Journalists have had unprecedented access to the Pope. It is a disgraceful and utterly contemptible reality that old men with decaying minds from a lifetime of atheism such as Scalfari and Jesuits with burning errors steeped in modernism and heterodoxy are able to communicate that which is in the mind of Jorge Bergoglio better than faithful Catholic media or better still, faithful cardinals and bishops! The Jesuit Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi tried to walk back the Scalfari report, but nobody is buying what he is peddling. Now the "confidant" of the Pope, Anthony Spadaro, S.J., is opining and giving us clues as to where we are going, as if we didn't already know.In their arrogant, intellectual jesuitical pride, these malefactors are plotting to put "back on track" a plan to destroy the Church Catholic of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is nothing new. Bella Dodd attempted to do it and was converted. Her boss, Josef Stalin did not convert to the Christian faith of his youth and he reportedly shook his fist at the ceiling as if to curse God on his deathbed. Make no mistake, when the chief organiser of the American Communist Party testifies under oath, after her conversion, that she put over a thousand men into the Catholic priesthood to destroy the Church from within, believe her!
These men today are the children and grandchildren of those communists planted from the 1930's onward. Those early communists undermined the faith of generations. They are dead and judged. Their progeny are still with us, for now. They undermined our parishes and schools and seminaries, our chanceries and universities, and liturgical institutes and Vatican Councils and Synods. They are communists, Freemasons, sodomites and haters of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Triune God Himself, of Our Blessed Lady and they are haters of you and me. If they were not, they would not do what they do.
Sandro Magister has released statements from the Jesuit Spadaro's latest in "La Civiltà Cattolica" and a link to the whole article. Knowing Spadaro's access and relationship with the Bishop of Rome bonded by their once sacred Society, it is a chilling indictment.
I've written previously about words originating in the National Catholic Reporter by Richard Gaillardertz and repeated ad nauseam as his own, without attribution, by Thomas Rosica, CSB. It must be repeated here to underscore what is written by Spadaro and reprinted below:
"Will this Pope re-write controversial Church doctrines? No. But that isn't how doctrine changes. Doctrine changes when pastoral contexts shift and new insights emerge such that particularly doctrinal formulations no longer mediate the saving message of God's transforming love. Doctrine changes when the Church has leaders and teachers who are not afraid to take note of new contexts and emerging insights. It changes when the Church has pastors who do what Francis has been insisting: leave the securities of your chanceries, of your rectories, of your safe places, of your episcopal residences go set aside the small minded rules that often keep you locked up and shielded from the world."There is a "spin" going on here. It is engineered by Spadaro and others closely surrounding the Bishop of Rome. It is a manipulative and deceitful attempt to discredit and smear simple Catholics who hold the faith and bishops brave enough to actually proclaim it. It is a diabolical attempt to silence any bishop, priest or laymen standing for the Truth. I can speak personally of that as my readers know.
These tactics are right out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals; "pick the target, freeze it, personalise it and polarise it. ... isolate the target from sympathy," and, "go after people," ... ridicule their work and personalise the target." The real question is, why do they do it? Why promote this false-mercy? They are educated men, cultured, raised in the true Religion. They were given the Truth. They had every opportunity that most of us could never have. They did not have to worry about the mortgage or car payment. Grocery shopping or cutting the lawn. Fixing a leaky tap is foreign to them. They have been privileged and doted on and catered to and this is how they repay the God who called them and the faithful who fed them.
They are a "brood of vipers." Malefactors and lovers of themselves. They serve a false god, a god of man for a cult of man. They are vile and despicable men, yet theirs is not a masculine manhood, these are villainous and effeminate cretins.
The headings below are Magister's; they do not appear in the original Italian text. They highlight his analysis of what Spadaro wrote in those paragraphs which you will read.
Spadaro reiterates the plan to devolve the Catholic Church into something akin to the Anglican "dis" Communion. A model of Church that defies one of its four marks, "Catholic!" This is heresy and it is an abomination. It is the setting up of "national churches" something I predicted after the Synod in 2014 and Kasper's comment, that Africans "should not tell us too much what to do." The mocking of doctrine and labeling of those who uphold it follows and then the dismissal of those who see a diabolical force behind all of this. Spadaro treads carefully without specifically mentioning the "letter" of the thirteen Cardinals (our own Cardinal Collins from Toronto included).
Spadaro misrepresents Familiaris Consortio and the teachings of St. John Paul II when he quotes in the end of his article below. He conveniently leaves out that those who are "remarried" must live as "brother and sister" in order to be readmitted to the Sacraments. They simply want to deny that a civil marriage without an annulment. These will be nearly free for the asking under Bergoglio come December 8 in a ghastly mocking of the Assumption when he wrote it, the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary when he released it and her Immaculate Conception when it come in to force. It is adultery and that adultery is a mortal sin even if the Bishop of Rome says otherwise.
So put your sin of papolatry where it belongs. They preach a different gospel. They deny Jesus Christ. They are liars and deceivers. They stand there in daily homilies and blatantly contradict Holy Scripture!
My sources in Rome, say that the word is out that Spadaro and his ilk are being careful and are avoiding speaking about the leaking of the cardinals' letter. It is the uncomfortable evident truth that the first journalists to write about the letter were those closest to the Pope, proving the opinion of Michael Voris, that it was leaked to discredit faithful Catholic.
Spadaro then goes to the heart of the matter, the Holy Eucharist.
It is clear now that they do not believe that Jesus is God. They have a belief in a god of some sorts, a god not dissimilar to that of any Freemason. To them, their god is a power, a creative force, a cosmic presence, and he is a liar because he is not the Triune God whose Second Person Jesus Christ come to earth and remains with us in our Tabernacles and on the Altar at the re-presented Sacrifice. Their god is not the Eternal Father or the Holy Spirit who clarifies and unifies and brings solace and comfort. Where is the clarity, unity, solace and comfort? They invoke another spirit and it is not holy.
They are liars. They are deceivers. They hate Him and they hate you. They are out to destroy the Church. The proof for my bold statement? If they truly believed, they would not be doing it and the fact that the Bishop of Rome has not condemned these outrageous statements says more about him than most Catholics want to know.
It has been said, even by this writer, that what matters is what the Bishop of Rome does with the Synod Relatio. He can do something or nothing or something different to it all together. The reality of the Bishop of Rome is going to do without the Relatio is unknown or maybe not?
The bottom line is this. The Pope cannot change doctrine. He may try it through the Gaillardetz/Rosica/Spadaro methodologies. If he does, he must be called out. You know it and I know it and so do many, many cardinals and bishops.
It is said that the Bishop of Rome is upset over the letter of the thirteen cardinals. He is upset over the petition to the bishops to walk out of the Synod. Well, it is not about him. It is about Truth.
We must also be bold enough to warn Jorge Bergoglio, "Do not do this, do not undertake these plans. If you do so, you will be denounced. If you do so, you will be judged cruelly by history and the rest is up to the Lord Himself."
He will fail. They will fail. They will not destroy the Church and we know this to be true because we have Our Lord's promise. Remember, He said that "the gates of Hell would not prevail." He did not say, the Church would not be shaken and betrayed and scourged and crucified just as He was. He rose again and so will the Church. We have His word and Our Lady's promise. But friend, it is not magic, it will not happen by itself, though it could. He could change it all in an instant, before you even finish reading this sentence. That is not how God works. We are the Lord's tools, His hands. We are His children, the work of His hands.
Man up. Woman up. Catholic up. Get to work.
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351172?eng=y
TOWARD A PLURALISTIC CHURCH
“Synodality implies diversity. […] A solution that is good for New Zealand is not so for Lithuania, an approach valid in Germany is not so for Guinea. So ‘beyond the dogmatic questions fully defined by the magisterium of the Church,’ the pontiff himself observed in his talk concluding the synod that it is evident ‘that what seems normal for a bishop on one continent can appear strange, almost a scandal - almost! - to the bishop of another continent; that which is considered the violation of a right in one society can be an obvious and inviolable principle in another; that which for some is freedom of conscience, for others can be only confusion.”
DOCTRINE LIKE STONES
“One critical issue is the one concerning the significance of doctrine. Already at the end of the 2014 synod the pontiff had spoken of the temptation to ‘transform the bread into a stone and cast it against the sinners, the weak, and the sick, that is, to transform it into unbearable burdens.’ Doctrine is bread, not stone. At the end of the ordinary synod the pope repeated the image, saying that the synod ‘bore witness to all that the Gospel remains for the Church the living fountain of eternal newness, against those who want to indoctrinate it into dead stones to be thrown at others.’
“Doctrine - as was reiterated in some small circles - is the teaching of Christ, it is the Gospel itself. This is why it never has anything to do with those ‘closed hearts which frequently hide even behind the Church’s teachings or good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families,’ Francis furthermore said.”
THE SIEGE MENTALITY
One key issue of the discussion was the model of relationship between the Church and the world. […] For some fathers, the Church is surrounded by a hostile and demonic world from which one must defend oneself, and which one must attack with the proclamation of doctrine. Others, instead, affirmed that the Church’s duty is to discern how God is present in the world and how to continue his work. On the other hand, we can neither live by dreaming of a world that no longer exists, nor fall into the ‘Masada complex,’ or the complex of encirclement. This risks being a lack of faith in God who acts in history.”
THE “CONSPIRACY” OF THE THIRTEEN CARDINALS
Pope Francis spoke twice of ‘overcoming every conspiracy hermeneutic that is sociologically weak and spiritually unhelpful.’ And this because, as he himself has observed, ‘opinions are expressed freely,’ but ‘sometimes with methods not entirely benevolent.’ The German group also manifested ‘great distress and sadness’ over the ‘public statements of some synod fathers on persons, contents, and the unfolding of the synod. That contradicts the spirit of encounter, the spirit of the synod and its elementary rules. The images and comparisons used are not only undifferentiated and mistaken, but also offensive.’ Its members - and many others with them - unanimously kept their distance. The synod was therefore not entirely devoid of faux pas, nor of attempts to pressure it from outside and inside of the assembly - before it began and during its development - some of which found their soapbox in the media.”
CLOSED DOOR AND OPEN DOOR
“The door was evoked by some as ‘closed’ or as to be closed definitively, as in the case of the Eucharist for the civilly divorced and remarried; by others as ‘open’ or to be opened for opposing reasons, and speaking in general terms, as a fundamental pastoral attitude. […] The pontiff had used the image of the door in the opening Mass of the synod, spurring the Church on to ‘be a “field hospital” with doors wide open to whoever knocks in search of help and support; even more, to reach out to others with true love, to walk with our fellow men and women who suffer, to include them and guide them to the wellspring of salvation.”
*
The complete text of the article by Fr. Spadaro in “La Civiltà Cattolica” of November 28, 2015:
> Vocazione e missione della famiglia. Il XIV sinodo ordinario dei vescovi
And the following is its final part.
___________
An open door to communion for the divorced and remarried
by Antonio Spadaro S.I.
Concerning the baptized who are civilly divorced and remarried, the “Relatio synodi” first of all affirms that they “must be integrated into the Christian communities in the different ways possible.”
The logic that guides numbers 84-86 of the document is that of integration, the key to a solid pastoral accompaniment. Once again the Church shows herself to be a mother, telling the civilly divorced and remarried to be aware that they belong “to the Body of Christ that is the Church,” that they are “brothers and sisters.” It says that “the Holy Spirit infuses them with gifts and charisms for the good of all.”
The intention is therefore that of affirming that these persons have not lost the vocation for the good of all, their mission in the Church. Their ecclesial participation can express itself in different ecclesial services, and one must “discern which of the different forms of exclusion currently practiced in the liturgical, pastoral, educational, and institutional fields can be overcome” (no. 84). For the Christian community, taking care of these persons “is not a weakening of its faith and of the witness to the indissolubility of marriage: on the contrary, the Church expresses its charity precisely in this care” (ibid).
The “Relatio synodi” incorporates the overall criterion expressed by Saint John Paul II in “Familiaris Consortio”: “discerning the situation well.” There is in fact a difference “between those who have made sincere efforts to save the first marriage and have been completely unjustly abandoned, and those who by their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage” (no. 85). But there are also those who have contracted a second union in view of raising the children, and are subjectively certain in conscience that the previous marriage, destroyed beyond repair, had never been valid (cf. no. 84).
The synod therefore affirms that it is the duty of priests “to accompany the persons in question on the path of discernment according to the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the bishop.”
This itinerary imposes a pastoral discernment that makes reference to the authority of the pastor, judge and physician, who is above all “minister of divine mercy” (cf. “Mitis et misericors Iesus”). In this sense it follows the path of the recent motu proprio of Pope Francis on the reform of canonical procedures for annulment cases. And in this reference to the bishops can be seen an important policy of reform on the part of the pope, which attributes greater pastoral powers to them.
The document proceeds on this path of discernment of individual cases without putting any limits on integration, as appeared in the past.
It also expresses that one cannot deny that in some circumstances “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified” (CCC 1735) on account of various influences. “As a result, the judgment on an objective situation must not lead to a judgment on ‘subjective imputability’ (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, declaration of June 24, 2000, 2a)” (no. 85).
There is a general norm, but “responsibility for certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases.” This is why “pastoral discernment, while taking into account the rightly formed conscience of persons, must take these situations upon itself. Even the consequences of the actions taken are not necessarily the same in all cases” (ibid).
The conclusion is that the Church realizes that one can no longer speak of an abstract category of persons and close off the practice of integration within a rule that is entirely general and valid in every case.
It is not said how far the process of integration can go, but neither are any more precise and insurmountable limitations set up. In fact, “the journey of accompaniment and discernment directs these faithful to come to grips in conscience with their situation before God” (no. 86). This reasoning sets personal conscience as the foundation of the Church’s action and judgment (no. 63).
“When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking” (CCC 1777); so in concrete terms “the conversation with the priest, in the internal forum,” the “Relatio synodi” says, “contributes to the formation of a correct judgment on that which prevents the possibility of a fuller participation in the Church’s life and on the steps that can foster it and make it grow” (no. 86). This discernment is aimed at the “sincere search for God’s will”: it is characterized by the “desire to reach a more perfect response to it”; and it is shaped by the “demands of truth and charity of the Gospel proposed by the Church” and by conditions such as “humility, discretion, love of the Church and its teaching.”
Cardinal Schönborn, interviewed by “La Civiltà Cattolica” before the synod, had affirmed that there are situations in which the priest confessor, who knows the persons in the internal forum, can come to the point of saying: “Your situation is such that in conscience, in your and my conscience as a pastor, I see your place in the sacramental life of the Church.” And the confessor can affirm this precisely in consideration that the conditions established by “Familiaris Consortio” were, 35 years ago, a step forward, meaning more open and attentive toward the experience of persons than in previous times.
The tension over the sacramental situation of the civilly divorced and remarried arises precisely from the fact that “Familiaris Consortio” affirmed of them: “They must not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life” (no. 84). It is a concept that Pope Francis has also repeated many times.
But this “openness” raises the serious problem of what may be this acknowledged “ecclesial communion.” How is it truly possible to be in ecclesial communion without arriving, sooner or later, at sacramental communion? Postulating that full ecclesial communion is possible without full sacramental communion does not seem to be a way that could inspire much confidence.
Also to be noted is the fact that there is no longer any mention of “spiritual communion” as an alternative path to the sacrament, as there had been until the extraordinary synod.
The way of discernment and of the “internal forum” exposes one to the possibility of arbitrary decisions, of course, but “laissez-faire” has never been a criterion for rejecting good pastoral accompaniment. It will always be the pastor’s duty to find a way that corresponds to the truth and life of the persons he accompanies, perhaps without being able to explain to everyone why they should make one decision rather than another. The Church is sacrament of salvation. There are many pathways and many dimensions to be explored for the sake of the “salus animarum.”
Concerning access to the sacraments, the ordinary synod has therefore effectively laid the foundations, opening a door that at the previous synod had instead remained closed.
On the contrary, one year ago it had not even been possible to certify by qualified majority the debate on the issue, which had in fact taken place. Therefore one may rightly speak of a new step.
