“A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, 'You are mad; you are not like us.” ― St. Antony the Great
Let us give Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt that he knows absolutely nothing about this. What kind of idiots work at Vatican Radio - English that think that this is a good idea? The Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ on Earth. He is not a to be used for promotion of some flippant cause by unjust men no matter what "good" they might think it will bring. Should we dump a bucket of ice over his head too? I may have issues with the Pope and some of his comments and his actions but this clearly proves that he is surrounded by dangerous and deceitful people. What an insult to the Church and to Our Lord.
Barona at Toronto Catholic Witness has published this post and this incredible video by Polonia Cristiana. CATHOLICS - WAKE UP! It is your duty and it is mine. You can be silent no longer. Our Mother is being raped! Jerusalem! Jerusalem! Return unto the LORD, thy God!
"If we do not defend marriage, then we will not defend the Church Herself"
Raymond Cardinal Burke
Polonia Christiana has released an extraordinary video that focuses our attention on the very grave crisis in the Catholic Church; and it goes far and beyond the upcoming Synod. Indeed, the crisis - as seen at least year's October pre-syndol gathering - is far, far deeper than just what transpired in Rome during those two weeks. The crisis has been building for decades, even centuries. I would suggest what we are seeing is the bitter fruit of the Catholic Church being penetrated by liberalism and rationalism. This crisis is perhaps even graver than the Arian crisis.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: "That even some Bishops in their public pronouncements contradict some respect[s] of the Catholic doctrine, especially of the moral issues".
"It is our duty, our first duty, to be faithful to God"
"And all the strategies and of Cardinal Kasper and
his group will be revealed as a lie. As a strategy which is against the Spirit
of Christ and of the Apostles".
Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga:"I think there is a spirit of the Gospels nowadays. Therefore there is no great message in what the high-ranking hierarchs say. There is no great power in it. It is only a bunch of beautifully spoken words, but there is no truth in it".
"Either we are on the side of Christ, or we are on
the side of the devil. There is no third option"
"... if we believe that homosexuals brought something into the Church, it is nothing but debauchery and licentiousness"
The Right and Duty to Resist a Pope
The Popes, Saints, Fathers, Doctors and approved theologians of the Roman Catholic Church have told us through the ages that a pope can be a heretic against the Roman Catholic faith and attempt to destroy the Church through inappropriate policies. Such a pope is to be disobeyed and resisted as a matter of duty.
St. Peter’s instruction
The first pope St. Peter († 67) gave us the general principle of disobedience to, and resistance of, corrupt hierarchies and their commands when he was forbidden to preach Christ by the apostate Jews. When there is a conflict between the will of a religious superior and God, we are to obey God.
“But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)
The Doctor Saint Thomas Aquinas O.P († 1274) used this incident as an indication that all superiors are to be disobeyed should their commands be against the Will of God.
“It is written: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.” (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 104, A. 5)
The theologian Juan Cardinal De Torquemada O.P. († 1468) expressly related that Bible passage to the duty to resist a wayward pontiff.
“Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: 'One ought to obey God rather than man'; therefore,were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over.” (Summa de Ecclesia)
So, “superiors are not to be obeyed in all things”; a “pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done” and “we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things.” A pope can command “against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law” and then “he ought not to be obeyed.”
St. Paul’s example
Pope St. Peter I himself was publicly resisted to his face by St. Paul because he endangered the truth of the Gospel.
“But when Cephas [Peter] was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Galatians 2:11)
The Fathers of the Church explained that the incident shows us the correctness of resisting wayward ecclesiastics, even popes. The great Scripture commentator Cornelius a Lapide († 1637) wrote as follows:
“Superiors may be admonished by their subordinates in all humility and charity so that truth may be defended: this is the basis (Galatians 2, 11) on which St. Augustine, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory, St. Thomas and many others who are quoted support this opinion. They teach quite unequivocally that St. Peter, although superior in authority to St. Paul, was admonished by him. St. Gregory rightly states that, “Peter remained silent so that, being first in the hierarchy of the Apostles, he might equally be first in humility.” St. Augustine writes, “By showing that superiors admit that they may be rebuked by their subordinates, St. Peter gave posterity an example of saintliness more noteworthy than that given by St. Paul, although the latter showed, nonetheless, that it is possible for subordinates to have the boldness to resist their superiors without fear, when in all charity they speak out in the defence of truth.”“ (Commentary Ad Gal., II, 11.)
So, the Doctor St. Augustine told us that we should “boldly”resist superiors, including the Pope, “without fear”, when we are defending the Faith.
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that the Scripture passage shows that a pope who errs from the Faith must be resisted openly and publicly because of the danger which exists for the Faithful to be corrupted and led into error.
“There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glossa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), 'St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometimes they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects.” (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A. 4)
He also commented on it as follows:
“The reprehension was just and useful, and the reason for it was not light: there was a danger for the preservation of Gospel truth. […] The way it took place was appropriate, since it was public and manifest. For this reason, St. Paul writes: 'I spoke to Cephas,' that is, Peter, 'before everyone,' since the simulation practiced by St. Peter was fraught with danger to everyone.” (Super Epistulas S. Pauli, Ad Galatas, 2, 11-14 (Taurini/ Rome: Marietti, 1953), lec. III, nn. 83f.)
That is how a heretical pope and his errors are to be resisted: “boldly”, “without fear”, “publicly” and “before everyone”, because he is a “danger to everyone”. That is the teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.
The instruction of the popes
Various popes have also told us that popes can err from the Faith and should then be resisted.
Pope Innocent III († 1216) stated that a pope can “wither away into heresy” and “not believe” the Faith.
“The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because “he who does not believe is already judged.” (St. John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’” (Sermo 4)
Pope Adrian VI († 1523) stated that “it is beyond question” that a pope can “err in matters touching the Faith”, he can “teach heresy” in decrees. He also stated “many Roman Pontiffs were heretics”.
“If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334).” (Quaest. in IV Sent.; quoted in Viollet, Papal Infallibility and the Syllabus, 1908).*
(* According to the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia, this work was published in 1512 from the notes of his student and without his supervision, but as it saw “many editions” it would appear that the pope did not repudiate the passage as not his own, in a work attributed to him.)
Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878) recognised the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and “teach contrary to the Catholic Faith”, and he instructed, “do not follow him.”
“If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.” (Letter to Bishop Brizen)
Pope Adrian II († 872) admitted that papal heresy “renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter's pernicious teachings.”
“We read that the Roman Pontiff has always possessed authority to pass judgment on the heads of all the Churches (i.e., the patriarchs and bishops), but nowhere do we read that he has been the subject of judgment by others. It is true that Honorius was posthumously anathematised by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, the only offence which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter's pernicious teachings”.
However, I must disagree with Pope Adrian when he said that heresy was the only offence that justified resistance: the Saints and Doctors have informed us otherwise, as we shall see.
Further, Pope Honorius I († 638) was not merely “accused of heresy” or “anathematised by the Eastern Churches”: he was anathematised as a heretic by the ecumenical Council of III Constantinople, whose Acts were confirmed by Pope Leo II († 683).
“We foresaw that, together with them, also Honorius, before Pope of Old Rome, is cast out of the Holy Catholic Church of God and anathematized, for we have found by his writings sent to [the heretic] Sergius, that he followed the thinking of the latter in everything, and continued his impious principles. [...] To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”
So we see that popes have told us that a pope can “wither away into heresy” and “not believe” the Faith; that “it is beyond question” that a pope can “err in matters touching the Faith”, he can “teach heresy” in decrees; that “many Roman Pontiffs were heretics”; that a pope may be a heretic and “teach […] contrary to the Catholic Faith”, in which case we are to follow the instruction “do not follow him”; and that papal heresy “renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter's pernicious teachings.”
The teaching of the saints and theologians
The Saints and theologians have told us the same thing through the ages: we must not obey but rather resist wayward pontiffs and their corrupt hierarchies.
The first Doctor of the Church, St. Athanasius († 373), told us that “Catholics faithful to Tradition” can be “reduced to a handful”. He wrote during the Arian crisis, when the global episcopacy defected to Arianism and Pope Liberius († 366) went into heresy, signed a heretical Arian creed and invalidly excommunicated St. Athanasius, as did the heretical bishops of the East.
“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” (Epistle to the Catholics)
St. Vincent of Lerins († 445) is the Father of the Church most associated with the defence of unchanging doctrinal tradition. It is the subject of his main treatise, the Commonitory. He foresaw that if the whole Church should go into heresy we must keep to the traditional Faith handed down from the Fathers.
“What then should a Catholic do if some portion of the Church detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? What choice can he make if some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once? Then his great concern will be to attach himself to antiquity which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty.” (Commonitory)
A general corruption of the hierarchy has been foreseen and has happened before and the Saints have told us how we are to respond: we are to keep to the traditional, true Catholic Faith which has been handed down from the Fathers and to reject the “lying novelties” of the pope and the hierarchy.
The theologian Sylvester Prieras, O.P. († 1523) discussed the resistance of a corrupt pope at some length. He asked, “What should be done in cases where the pope destroys the Church by his evil actions?” and “What should be done if the pope wishes unreasonably to abolish the laws of church or state?” His answer was as follows:
“He would certainly be in sin, and it would be unlawful to allow him to act in such a fashion, and likewise to obey himin matters which are evil; on the contrary, there is a duty to oppose him while administering a courteous rebuke.
“Thus, were he to wish to distribute the Church's wealth, or Peter's Patrimony among his own relatives; were he to wish to destroy the church or to commit an act of similar magnitude, there would be a duty to prevent him, and likewise an obligation to oppose him and resist him. The reason being that he does not possess power in order to destroy, and thus it follows that if he is so doing it is lawful to oppose him.”
“It is clear from the preceding that, if the pope by his commands, orders or by his actions is destroying the church, he may be resisted and the fulfilment of his commands prevented. The right of open resistance to prelates’ abuse of authority stems also from natural law.” (Dialogus de Potestate Papae)
It would be “unlawful to allow him to act in such a fashion”, without any resistance, and “likewise to obey him.” There is “a duty to prevent him, and likewise an obligation to oppose him and resist him.” As he has papal power only to build up the Church and not to destroy it, it is “lawful to oppose him.” He is to be “resisted and the fulfilment of his commands prevented.” “Open resistance” is a right and a duty.
The theologian Tommaso Cardinal de Vio Gaetani Cajetan O.P. († 1534) declared: “It is imperative to resist a pope who is openlydestroying the Church.” (De Comparata Auctoritate Papae et Concilio). Such a pope must be resisted, his policies opposed and prevented and true Catholic Faith and practice maintained. Resistance must be established and advanced.
The canonist and theologian, Fr. Francisco de Victoria, O.P. († 1546) told us the same.
“According to natural law, violence may lawfully be opposed by violence. Now, through the acts permitted and the orders of the kind under discussion, the Pope does commit violence, because he is acting contrary to what is lawful. It therefore follows that it is lawful to oppose him publicly. Cajetan draws attention to the fact that this should not be interpreted as meaning that anybody whosoever canjudge the Pope, or assume authority over him, but rather that it is lawful to defend oneself even against him. Every person, in fact, has the right to oppose an unjust action in order to prevent, if he is able, its being carried out, and thus he defends himself.” (Obras, pp. 486-7)
All of the Faithful have the right to oppose the actions of a corrupt pope and to try to prevent his harmful policies from being carried out. It is “lawful to oppose him publicly.”
The theologian, Francisco Suarez S.J. († 1617), said likewise.
“If the pope gives an order contrary to right customs, heshould not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defence.” (De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16)
The Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J. († 1621), wrote a treatise on the Papacy which was used as a basis for the definition of the limits of papal infallibility which was made at Vatican I. He wrote as follows:
“Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.” (De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, Ch. 29)
A pope “who attempts to destroy the Church” is not to be obeyed but “it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.”
Council Vatican I (1870) defined that a pope has no power or right to come out with new doctrines or to change the Faith which has been handed down from the Apostles but only to maintain and preach it.
“For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.” (Pastor Aeternus, cap. 4)
A pope has the right to do nothing but to maintain the true Catholic Faith, exactly as it has been received. If he attempts to do otherwise, he is to be denounced and opposed along with all the doctrinal innovations he attempts to impose on the Faithful.
Summary and recap of perennial teaching
We have seen that tradition instructs us that the global episcopate can fall away from the Faith and that true Catholics can be reduced to a handful. Popes can defect from the Faith and “teach” heresy in their decrees. They can destroy the Church with their acts. Then we must not obey but must openly resist the pope and the hierarchy and try to stop their policies from being implemented.
To recap:
Pope St. Peter I instructed us that we must obey God rather than men when there is a conflict between the two. The Doctors and theologians of the Church emphasised this by telling us “superiors are not to be obeyed in all things”; a “pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done”; and “we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things.” A pope can command “against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law”, and then “he ought not to be obeyed.”
Further, St. Paul publicly resisted Pope St. Peter to his face because he was endangering the Faith. The Fathers and Doctors of the Church emphasised that we should “boldly” resist superiors, including the Pope, “without fear”, when we are defending the Faith; a pope who errs from the Faith must be resisted openly and publicly because of the danger which exists for the Faithful to be corrupted and led into error.
Popes have told us that a pope can “wither away into heresy” and “not believe” the Faith; that “it is beyond question” that a pope can “err in matters touching the Faith”, he can “teach heresy” in decrees; and that “many Roman Pontiffs were heretics”; that a pope may be a heretic and “teach […] contrary to the Catholic Faith”, in which case we are to follow the instruction, “do not follow him”; and that papal heresy “renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter's pernicious teachings.”
And finally, we have seen that the Saints and approved theologians through the ages have told us that it can happen that “some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once”, and it can come to pass that “Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful”. Should this happen the great concern of each “will be to attach himself to antiquity which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty” – and it is the “Catholics faithful to tradition” who “are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” Further, a pope can “destroy the Church through his evil actions” and then “it would be unlawful to allow him to act in such a fashion”; “on the contrary, there is a duty to oppose him”; there “would be a duty to prevent him, and likewise an obligation to oppose him and resist him”; “he may be resisted and the fulfilment of his commands prevented” with “open resistance”. Again, “it is lawful to oppose him publicly”; “every person, in fact, has the right to oppose an unjust action in order to prevent, if he is able, its being carried out.” Indeed, “it is imperative to resist a pope who is openly destroying the Church.” He “should not be obeyed” and it is “lawful to resist him” if he acts contrary to justice and the common good. A pope has no right to teach novelty. It is “lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed” should he destroy the Church.
Vatican English language spokesman and Consultor to the Pontifical Council on Social Communications and Executive Producer of Canada's Salt + Light, Your Catholic Channel of Hope has recently come down hard on Catholic politicians who do not understand the "moral teaching of the Church." CBC: "...this message, (Laudato si) is going to be deeply unsettling to Republican politicians."
Fr. Rosica: "As it should be Heather, it should be very unsettling to the Santorum's and the Bush's and the Baynor's and the others who would like to use this not for concern for ecology and the environment (but) for political gain. Those who claim to be Catholic in the political world sometimes don't have any understanding of the moral teaching of the Church and the moral teaching of Popes"
Name your favourite Catholic politician who lacks "any understanding of the moral teaching of the Church and the moral teaching of Popes" in the combox.
Oh, I am not a climate change denier, I just deny that it has anything to do with man but a normal part of the heating and cooling of the Earth. After all, there's a reason for fossils of ferns in Greenland. Not accepting junk science and globalist and Marxist environmental fascism is not a sin. Not speaking out against abortion when given the opportunity is.
The Pope has released the Motu Proprio as indicated yesterday. The first is for the Latin Church, the second for the Eastern Churches. So far, it is only in Latin and Italian and can be reached at the link below. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/events/event.dir.html/content/vaticanevents/en/2015/9/8/nullitacic.html From perusing a translator, and now Vatican Radio, this much can be gleaned. Welcome to "Divorce, Catholic Style!" The Court of Second Instance, essentially; a review of the diocesan tribunal's work at the national level, usually out of the nunciature, is gone. There is a single judge who must be a cleric, no longer a tribunal, though he can be assisted by non-clerical officials. The Bishop is the ultimate judge, not a delegated tribunal and there are modifications to the appeal process.
There are two ways to look at this; on the one hand, the ending of the Court of Second Instance which was a check on the diocesan tribunals may mean an increase in decrees of nullity, it was a check on abuse of process and judgement at the local level. I contend that most divorced Catholics couldn't care less about the process and don't bother, not because of the length of time or money, (a red-herring) but because they just don't care. Those who do care enough about their faith who do apply for a decree are probably justified in their request and generally receive it. On the other hand, putting this in the hand of the bishop forces him to either be faithful to the doctrine or end up jeopardising his own soul. This may be a good thing. Yet, I can't help but think that the process is clearly different throughout the world. In some places, it may take a decade or more and if so, this is unjust. So why not ensure that everyone is on the same page before one decides to throw the fish back? Only time and analysis by people much more skilled than this writer, will tell.
The official report from Vatican Radio is as follows:
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/09/08/pope_francis_reforms_church_law_in_marital_nullity_trials/1170336 (Vatican Radio) Pope Francis issued two Apostolic Letters motu proprioon Tuesday, by which he introduced reforms to the legal structures of the Church, which deal with questions of marital nullity. One of the Lettersmotu proprio, known by its Latin title,Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus– or “The Lord Jesus, Clement Judge” – reforms the Code of Canon Law (CIC) governing the Latin Church, while the other,Mitis et misericorsIesusor “Clement and merciful Jesus” – reforms the Code of Canon Law for Oriental Churches (CCEO).
According to the prefatory remarks attached to both Letters, the reforms are the result of an expert group appointed to study the current state of law and practice in the Church as far as marriage law is concerned. The Holy Father goes on in the preface to explain that the reforms are guided by seven specific criteria, ample excerpts of which Vatican Radio offers below in its own unofficial English translation:
That there be only one sentence in favor of executive nullity – It appeared opportune, in the first place, that there no longer be required a twofold decision in favor of marital nullity, in order that the parties be admitted to new canonically valid marriages: the moral certainty reached by the first judge according to law should be sufficient.
A single judge under the responsibility of the Bishop – The constitution of a single judge in the first instance, who shall always be a cleric, is placed under the responsibility of the Bishop, who, in the pastoral exercise of his own proper judicial power shall guarantee that no laxity be indulged in this matter.
The Bishop is judge – In order that the teaching of the II Vatican Council be finally translated into practice in an area of great importance, the decision was made to make evident the fact that the Bishop is, in his Church – of which he is constituted pastor and head – is by that same constitution judge among the faithful entrusted to him. It is desired that, in Dioceses both great and small, the Bishop himself should offer a sign of the conversion of ecclesiastical structures, and not leave the judicial function completely delegated to the offices of the diocesan curia, as far as matters pertaining to marriage are concerned.
Increased brevity in the legal process – In fact, beyond making the marriage annulment process more agile, a briefer form of trying nullity cases has been designed – in addition to the documentary process already approved and in use – which is to be applied in cases in which the accusation of marital nullity is supported by particularly evident arguments. In any case, the extent to which an abbreviated process of judgment might put the principle of the indissolubility of marriage at risk, did not escape me [writes Pope Francis – ed.]: thus, I have desired that, in such cases the Bishop himself shall be constituted judge, who, by force of his pastoral office is with Peter the greatest guarantor of Catholic unity in faith and in discipline.
Appeal to the Metropolitan See – It is fitting that the appeal to the Metropolitan See be re-introduced, since that office of headship of an Ecclesiastical province, stably in place through the centuries, is a distinctive sign of the synodality of the Church.
The proper role of the Bishops’ Conferences – The Bishops’ Conferences, which must be driven above all by the anxious apostolic desire to reach the far-off faithful, should formally recognize the duty to share the aforesaid conversion, and respect absolutely the right of the Bishops to organize judicial power each within his own particular Church.
There-establishment of vicinity between the judge and the faithful, in fact, shall not be successful if the stimulus does not come from the Conferences to the single Bishops, along with the necessary assistance, to put into practice the reform of the marital nullity process.
Appeal to the Apostolic See – It is fitting that the appeal to the ordinary Tribunal of the Apostolic See, i.e. the Roman Rota, be maintained: this, in respect of a most ancient juridical principle, so that the bond between the See of Peter and the particular Churches be reinforced – having care, in any case, in the discipline of the use of said appeal, to contain any and all abuse of right, in order that the salvation of souls be given no cause for harm.
Indeed, the prefatory remarks make clear from the very start, that the single most important principle guiding the Holy Father’s action and the work of reform undertaken, is that of salus animarum – the salvation of souls – which is the suprema Ecclesiae lex – the supreme law of the Church.
Ignatius Press has published Edward Pentin's new book, "The Rigging of a Vatican Synod?" Pentin uses a question mark in the title, perhaps it should be an exclamation point.
Will Pentin now be sued by certain clerics for saying what those of us said in the past and were served with vexatious and frivolous and un-Christian litigation at the behest of pompous and arrogant clericalists?
To all of you clerics out there no matter what colour of cassock you wear (if you even have one), we are not going to rest.
You will not be allowed to push your adulterist and sodomite agenda on the Bride of Christ. We will expose you. We will out you. We will stand up for Our Blessed Lord and His Holy Church in the face of all of you.
The Rigging of a Synod? – The Betrayal of our Families
September 6, 2015 (Voice of the Family) - A new book, The Rigging of a Vatican Synod?: An Investigation into Alleged Manipulation at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family, will shed much light on allegations that the Extraordinary Synod, held in Rome last October, was subject to manipulation. The book has been written by highly respected Vatican journalist Edward Pentin and carries the endorsement of Wilfrid Fox Cardinal Napier, Archbishop of Durban. Cardinal Napier is one of the fifteen members of the permanent council of cardinals and bishops overseeing the Synod of Bishops, he attended the Extraordinary Synod and was a member of the committee that drafted the final relatio synodi of that Synod.
UPDATED: One hour ago, 12:30 PM Rome time, the Vatican released the Motu proprios, the first deals with the Latin Church and the second, the Eastern Churches. The document is only in Latin and Italian. They can be viewed here.
The Vatican today announced that a press conference will be held at noon tomorrow for the presentation of two Apostolic Letters of Pope Francis, given motu proprio: Mitis iudex Dominus Iesus and Mitis et Misericors Iesus. These concern the reform of the canonical process for the causes of declaration of nullity of marriage (commonly called "annulment") respectively for the (Latin-Rite) Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.
The Pope has in his full authority the ability to issue a Law to do this. There is no point in discussing the matter at length until we see what is in it. Rorate links to an article written last year after the Synod by Don Pio Pace which can give us an idea of what may be in it. I cannot speak for the rest of the world or the Pope's own experiences in Argentina. As a Catholic with a Decree of Nullity, I fail to understand the problem. The application in the Archdiocese of Toronto was not humiliating or onerous; but it was not simple. It took about two years, mostly due to my own delay in paperwork and witnesses which added a year. The Tribunal will look for the most obvious justifications for the decree and is often criticised by those who do not understand the process. The cost, as I recall, was around $900CDN which was donation for which I received tax receipt. Frankly, the most difficult thing was discussing with the elderly auditor, a Religious Sister, the frequency of the marital embrace!
Note in particular what Rorate states at the bottom of the post:
Merely to illustrate how much things have changed in just three years: in 2012 the Vatican also had a project to reform some aspects of the canonical process for declarations of nullity. The major difference is that this project had as its aim to tighten, or make stricter, the grounds for granting these declarations -- not make these easier to obtain. (Rorate posted about this in May 2012.) One of the driving forces behind this "Ratzingerian" version of annulment reform was Cardinal Burke, whose removal from the Apostolic Signatura in November 2014 was, at the very least, highly convenient for the partisans of annulment simplification.
Where is the problem? The problem is right at the top; it begins with Jorge Bergoglio, Bishop of Rome.. Thus, it begins.
This writer has no authority to pronounce on the SSPX. The point of this blogpost is to relieve frustration and point out the ridiculousness of the whole situation. The whole affair is a circus and Rome is as much at fault, maybe more, than the SSPX itself. Whenever I got into a discussion about the Sacrament of Penance and the Society of St. Pius X, my brain would always hurt. On one hand, we have the obvious canonical jurisdictional issues of the local Ordinary and "Faculties" and on the other hand we had the consistent position of the SSPX on the supplied jurisdiction by the Church due to an emergency. Ultimately, one has to consider the "mercy" of God the Father to the humility and contriteness of the Penitent, confessing. That emergency clearly existed at the time that Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated the four bishops, it surely declined after Pope Benedict XVI efforts, particularly with Summorum Pontificum; though, I should think, it is may be raising its head again. The Pope's acknowledging of the validity of the penitent's confession is a recognition that their Sacraments were valid all along for the very reason the SSPX has always claimed. There is no "magic" with the Pope's announcement, either they are valid or they are not. There is no magic about the date that they become "valid" of December 8 and nothing magic a year later when they theoretically do not. No, they are valid after December 8, 2015 and they will be valid in 2017 for the same reason and they are valid today just as they were valid last week and twenty years ago. Some people whom I love and respect take a different position. I do not agree with them. I do not attend or chant at the Chapel of the SSPX in Toronto. I did in the past. I received Holy Communion. I did not go to Confession because I had a Confessor elsewhere. I did not doubt the sincerity of the good people there who did go. They were living a life an apparent grace due to it and who was I to judge? If the Pope has validated their Confessions, then logic would follow that their marriages must be valid as are their Confirmations, Baptisms would have always been, regardless. Further, the Mass at the SSPX, while always valid, must now also be licit! Logic would presume it. If a person goes to Confession to an SSPX priest, one would presume they would go to Mass too in their chapels. One plus one is indeed two and the Pope knows that and now so does everyone else interested in this issue. The Mass at the Society of St. Pius X chapels is not only valid, it is licit because if there Confessions are, how can the Holy Mass not be. It is illogical to think otherwise. What the Pope has done by this masterstroke is undermine his episcopal brethren by removing their ability to use the jurisdictional argument on their local levels. The recent Bishop of Madison's letter is now moot. He also affirms, though unwittingly, that the Church is in disaster mode and has been. Everything the SSPX has ever argued on is right and correct. They have not changed one iota of the Catholic faith of my young childhood or that of my parents or my ancestors. The Pope has used the same canonical juridical provision for his decision as the SSPX have always claimed. They were right all along and he knows it. The Pope has acknowledged what is a fact; the SSPX is not in schism. If they were in schism, then the issues relating to them would be under Christian Unity and ecumenical offices with the Curia. They are not, they are in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for the very reason that they are Catholics and not in schism. One plus one is two. Logic friends, logic. After all, the Church long ago validated that the Sacraments of actual schismatics, the Orthodox are valid. The local juridical argument against the SSPX priests never held any water and Francis has confirmed it. So, good for Francis, Bishop of Rome. The Pope has thrown a bone, so to speak. to more traditional Catholics. He has, most likely unwittingly, revealed what has been spouted by the hierarchy for fifty years has been a house of cards and a fraud. But don't be fooled friend. This is only a bone to get everyone distracted off the real agenda. It is coming in 30 days and it is about two words that are not so little. Two. Very. Big. Words. Over. My. Dead. Body.
