social and political needs and directives. Limitless freedom of thought was united with a profound comprehension of everything mystical; absolute individualism with an ardent dedication to the common good; the most elevated idealism toward guiding principles with the complete precision and viability of practical solutions."

It is true that some men of faith wondered why the name of Christ did not appear even once, but others replied: "If the contents of the book are permeated with the true Christian spirit, with active love and universal benevolence, what more do you want?" Besides, he "was not in principle hostile to Christ." On the contrary, he appreciated his right intentions and lofty teaching.

But three things about Jesus were unacceptable to him.

First of all, his moral preoccupations. "The Christ," he asserted, "has divided men according to good and evil with his moralism, whereas I will unite them with the benefits that both good and evil alike require."

He also did not like Christ's "absolute uniqueness." He was one of many, or even better – he said – he was my precursor, because I am the perfect and definitive saviour; I have purified his message of what is unacceptable for the men of today.

Finally, and above all, he could not endure the fact that Christ is alive, so much so that he repeated hysterically: "He is not among the living, and will never be. He is not risen, he is not risen, he is not risen. He rotted, he rotted in the tomb…"

But where Soloviev's presentation shows itself to be particularly original and surprising – and merits greater reflection – is in the attribution to the Antichrist of the qualities of pacifist, environmentalist, ecumenist. […]

Did Soloviev have a particular person in mind when he made this description of the Antichrist? It is undeniable that he alludes above all to the "new Christianity" that Leo Tolstoy was successfully promoting during those years. […]

In his "Gospel," Tolstoy reduces all of Christianity to five rules of conduct which he derives from the Sermon on the Mount:

1. Not only must you not kill, but you must not even become angry with your brother.

2. You must not give in to sensuality, not even to the desire for your own wife.

3. You must never bind yourself by swearing an oath.

4. You must not resist evil, but you must apply the principle of non-violence to the utmost and in every case.

5. Love, help, and serve your enemy.

According to Tolstoy, although these precepts come from Christ, they in no way require the actual existence of the Son of the living God to be valid. [...]

Of course, Soloviev does not specifically identify the great novelist with the figure of the Antichrist. But he intuited with extraordinary clairvoyance that Tolstoy's creed would become during the 20th century the vehicle of the substantial nullification of the gospel message, under the formal exaltation of an ethics and a love for humanity presented as Christian "values." [...]

The days will come, Soloviev tells us – and are already here, we say – in which the salvific meaning of Christianity, which can be received only in a difficult, courageous, concrete, and rational act of faith, will be dissolved into a series of "values" easily sold on the world markets.

The greatest of the Russian philosophers warns us that we must guard against this danger. Even if a Tolstoian Christianity were to make us infinitely more acceptable in the living room, at social and political gatherings, and on television, we cannot and must not renounce the Christianity of Jesus Christ, the Christianity that has at its center the scandal of the cross and the astonishing reality of the Lord's resurrection.

Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Son of God, the only saviour of mankind, cannot be transformed into a series of worthwhile projects and good inspirations, which are part and parcel of the dominant worldly mentality. Jesus Christ is a "rock," as he said of himself. And one either builds upon this "rock” (by entrusting oneself) or lunges against it (through opposition): "He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on any one, it will crush him" (Mt. 21:44). [...]

So Soloviev's teaching was simultaneously prophetic and largely ignored. But we want to repropose it in the hope that Christianity will finally catch on to it and pay it a bit of attention.

The new book by Giacomo Cardinal Biffi from which the passage on the Antichrist was taken:

Giacomo Biffi, "Pinocchio, Peppone, l’Anticristo e altre divagazioni [Pinocchio, Peppone, the Antichrist, and other Meanderings],” > Cantagalli, Siena, 2005, pp. 256, euro 14,90.

Link to original: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/32418?eng=y

And this:

Soloviev And Our Time

By Giacomo Cardinal Biffi

Vladimir Sergeevic Soloviev passed away 100 years ago, on July 31 (August 13 according to our Gregorian calendar) of the year 1900. He passed away on the threshold of the 20th century -- a century whose vicissitudes and troubles he had foreseen with striking clarity, but also a century, which, tragically, in its historical course and dominant ideologies, would reject his most profound and important teachings. His, therefore, was a teaching at once prophetic and largely unheeded.

A Prophetic Teaching

At the time of the great Russian philosopher, the general view -- in keeping with the limitless optimism of the "belle epoque"' -- foresaw a bright future for humanity in the new century: under the direction and inspiration of the new religion of progress and solidarity stripped of transcendent elements, humanity would enjoy an era of prosperity, peace, justice, security. In the "Excelsior" -- a form of dance, which enjoyed an extraordinary success in the last years of the 19th century (and which later lent its name to countless theaters and hotels) -- this new religion found its own liturgy, as it were. Victor Hugo proclaimed: "This century was great, the one coming will be happy."

But Soloviev refused to allow himself to be swept up in this de-sacralized vision. On the contrary, he predicted with prophetic clarity all of the disasters which in fact occurred.

As early as 1882, in his "Second Discourse on Dostoevsky," Soloviev foresaw -- and condemned -- the sterility and cruelty of the collectivist tyranny which a few years later would oppress Russia and mankind. "The world must not be saved by recourse to force." Soloviev said. "One could imagine men toiling together toward some great end to which they would submit all of their own individual activity; but if this end is imposed on them, if it represents for them something fated and oppressive... then, even if this unity were to embrace all of mankind, universal brotherhood would not be the result, but only a giant anthill." This "anthill" was later constructed through the obtuse and cruel ideology of Lenin and Stalin.

In his final work, The Three Dialogues and the Story of the Antichrist (finished on Easter Sunday 1900), one is struck by how clearly Soloviev foresaw that the 20th century would be "the epoch of great wars, civil strife and revolutions" All this, he said, would prepare the way for the disappearance of "the old structure of separate nations" and "almost everywhere the remains of the ancient monarchical institutions would disappear." This would pave the way for a "United States of Europe."

The accuracy of Soloviev's vision of the great crisis that would strike Christianity at the end of the 20th century is astonishing.

He represents this crisis using the figure of the Antichrist. This fascinating personage will succeed in influencing and persuading almost everyone. It is not difficult to see in this figure of Soloviev the reflection, almost the incarnation, of the confused and ambiguous religiosity of our time.

The Antichrist will be a "convinced spiritualist" Soloviev says, an admirable philanthropist, a committed, active pacifist, a practicing vegetarian, a determined defender of animal rights.

He will also be, among other things, an expert exegete. His knowledge of the bible will even lead the theology faculty of Tubingen to award him an honorary doctorate. Above all, he will be a superb ecumenist, able to engage in dialogue "with words full of sweetness, wisdom and eloquence."

He will not be hostile "in principle" to Christ. Indeed, he will appreciate Christ's teaching. But he will reject the teaching that Christ is unique, and will deny that Christ is risen and alive today.

One sees here described -- and condemned -- a Christianity of "values," of "openings," of "dialogue," a Christianity where it seems there is little room left for the person of the Son of God crucified for us and risen, little room for the actual event of salvation.

A scenario, I think, that should cause us to reflect...

A scenario in which the faith militant is reduced to humanitarian and generically cultural action, the Gospel message is located in an irenic encounter with all philosophies and all religions and the Church of God is transformed into an organization for social work.

Are we sure Soloviev did not foresee what has actually come to pass? Are we sure it is not precisely this that is the most perilous threat today facing the "holy nation" redeemed by the blood of Christ -- the Church?

It is a disturbing question and one we must not avoid.

A Teaching Unheeded

Soloviev understood the 20th century like no one else, but the 20th century did not understand Soloviev.

It isn't that he has not been not recognized and honored. He is often called the greatest Russian philosopher, and few contest this appellation.

Von Balthasar regarded his work "the most universal speculative creation of the modern period" (Gloria III, p. 263) and even goes so far as to set him on the level of Thomas Aquinas.

But there is no doubt that the 20th century, as a whole, gave him no heed. Indeed, the 20th century, at every turn, has gone in the direction opposed to the one he indicated.

The mental attitudes prevalent today, even among many ecclesially active and knowledgeable Christians, are very far indeed from Soloviev's vision of reality.

Among many, here are a few examples:

• Egoistic individualism, which is ever more profoundly leaving its mark on our behaviors and laws;

• Moral subjectivism, which leads people to hold that it is licit and even praiseworthy to assume positions in the legislative and political spheres different from the behavioral norms one personally adheres to;

• Pacifism and non-violence of the Tolstoyan type confused with the Gospel ideals of peace and fraternity to the point of surrendering to tyranny and abandoning the weak and the good to the powerful;

• A theological view which, out of fear of being labeled reactionary, forgets the unity of God's plan, renounces spreading divine truth in all spheres, and abdicates the attempt to live out a coherent Christian life.

In one special way, the 20th century, in its movements and in its social, political and cultural results, strikingly rejected Soloviev's great moral construction. Soloviev held that fundamental ethical principles were rooted in three primordial experiences, naturally present in all men: that is to say, modesty, piety toward others and the religious sentiment.

Yet the 20th century, following an egoistic and unwise sexual revolution, reached levels of permissivism, openly displayed vulgarity and public shamelessness, which seem to have few parallels in history.

Moreover, the 20th century was the most oppressive and bloody of all history, a century without respect for human life and without mercy.

We cannot, certainly, forget the horror of the extermination of the Jews, which can never be execrated sufficiently. But it was not the only extermination. No one remembers the genocide of the Armenians during the First World War.

No one commemorates the tens of millions killed under the Soviet regime.

No one ventures to calculate the number of victims sacrificed uselessly in the various parts of the earth to the communist Utopia.

As for the religious sentiment during the 20th century, in the East for the first time state atheism was both proposed and imposed on a vast portion of humanity, while in the secularized West a hedonistic and libertarian atheism spread until it arrived at the grotesque idea of the "death of God."

In conclusion: Soloviev was undoubtedly a prophet and a teacher, but a teacher who was, in a way, irrelevant. And this, paradoxically, is why he was great and why he is precious for our time.

A passionate defender of the human person and allergic to every philanthropy; a tireless apostle of peace and adversary of pacifism; a promoter of Christian unity and critic of every irenicism: a lover of nature and yet very far from today's ecological infatuations -- in a word, a friend of truth and an enemy of ideology.

Of leaders like him we have today great need.

Born in Milan on June 15, 1928, Biffi was ordained on December 25, 1950. A Milan seminary professor, he became a bishop in 1976, then archbishop of Bologna in 1984 and a cardinal on May 25, 1985.

In Bologna, he is the 110th successor of St. Petronius.

Link to source: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3430