Countdown to the Synod manipulations under the watchful eyes of the Pope himself

Now that the Pope has returned to Rome and we've heard that capital punishment, notwithstanding the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Holy Scripture must be abolished because of Pope Bergoglio's personal opinion (it is nothing more) the environment has rights (United Nations) and that all religions are essentially the same (Ground Zero talk), talk that would fit well in any Masonic Lodge, let us return to the issues of the upcoming Ordinary Synod on the Family beginning next weekend.

The Synod is a front and an affront. The proof is the Pope's recent motu proprio on annulment. He disregarded the discussions of the last Synod and struck a secretive committee to implement his own personal desires. Is he about to do the same again? What is the point of calling a Synod? If Benedict or John Paul II ever, ever tried to govern the Church in this manner, they would have been pilloried. Using just Summorum Pontificum as an example, it was no secret, it was talked about publicly for months. Benedict XVI spoke to groups and individual bishops about it and issued a serene letter as to why it was issued and they destroyed him over it.

As some have now discovered, and Father Z had intimated about months ago, the Gospel for next Sunday in the Ordinary Form of the Mass is the indissolubility of marriage and the words of Our Blessed Lord, "what God has joined together let no man put asunder." How prophetically fitting and proof that God, indeed, has a sense of humour.

On his flight back to Rome, Pope Francis answered questions again on the plane. I truly wish Popes would not hold press conferences on planes or anywhere else. The interview includes a question on the matter of divorce and remarriage and annulments. The Pope states quite clearly that:

"The question about 'Catholic divorce.' That doesn't exist. Either it wasn't a marriage, and this is nullity -- it didn't exist. And if it did, it's indissoluble. This is clear."

In fact, it is not "clear" and that is the whole problem. He goes on to give other examples of why he felt he had to change annulment parameters but with what he has done leading to potentially "millions of annulments" akin to the situation in the United States in the early 1970's, is that not what he has done? There is a disconnect between what he is says on the plane and what he has said on paper in the motu proprio. You don't have to take this unqualified writer's word for it. Canonists have spoken out about this. Father Gerald E. Murray calls it a "flawed innovation." Benedict Nguyen writes that it will create "more confusion than clarity" and Ed Peters who calls for new consultation says these are the most revisions in "three hundred years." Remember, this is not about mercy, it is about law because it is about the sacraments. Pope Francis is not a canonist and he fired the best one in the Church!

Do not, I repeat, do not tire, do not develop synod fatigue. The next month is going to be from Hell, brought to you by the Danneels Mafiosi and Kasper conspiracy. You must read and pray and pray more and you must alert your Catholic friends to what is happening. Do not develop synod fatigue, the very future of the Church is at stake. Remember, Our Lord said, "the gates of Hell will not prevail" but that does not mean She won't be shaken to Her core. They may end up with the buildings but you and I must preserve the Faith!

Sandro Magister, one of the most credible Vatican journalists, along with Edward Pentin, has released this morning his latest column. He encapsulates much of what has been out there for a few weeks now and hones in on the risks we face. 

I post the entire column below, with my observations interspersed throughout.

Synod’s Turn To Speak. But Decisions Will Be Up To Francis

The last exchange of fire before the opening of the work. The uncertainty about the procedure. The appeals to the pope. Why in the end it will be he alone who will draw the conclusions

by Sandro Magister

ROME, September 28, 2015 – Back in Rome after his journey to Cuba and the United States, culminating with the world meeting of families in Philadelphia, Pope Francis is now facing the much more exacting challenge of the synod that will open on October 4, the Sunday of the liturgical year on which - as if by a jest of providence - Catholic churches all around the world will resound with these words of Jesus: “Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”

The synod will last for three weeks, and the procedures that will be adopted have not yet been made known, despite having a big influence on the outcome of the work.

What is certain is that there will not be a final message, no commission having been set up to write one.

Another definite feature, preannounced by Pope Francis, is that “each week there will be a discussion of one chapter” of the three into which the preparatory document is subdivided:

 Instrumentum laboris

So this time there will be no “Relatio post disceptationem” halfway through the work, after a first phase of free discussion on everything, as at the synod of October 2014. The discussion will be broken up right away into narrow linguistic groups, each of which will sum up its perspectives in reports destined to remain confidential. At the end of the three weeks there will be a vote on a final “Relatio,” and the pope will give the concluding talk. (The old “divide and conquer.” No group will know what the other is doing or what other language groups are thinking. Let’s not mix the Poles with the Germans lest Marx and Kasper be confronted and confounded.)

Also unlike in the past it is not expected that after a few months there will be a postsynodal apostolic exhortation to cap everything off. The discussion will remain open to future developments. The only embodiment of the provisory conclusions will be the pope’s talk at the end of the work, which will as a matter of course overtop and obscure all the other voices. (This has been rumoured for a while. We will have to wait and see. Apostolic Exhortations sum up the Synodal process and give Pope’s response. What will we see? More personal decisions such as the recent motu proprio that simply order the will of Francis not knowing what the Synodal Fathers desired? Where is Collegiality?

In spite of the much-heralded emphasis on collegiality, in fact, the next round of the synod will also see at work in Francis a monocratic exercise of papal authority, as in last year’s session, at the end of which the pope kept alive propositions that had not obtained the votes necessary for approval. And they were precisely the ones on the most controversial points, divorce and homosexuality. (Pope Francis has been governing the Church in a monarchical manner not seen since the time of Pius XI and certainly not in the post-Vatican II era. Never, ever did St. John Paul II or Benedict XVI and certainly not poor abused Paul VI ever, ever run roughshod over the bishops and faithful as this Argentine Pope who grew up under Peron, has done. Where is the Collegiality so demanded at Vatican II? Or, is this Vatican II revisited and its final chapter?

One undisputed sign of this monocratic exercise of papal authority was the publication, last September 8, of the two motu proprio with which Francis reformed annulment procedures: (Indeed! A totally unexpected and secret act on the part of Pope Bergoglio to turn hundreds of years of Canon Law and Our Lord’s words on their heads. Annulments are not about mercy, they are about law because of the sacrament!

Forbidden To Call It Divorce. But It Sure Looks Like It

A reform of marital cases had been expected for some time. But Francis set it in motion while keeping out the family-centered synod, which he knew was not inclined to approve what he had in mind. He set up the preparatory commission in August of 2014, before the convocation of the first session of the synod. And he signed the motu proprio last August 15, before the second session, scheduling its implementation for next December 8. (Did you notice that? The Pope signed the Catholic divorce motu proprio on the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and it is to become law on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. If he did this in some fain attempt to obtain Her blessing, I don’t think he will find it so. I interpret this as a mocking of Our Lady and a vain attempt at letting us know that this is infallible, which it is not for the very reason that a future Pope can undo it. You see, the First Vatican Council codified the infallibility of the Pope. Much to the surprise of the papolaters out there, it did not give him more power, it in fact, limited his monarchical power. It defined very narrowly what papal infallibility is and is not. The Pope can say the environment has rights and capital punishment should be abolished but it has no more weight than if he said the moon was made of creamed cheese. These are his opinions, they are not doctrine and cannot be defined as dogma. They can quite rightly be ignored. On the issue of infallibility, the only two times that it has ever been invoked was when the Dogmas of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception and her glorious Assumption were defined. Ironic, eh? What a disgrace!

The most substantial innovation of the new procedures is that in order to obtain a declaration of nullity, the mere word of the applicant will have the “force of full proof,” without the need for other evidence, and the presumed “lack of faith” will act as a universal master key not just for thousands but for millions of marriages to be declared null, with an ultra-fast procedure and with the local bishop as the sole judge. (Catholic Divorce friends, pure and simple.)

On this the synod fathers therefore find themselves facing a fait accompli. But it is hard to imagine that they are not discussing it. Church historian Roberto de Mattei has even hypothesized that some synod fathers may ask for the abrogation of this act of governance on the part of Pope Francis, “up to now his most revolutionary.” And he has cited the historical precedent of the retraction made in 1813 by Pius VII - imprisoned by Napoleon Bonaparte - of his act of subjection of the Holy See to the sovereignty of the emperor: a retraction invoked publicly by Cardinal Bartolomeo Pacca, pro-secretary of state, and by other “zealous” cardinals, as well as by the great spiritual master Pio Brunone Lanteri, a future venerable: (The Pope must withdraw the motu proprio on annulments. He must be resisted!)

Meanwhile, an appeal has been issued in the American magazine “First Things” by a hefty number of theologians, philosophers, and scholars from various countries, asking the synod fathers to reject paragraph 137 of the preparatory document, judged as contrary to the magisterium of the Church and a portent of confusion among the faithful:

An Appeal Recalling the Teaching of "Humanae Vitae"

The appeal concerns the teaching of Paul VI’s encyclical “Humanae Vitae” on birth control - an encyclical that Pope Francis himself has called “prophetic” - and numbers among its authors and signatories a good number of professors from the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family: Stephan Kampowski, Livio Melina, Jaroslav Merecki, José Noriega, Juan José Pérez-Soba, Mary Shivanandan, Luigi Zucaro, as well as luminaries like the German philosopher Robert Spaemann and the Swiss ethicist Martin Rhonheimer. (How bad has it gotten when the Catholic faithful need to petition the Pope to be Catholic!)

In the judgment of the signatories of the appeal, paragraph 137 of the preparatory document assigns absolute primacy to the individual conscience in the selection of the means of birth control, even against the teaching of the Church’s magisterium, with the added risk that such primacy could also be extended to other areas, like abortion and euthanasia.

In effect, it is precisely on the primacy of the individual conscience “beyond what the rule might say objectively” that the supporters of communion for the divorced and remarried rely, as one of these, cardinal of Vienna Christoph Schönborn explained in an interview with “La Civiltà Cattolica” of September 26:

“There are situations in which the priest, the guide, who knows the persons, can come to the point of saying: ‘Your situation is such that, in conscience, in your and in my conscience as a pastor, I see your place in the sacramental life of the Church.’” (What happened to him since he was the main force behind the Catechism of the Catholic Church?)

The split between the individual conscience and the magisterium of the Church is analogous to that which separates pastoral practice from doctrine: ”: (Remember that Father Thomas Rosica has been saying this for nearly two years and I was sued by him for calling him out on this) a danger that in the judgment of many looms over the synod and has been the object of very strong words from Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, in a lecture given on September 1 in Regensburg on the occasion of the release of the German edition of Cardinal Robert Sarah’s book “God or Nothing

> Liturgy, Grace, Marriage, and the New Danger of Schism

According to Müller, “the separation of teaching and practice of the faith” was precisely that which in the 16th century led to the schism in the Western Church. With the deceptive practice of indulgences, the Church of Rome was in fact ignoring doctrine and “the original protest of Luther himself against the negligence of the shepherds of the Church was justified, because one may not play with the salvation of souls, even if the purpose of the deception would be to bring about a good deed.” (There can be no question that Martin Luther’s original aims were just and many of his thesis points were valid. However, once cut off from the Church there was no end to that which would follow – which is why that we, no matter what Rome does, can never abandon our Mother!)

And today – the cardinal continued – the question is the same: “We may not deceive the people, when it comes to the sacramentality of marriage, its indissolubility, its openness toward the child, and the fundamental complementarity of the two sexes. Pastoral care must keep in view the eternal salvation, and it should not try to be superficially pleasing according to the wishes of the people.”

As can be seen, the proponents of “openness” are very active, but the stances of those who oppose it are also numerous and strong.

On September 29 there will be a repeat presentation in Rome, backed up with 700,000 signatures including those of 180 cardinals and bishops, of the “Filial Appeal” to Pope Francis that he pronounce “a word of clarification” against the “widespread confusion arising from the possibility that a breach has been opened within the Church that would accept adultery—by permitting divorced and then civilly remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion—and would virtually accept even homosexual unions.” (St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle …)

This appeal to the pope is not far from what was said by Cardinal Angelo Scola, archbishop of Milan and a father at the next synod, in an interview with “Corriere della Sera” of Sunday, September 27:

“The urgent priority, for me, is that the synod would suggest to the Holy Father a magisterial statement that would unify by simplifying the doctrine on marriage. A statement aimed at demonstrating the relationship between the experience of faith and the sacramental nature of marriage.”

The complete text of the interview:

On September 30, at the Angelicum University, cardinals Carlo Caffarra and Raymond Leo Burke, two of the five cardinals who on the verge of the synod of 2014 took a stance against their colleague Walter Kasper with the book “Remaining in the Truth of Christ,” will reassert their ideas together with Archbishop Cyril Vasil, secretary of the congregation for the Oriental Churches and also a coauthor of the book.

And two more books with the same perspective are about to come out, written by not just five cardinals but seventeen, from Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas, six of whom will take part in the synod either by reason of office, like the Guinean Robert Sarah, or because they were appointed by the pope himself, like the Italian Caffarra:

First Five, Now Seventeen Anti-Kasper Cardinals

The synod is around the corner and the battle is in full swing. And Pope Francis will have the last word.

Please visit the site for embedded links and other relevant articles.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351139?eng=y

__________

English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.

Selfish "selfie" Presbyters, arrogant abusive priests. Abusive to Our Lord, His Holy Sacrifice and abusive to the Catholic faithful they lead astray

How scandalous, how ridiculous are you men, you arrogant and sycophantic supposed Priests of Jesus Christ. You bring cameras to the Altar of Sacrifice. You bring these and you mock Calvary and the Cross. Do you even believe? 

Well, your brother in the top left certainly does and he is aghast at your petulance.  

Your snivelling, grovelling, puerile disbelieving inanity. Look at you, feminised emasculated presbyters. You are the same ones that deny Gregorian chant to your parishioners or a little Latin now and then or fight against the traditional Rite. You're the same scandalous lot that won't preach on abortion or sodomy, the same despicable cabal that stood by whilst your the pervert pederast and sodomite priests in your rank committed abuses and perversion on boys and some girls. You disgusting clerics are the ones who tore out altars and destroyed the liturgy. You have given yourselves away in your arrogance and your corruption. You follow another god. You follow an antichrist.

Every one of you, objectively speaking, will celebrate Mass today in a state of mortal sin for what you did, the sin of sacrilege.

And this sweaty nosed emasculated presbyter has such an ego he put it out for the whole world to see.

How many priest perverts covered up in Philadelphia Cardinal Bevilacqua?

How many parishes closed Archbishop Chaput?

How many lost souls? Destroyed lives? Money paid to lawyers to defend your filthy selves against the just claims of victims.

Liturgical and sexual perverts, the whole lot of you disgusts me.

Bravo! 

Please, let us all say a prayer for Father S.P. who's picture I have removed at his request. I am moved by the humility of his letter to me.

God bless you Father Paolino. Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum, benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructis ventris tui. Jesus! Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis, peccatoribus, nunc et in ora mortis nostrae, Amen.

Our Lady Mother of Priests, pray for all priests of your Son!

Bravo Cardinal Dolan - Bravo for permitting this travesty, this scandal.

So, who thought this was a good idea? 

Mo Rocca has not renounced the "gay lifestyle," on the contrary. Lector at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the presence of the Pope? I'd never heard of Mo Rocca, I must live a sheltered life. Apparently, he's quite the dandy. 

Mo and the boys. I bet his mother's really impressed.

The man in the middle having his nipple massaged by another man read the First Reading at the Mass in the presence of Pope Francis in New York.

Mo Rocca with his clothes on. 

Let us be clear. This man is not part of the Courage Apostolate struggling to overcome the sin of sodomy and a same-sex attracted life. This is an activist and advocate of so-called same-sex marriage. I am a sinner but I cannot commit a public scandal and expect to read at Mass. 

What a disgusting and pathetic occurrence permitted by Cardinal Bravo.

Get angry people.  Get bloody angry now.

http://torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.ca/2015/09/homosexual-mo-rocca-reads-first-reading.html

http://torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.ca/2015/09/media-and-enemies-of-church-rejoice-in.html

Clarity, Truth and intellectual honesty from some in Vatican - reveals a schizophrenic hierarchy

Vatican’s Chief of Doctrine Condemns Liberalism, Relativism, Nihilism

Cardinal Gerhard Müller reviews Cdl. Sarah's new book God or Nothing

by Ryan Fitzgerald  •   September 25, 2015   11 COMMENTS

FILED UNDER: SECULARISM, AFRICAN BISHOPS, MODERNITY, CRISIS IN THE CHURCH, SCANDAL, THE DECLINE OF THE WEST, IDEOLOGICAL COLONIZATION, GENDER THEORY, YES

3

REGENSBURG, September 25, 2015 (ChurchMilitant.com) - The Vatican's Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cdl. Gerhard Müller of Germany, is condemning a wide range of Western theological, philosophical and ideological errors like liberalism, relativism and nihilism.

In a wide-ranging review of Cdl. Robert Sarah's new critically acclaimed book, God or Nothing, Cdl. Müller, with the book, condemns everything from feminism, gender ideology and atheistic nihilism to Communion for divorced and "remarried" adulters and the infamous "spirit of Vatican II."

http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/vaticans-chief-of-doctrine-condemns-liberalism-relativism-nihilism

Not the dew of the Holy Spirit

LifeSiteNews has an article reprinted from Voice of the Family in which a statement is made and a question is asked:

"This cardinal has opposed Church teaching on marriage for years. Why did the Pope hand pick him for the Synod."

The answer the question quite succinctly.

"There is very good reason to believe Cardinal Dew has been appointed to the Ordinary Synod not despite his heterodox views but because of them."

And Cardinal Burke has not. 

Is the pervert protecting Cardinal Danneels running from the facts? What are the facts?

LE VIF in Belgium has issued a "correction" to the previous story about Cardinal Danneels and the "mafia" conspiracy to undermine Benedict XVI and elect Jorge Borgoglio.

Too little, too late Eminence.

You can't run from this.



 
http://www.levif.be/actualite/belgique/godfried-danneels-a-oeuvre-pendant-des-annees-a-l-election-du-pape-francois/article-normal-420243.html

(rough computer translation)

CORRECTION

The article "Godfried Danneels has worked for years with the election of Pope Francis" has a historical mistake, committed after the approval and correction of their quotes by authors. The penultimate paragraph has not been reproduced as had been stated in the above corrections.

The erroneous paragraph (we changed the meantime) was as follows:. "The election of Bergoglio was prepared in St. Gallen, it is clear and the outline of his program are those whose Danneels and co discussed for more than ten years. "

However, correspondence with the journalist mentions the following passage: "The election of Bergoglio corresponded to the aims of St. Gallen, it is clear and the outline of his program are those whose Danneels and his colleagues were discussing for more. ten years ".

As the original path was not met, the reader has the impression that the St. Gallen Group was a lobby. This is incorrect and in addition the St. Gallen Group was no longer met after 2006, seven years before the conclave to elect Pope Francis. Since the passage we want to rectify is taken by the international media, it is important for a proper understanding of historical reality and our integrity as historians and biographers of the Church of Cardinal Danneels regrettable that this adaptation of our citation is rectified.

Karim Schelkens and Jürgen Mettepenningen

Cardinal electors "shall further abstain!"

Pope St. John Paul II.  Universi Dominici Gregis:

The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election.

I likewise forbid the Cardinals before the election to enter into any stipulations, committing themselves of common accord to a certain course of action should one of them be elevated to the Pontificate. These promises too, should any in fact be made, even under oath, I also declare null and void.

With the same insistence shown by my Predecessors, I earnestly exhort the Cardinal electors not to allow themselves to be guided, in choosing the Pope, by friendship or aversion, or to be influenced by favour or personal relationships towards anyone, or to be constrained by the interference of persons in authority or by pressure groups, by the suggestions of the mass media, or by force, fear or the pursuit of popularity. Rather, having before their eyes solely the glory of God and the good of the Church, and having prayed for divine assistance, they shall give their vote to the person, even outside the College of Cardinals, who in their judgment is most suited to govern the universal Church in a fruitful and beneficial way.

Did the pervert protecting Cardinal Danneels organise a "mafia" to destroy Pope Benedict XVI? Was Bergoglio engineered as Pope a year in advance? What was McCarrick's role? What is the implication for the Holy Catholic Church - or do we already know?

Breaking news from La Stampa in Italy, the full text of which follows at the end of this post.

In an authorised  biography of Godfried Cardinal Danneels, the pervert protecting retired Cardinal of Brussels states that he lead a "Mafiaclub" known as "St. Gallen" that plotted to elect Jorge Bergoglio as Pope in secret meetings of cardinals and bishops. The meetings were organised by the late Carlo Maria Martini former Archbishop of Milan who allegedly told then Cardinal Ratzinger, that if elected, he would need to "resign" at some point. We have written previously about Martini and certain Masonic affiliations. 

Edward Pentin also writes on the matter with other information about Danneels and his history as a libertine in the matter of sexual ethics and catechesis. Danneels has been appointed by Jorge Bergoglio, the Pope of the Holy See to the Synod on the Family and Cardinal Burke has not.
La Stampa states that:

"Danneels according to the authors, would have worked for years to prepare for the election of Pope Francis, which took place in 2013. He himself, moreover, in a video recorded during the presentation of the book in Brussels he admits that he was part of a secret club of cardinals who opposed Joseph Ratzinger. Laughing, he calls it "a club Mafia and bore the name of St. Gallen". The group wanted a drastic reform of the Church, much more modern and current, with Jorge Bergoglio Pope Francis in the head. Besides Danneels and Martini, the group according to the book were part of the Dutch bishop Adriaan Van Luyn, the German cardinal Walter Kasper and Karl Lehman, the Italian Cardinal Achille Silvestrini and British Basil Hume, among others." 

This is not the first time that information has come out that the election of Jorge Bergoglio was engineered. 

In a speech delivered at Villanova University on October 11, 2013, the long-suspected active homosexual Cardinal Emeritus of Washington, D.C., Theodore McCarrick, spoke of a "very influential man" lobbying him prior to the conclave to engineer the election of Jorge Bergoglio. "He could do it you know ... five years to make the Church over again...to put us back on target." (listen at 18:20). Make over the Church to what? Back on target for what?

That lobbying is illegal.

It is vital that this information not be hidden. The Catholic world must wake up to this and the horrendous implications of what it means.

Who forced Pope Benedict XVI to resign? Can we sit by any longer and assume that he was not pushed and left "for the good of the corporation" notwithstanding his reasoning? What threat did they make against him? Was he threatened with death? Would they have killed him and hundreds or even thousands of others at the same time at a Mass? What could they have done to him that would have made him renounce the Papacy? 

The Catholic faithful have a right to know the truth - the truth of Papa Ratzinger's shocking departure and the truth of the who was behind it and of the election of Jorge Bergoglio.

The time for silence is over!

Souls are at risk and the very unity of the Catholic Church!

Francis: election prepared years beforehand

La Stampa: The election of Jorge Bergoglio was the result of secret meetings that cardinals and bishops, organized by Carlo Maria Martini, held for years in St. Gallen in Switzerland. This is what Jürgen Mettepenningen and Karim Schelkens are claiming. They are the authors of a newly published biography of the Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels, who calls the group of cardinals and bishops a "Mafia-club".
Danneels, according to the authors, worked for years to prepare for the election of Pope Francis, which took place in 2013.
He himself, moreover, in a video recorded during the presentation of the book in Brussels admits to having been part of a secret club of cardinals who opposed Joseph Ratzinger. Laughing, he called it "a Mafia-club and bore the name of St. Gallen".
The group wanted a drastic reform of the Church: for it to be much more modern and current, with Jorge Bergoglio - Pope Francis as its head: which, in fact, is what has occurred
According to the book, besides Danneels and Martini, the members of this group were: the Dutch bishop Adriaan Van Luyn, the German cardinals Walter Kasper and Karl Lehman, the Italian Cardinal Achille Silvestrini and the British Cardinal Basil Hume, among others.
Belgian newspaper "Le Vif" reports that: “On March 13, 2013 an old acquaintance was alongside the new Pope Francis: Godfried Danneels. Officially, he was there as dean of the Cardinal-Priests, but in reality he had worked discreetly for years as a creator of kings ".
Danneels has again been invited by Pope Francis to the Synod on the Family to be held in October in Rome, but he has been criticized very much. He tried to dissuade a victim of sexual abuse from reporting the perpetrator, a bishop (the uncle of the victim). For this reason, at the time of the 2013 Conclave, in Belgium there were those who demanded that he not be allowed to participate in the papal election.
Furthermore, Daneels’ positions on gay marriage and abortion - according to the revelation of two parliamentarians he wrote the king of Belgium exhorting him to sign the law to allow abortion - does not seem in agreement with the Magisterium of the Church; and with what Pope Francis has said on these issues.

Not once! Not Jesus Christ and not abortion. The very political Pope!

Not once was the name or Our Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed aloud.

Not even a subtle illusion.

Not even a blessing.

Even at St. Patrick's Church later, not even a formal blessing to Catholics.

Is the Pope embarrassed to be Catholic? Is he even?

Not once was the word "abortion" used. There were references to protecting "human life at every state of development." Yes, the Pope opposes abortion. But that weak statement could mean anything to anyone. To me it could mean from conception to natural death; to someone else it can mean birth until life has no dignity. It depends on  your perspective and your definition of when life begins and ends.

Let's get one thing perfectly clear.

Capital Punishment is recognised as legitimate in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is in the Bible. In fact, many times God ordered it and nowhere in the New Testament did Our Lord Jesus Christ abrogate it.

The personal opinion of Jorge Bergoglio, Pope of the Holy See is his opinion. It is nothing more. It is his opinion and he has no right to demand from me or anyone else the "global abolition of the death penalty."

Why didn't the Pope say he wanted the "global abolition of abortion?"

The Pope made this political.

Tomorrow at the United Nations will he call for a United Religions of the World?

God help us, please.

Cardinal Nichols - a "sting in the tail" is better than a sacrilege!

Ah, Cardinal Nichols, what a happy inclusive old chap. 

When he's not terrorising priests and bloggers he likes to receive blessings from pagan priests. 

The good Cardinal, clearly on the side of the Kasperites, says that:

“Many write of happy and fulfilling marriages but often with a sting in the tail regarding their children having difficult and broken relationships and not keeping the faith. Time and again respondents refer to the pain and suffering caused by the denial of the sacraments to those whose marriages have failed and have divorced and remarried. The disturbing and damaging effect on children is frequently referred to.” 

All sentimentalism and emotionalism.

Because if they're "divorced and remarried" they are in a state of adultery!

But the Pope has come up with the perfect solution.

Water down the annulment process that not a bit of it matters anymore.

Problem solved, ipso facto.

Truly, these are evil men.

Read the rest of it at Catholic Herald.

The New Evangelism - An evangelism without Jesus Christ!

Courtesy of Mahound's Pardise is this translation some remarks from the Pope in Cuba. Not one word of Jesus Christ and His salvation. Not one word of sin. Not one word of repentance.

The suffering Cuban people deserved better.

Havana, 20 September, 2015:

You are standing up and I am sitting. How unmannerly. But you know why I sit down? It’s because I took some notes of some things that our companion here said, and what I want to say is based on these. 

One word that struck a chord is "dream." A Latin American writer has said that people have two eyes: one of flesh and another of glass. With the eye of flesh, we see what is before us and with the eye of glass, we see what we dream of. It’s nice, no? In the objectivity of life, the capacity of dreaming has to enter in. A young person who is not capable of dreaming is cloistered in himself, he’s closed in on himself. Sure, a person sometimes dreams of things that are never going to happen. But dream them. Desire them. Seek the horizon. Open yourselves to great things. 

I’m not sure if in Cuba they use this word, but in Argentina, we say, Don’t be wimpy. Open yourselves and dream. Dream that the world with you can be different. Dream that if you give the best of yourself, you are going to help this world be different. Don’t forget. Dream. If you get carried away and dream too much and life cuts you off, don't worry. Dream and share your dreams. Speak about the great things that you want, because inasmuch as your capacity to dream is greater, when life leaves you only half way, you will have gone farther. So, first dream. 

You said a phrase that I underlined and took note of: "that we might know how to welcome and accept the one who thinks differently than us." Truly, sometimes we are closed in. We shut ourselves in our little world: "This is either the way that I want it or we’re not doing it." And you went even further, "that we don’t close ourselves into the 'little convents' of ideologies or in the 'little convents' of religions. That we might grow in the face of individualism." 

When a religion becomes a "little convent" it loses the best that it has, it loses its reality of adoring God, of believing in God. It’s a little convent of words, of prayers, of "I’m good and you’re bad,’ of moral regulations. I have my ideology, my way of thinking and you have yours; I close myself in this "little convent" of ideology. 

Open hearts. Open minds. If you are different than me, why don’t we talk? Why do we always throw rocks at that which separates us? At that in which we are differing? Why don’t we hold hands in that which we have in common? Motivate ourselves to speak about what we have in common, and then we can talk about the differences we have. But I said, talk, I didn’t say fight. I didn’t say close ourselves in. I don’t say "shut ourselves into our little convent," to use the word you used. But this is possible only when I have the capacity to speak of that which I have in common with the other, of that by which we are able to work together. 

In Buenos Aires, in a new parish, in a very, very poor region, a group of university students was building some rooms for the parish. And the parish priest told me, "Why don’t you come some Sunday and I’ll introduce them to you." They worked on Saturdays and Sundays on this construction. They were young men and women of the university. So I arrived, I saw them and they were introduced to me. "This is the architect. He’s Jewish. This one is Communist. This one is a practicing Catholic." All of them were different, but they were all working together for the common good. 

This is called social friendship: to seek the common good. Social enmity destroys. A family is destroyed by enmity. A country is destroyed by enmity. The world is destroyed by enmity. And the biggest enmity is war. And today we see that the world is destroying itself with war because people are incapable of sitting down and talking. OK, let’s negotiate. What can we do in common? In what things are we not going to give in? But let’s not kill more people. When there is division, there is death, death in the soul because we are killing the capacity to unite. We are killing social friendship. And that’s what I ask of you today: be capable of creating social friendship. 

There was another word that you said, the word hope. Youth are the hope of a people; we hear this everywhere. But what is hope? Is it to be optimistic? No. Optimism is a mood. Tomorrow, you wake up with an upset stomach and you’re not optimistic, you see everything in a negative light. Hope is something more. Hope is something that endures through suffering. Hope knows how to suffer to bring forward a project. It knows how to make sacrifices. Are you capable of making sacrifices for a future or do you only want to live today and leave what comes to those who come after? Hope is fruitful. Hope gives life. Are you capable of giving life? Or are you going to be a spiritually sterile young man or young woman, without the capacity to create life in others, without the capacity to create social friendship, without the capacity to create a homeland, without the capacity to create greatness? 

Hope is fruitful. Hope is given in work, and here I want to mention a very grave problem that is being experienced in Europe: the number of youth who don’t have work. There are countries in Europe where as many as 40% of youth 25 years old and younger live unemployed. I am thinking of one country. In another country, it’s 47% and in another 50%. 

Evidently, when a people is not concerned with giving work to youth — and when I say "people," I don’t mean government, I mean the entire people — it doesn’t have a future. 

The youth become part of the throwaway culture and all of us know that today, in this empire of the god money, things are thrown away and people are thrown away, children are thrown away, because they are unwanted, because they kill them before they are born, the elderly are thrown away — I’m speaking of the world in general — because they don’t produce anymore. In some countries, there is legal euthanasia, but in so many others there is a hidden, covered up euthanasia. Youth are thrown away because they are not given work. So then? What is left for a young person who doesn't have work? A country that doesn’t invent, a people that doesn’t invent employment opportunities for its youth, what’s left for this youth are addictions, or suicide, or to go around looking for armies of destruction to create wars. 

This throwaway culture is doing damage to all of us; it takes away hope, and this is what you asked for the youth: "We want hope." Hope endures suffering, it’s hardworking, it’s fruitful, it gives us work and it saves us from the throwaway culture. Hope that brings together, brings everyone together, because a people that knows how to bring itself together to look toward the future and build social friendship, as I said, despite thinking differently, this people has hope. 

And if I find a young person without hope, I've said this before, "a young retired person." There are young people who seem to have retired at 22 years old. They are young people with existential sadness, they are young people who have committed their lives to a basic defeatism. They are young people who lament. They are young people who flee from life. The journey of hope is not easy. And it can’t be made alone. There is an African proverb that says, "If you want to go quickly, walk alone, but if you want to go far, walk together." 

And I, Cuban young people, though you think differently from each other, though you have your own points of view, I want you to go along accompanying each other, together, seeking hope, seeking the future and the nobility of your homeland. We began with the word hope and I want to conclude with another word that you said and that I tend to use a lot: the culture of encounter. Please, let us not have "un-encounter" among us. Let us go accompanying each other, in encounter, even though we think differently, even though we feel differently, but there is something bigger than us, which is the greatness of our people, which is the greatness of our homeland, which is this beauty, this sweet hope for the homeland to which we have to arrive. 

I take leave wishing you the best, wishing you all of this that I have said, this I wish for you. I am going to pray for you. And I ask you to pray for me. And if one of you is a non-believer and cannot pray because he doesn’t believe, may he at least wish the best for me. May God bless you and bring you to walk along this path of hope, toward the culture of encounter, avoiding these "little convents" that our companion spoke about. May God bless all of you.

Cardinal Baldisseri "blows a gasket" demands Vatican employee be "fired"

More from Edward Pentin's book, "The Rigging of a Vatican Synod? which you must buy! 

"A second source in the secretariat said that a “discussion” then took place among staff concerning what to do with the books. Cardinal Baldisseri, he said, was “blowing a gasket” about the book being delivered to the synod. He also alleged that the cardinal then got on the phone to the Governorate, the administrative body managing Vatican City State. He reached Giuseppe Cardinal Bertello, president of the Governorate, and ordered that the postmaster of the Vatican post office be fired, saying his staff had not done their job stamping the envelopes. In response, Cardinal Bertello reportedly told him to calm down and suggested the books be sent back to the Vatican post office to be stamped."

"The inside source said Cardinal Baldisseri still wanted their delivery blocked, but he was warned such an action would be a crime and so changed his mind. Instead, because they had not been stamped, he decided to apply a different tactic and had them sent back to the Vatican post office to be stamped properly. The books were then held back from distribution as long as possible."

Will Rosica sue?

"Father Rosica was criticized for appearing to give greater prominence to perspectives that played up a “progressive” agenda. As an example, he spoke of an intervention to the effect that “language such as ‘living in sin’, ‘intrinsically disordered’, or ‘contraceptive mentality’ are not necessarily words that invite people to draw closer to Christ and the Church.”

(...)

"According to many observers, during the synod, Father Rosica also failed to stress that such language is used in the Catechism and did not mention the reservations many have about changing such language because it undermines and weakens Church teaching. This led many people to see him as a collaborator in conveying a “progressive agenda”, even though other factors may well have been at play, too."   

 (...)                                                                                                                                  

"Some observers and synod participants stated privately that, in comparison to the other relators who stressed that the interim report was a working document, Father Rosica seemed to convey it as a “done deal” and seemed to suggest that the Church was calling on everyone to embrace it."

Quoted from in the Rigging of a Vatican Synod? by EdwardPentin

Cardinal Baldisseri - Jesus is too negative, put Francis first!

I am reading Edward Pentin's book, "The Rigging of a Vatican Synod? I would not have put the question period. I've only just started it but you must buy this book.

This excerpt is chilling and reveals the evil men and weak men as betrayers of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

On Friday, October 3, two days before the opening of the synod, this scholar received a call directly from Cardinal Erdö to come and meet him the next day. “I said: ‘Sure, when would you like me to come, maybe 4 or 5 P.M.’ ”, reported the scholar, thinking he would prefer to meet after a siesta after lunch. But the call was more urgent than that. Erdö wanted to see him at 1:30 P.M.

When he arrived at Cardinal Erdö’s office, the Hungarian cardinal was “ashen faced”. He had just come from Cardinal Baldisseri. Erdö had read to Baldisseri the Relatio that he had written, and the synod secretary general had picked it apart. “He’d just brow-beaten him into submission”, the scholar said.

Cardinal Erdö had, it seems, drafted the document with the opening line beginning with “Jesus Christ is our Master before all others and our only Lord”, and had stated, in an allusion to 2 Timothy, that the faithful owe obedience to Him whether it is convenient or not convenient.

“We’re sitting across the table from another, and he says with a tortured expression on his face: ‘Cardinal Baldisseri wants me to change that.’ ”

“I said ‘Why?’ ”

“He said: ‘It’s negative’ and that I should I begin with the ‘Joy of the Gospel’ [Pope Francis’ 2014 apostolic exhortation]33 and quote Pope Francis. Before Jesus Christ.”

Erdö asked the scholar: “Do you think I should quote Pope Francis first?”

The expert had been told by someone who knew Cardinal Erdö well that, although solidly orthodox, he would be liable to backtrack under pressure.

“You could have knocked me over with a feather”, the scholar told me. “Here we are, two days before the opening, there’s the Mass, two days before, and he’s asking me if we should start with Jesus Christ? I said, ‘Eminence, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He is the Alpha and the Omega. We start with Jesus Christ.’ He left it in. You’ll see it, it’s still the first line.”

But the cardinal was not so successful with the second line. In his draft, Cardinal Erdö had wanted to move from Jesus Christ to Pope Paul VI, Evangelii nuntiandi (his 1975 apostolic exhortation on evangelization in the modern world), and from there to Pope Saint John Paul II with Familiaris consortio and then Benedict XVI and finally Pope Francis.

But Cardinal Baldisseri said, “No, invert the order.” He wanted the opening Relatio to begin first with Francis and Evangelii gaudium and then cover the other popes. The scholar reminded Erdö that it was common to start with the earlier popes and follow through, in chronological order, to more recent popes, because that is how doctrine develops.

Despite this, Cardinal Baldisseri got his way. According to the scholar, after pushing Erdö to make several rewrites and appealing directly to the pope to have contributions from Forte and others reinstated that Erdö had removed, the text was accepted.

In the report, it is still Jesus first, but then it is Francis, and then it is Paul. “Every reference to truth, the Word, bothered Baldisseri”, the scholar observed. “That’s Baldisseri”, he said. “He wanted mercy, a lot of mercy, less truth.”

Canonists speak out on Pope Francis' actions!

Full disclosure; your writer was granted a Decree of Nullity from the Tribunal in the Archdiocese of Toronto, therefore, what I write below is not to be construed as hypocrisy. The annulment was based on a Defect of Canonical Form, it was clear and precise and without question. It took nearly two years (because I was slow). It was not "painful" nor was it "humiliating" nor did it cost a lot of money. I recall that it was somewhere around $900 in three instalments as charitable donations for which tax receipts were issued. If I could not make a donation, it did not stop the process. It was thorough and detailed, witnesses were called and in the end, when the judge determined the issue of lack of form, it could have been decided in ten minutes! C'est la vie!

I didn't cry about it or whine about it. That time was good for me. It taught me patience and opened me up to God's possibilities for me. I didn't demand anything of the Church and I didn't whine about how mean She was. Had it been denied, I would have simply accepted it.

It was not a sacramental marriage, but it was a natural marriage and the fact that it was not sacramental did not necessarily invalidate it. That was not a criteria for considering the defect and I was told this clearly by the Auditor. There were other factors that could have been considered then, perhaps, other than the defect in Form. Under Pope Francis' changes to the annulment procedures, it would have been a slam dunk, notwithstanding the clear defect in form.

I do not support these changes. Not that the Bishop of Rome cares one bit about what I think. Having been through the process I find the whole debate about it insulting and manipulating. 

Marriage must always be presumed to be valid. Lack of faith. of one party to the marriage, must never be a consideration. The Church has always presumed validity of all marriages because marriage existed before the Church and in every culture. It was the Church that elevated it to a Sacrament - a Sacrament exchanged by the man and woman. The Pope may say in one breath that the doctrine is upheld, but the actions of this motu proprio do not support it.

The Pope cannot control what a bishop might do and whether or not he gives blanket approval to any case put before him. The issue of nullity is not an issue of mercy. It is an issue of law precisely because of the upholding of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. This is not the place for sentimentalism and emotionalism.  

Rorate Caeli blog has an important post to read with critical links to the commentary of some important canonists. 

I dare say that under this initiative of Francis, even Henry VIII would have been granted an Decree of Nullity to marry the whore Anne Boleyn and betray his true wife, Catherine of Aragon with Francis' blessing. Clearly, St Thomas More's martyrdom must have been for nought.  

Will the Pope head the advice or will he barrel ahead defying the whole notion of Vatican II collegiality?

How sadly ironic, eh?

It is diabolical to say that to defend dogma is to go against the Pope!

"To begin to say that each nation can begin to decide fundamental questions about the faith and its practice is simply to deny the Catholicity of the Church and to introduce a Protestant principle which would lead then to national churches and once this principal of division enters in it will all simply multiply itself as it has done in the Protestant churches."

"The penitential way has to be a way to help the individual truly repent and repentance includes necessarily a change in one's life."

Sadly this concentration of the question of those in irregular unions and the possibility of offering them Holy Communion has a wider scope ... to begin to say that other individuals who are living in public sin should also receive the sacraments."

"Those of us who are defending what the Church has always taught and practiced are now called the enemies of the Pope."

Africans will save the Church from Kasper and his fascist henchmen

Austin Ruse, President of the Centre for Family and Human Rights, opines at Crisis Magazine that it will be the Africans who save the Church and that he sees similar situations with African diplomats and the West with his work at the United Nations.

I urge you to read it there and subscribe to Crisis.

Here are a few excepts which reveal from Pentin's research the sheer manipulation (in spite of those who denied it and tried to sue me for it); the sheer evil present at the last Synod. Can you seriously doubt any longer that the fascistic and non-collegiality practices and are the work of the Holy Spirit? Does all of this discord come from God? It is not possible! Bishops calling for homosexual unions, Cardinals who should be in jail for covering up homopervert, sodomite priestly and episocopal abuse of children called by the Pope as delegates to the Synod. This is not the action of the Holy Spirit. It is sheer diabolical. The devil is not only sowing confusion, he is sowing deception and millions are falling for it!

Kasper did not learn well from his childhood in Germany. It is regrettable that he did not learn how not to be corrupted by Nazisim as Joseph Ratzinger did.

Pentin's book makes for a jarring wake-up for those who wish bury their heads in sand.

Don't be amongst them.




http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/the-africans-will-save-the-synod-the-church-and-the-world

Pentin presents evidence of manipulation in practically everything related to the synod, including the fact that homosexuality was barely a topic of conversation for the synod fathers, yet loomed large in the interim document. 

Pentin reports on some things not previously revealed. For instance, he records that the synod secretariat deliberately excluded “conservative” theologians as experts for the meeting. He also reports that Archbishop Bruno Forte was elected to the position of special secretary of the extraordinary “by only a small number of the fifteen-member Ordinary Council of the Synod of Bishops.” Forte is generally blamed for writing the most controversial paragraphs of the interim document. Indeed he was outed as the author of the gay paragraphs by Napier of South Africa during the raucous first-day press conference.

Pentin also presents voluminous evidence that Kasper, seemingly with the approval of Pope Francis, initiated a global campaign to change Church teaching on marriage, beginning with his two-hour address to a consistory of cardinals wherein he “floats the idea of admitting divorced and ‘remarried’ Catholics to Holy Communion without amendment of life.” 

So it’s odd that Kasper and his allies got so angry when a group of cardinals and other experts published a book upholding Church teaching on marriage, and then tried to get copies to the synod fathers. Their efforts were blocked by the synod secretariat. 

Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church.  

They decided the best way was to send them to the temporary addresses, which turned out to be Casa Santa Marta, the hotel-like residence within the Vatican walls. Organizers of the book did display a bit of skullduggery. They made sure the books were deliberately mailed from a post office away from the Vatican, and that “the books were placed in envelopes of different types and colors…” (they must have anticipated that there would be an attempt to block the distribution of the book, Vox)

Trouble brewed when a synod staff member looked inside of one of the packages after “an envelope came open and the book was identified.” Pentin reports that Cardinal Baldeserri “was ‘furious’ to learn that the book was being sent to synod fathers.”

Pentin says Baldeserri wanted the deliveries blocked, but was told that was illegal. Because most of the books had not been stamped by the Italian post office, he decided to send them back for stamping figuring the delay would mean synod fathers would never get them, which turned out to be true.

The cover-up of what happened with the book is quite remarkable. But there is also the fallout—the score settling. Pentin reports that Baldeserri’s cronies tried to get American Father Robert Dodaro to resign his post as president of the Institum Patristicum Augustinianum in Rome because Dodaro served as editor of the book.

Remarkably, Kasper said the book should have been given to him in advance so that he could “review it.” Vaticanista Marco Tosatti wrote in La Stampa that a group of Italian bishops told the Pope that the five cardinals who wrote the book had the “sole intention of fighting against Kasper,” and that the cardinals had committed a “mortal sin” in publishing it.

So angry was Kasper that he actually shouted at Cardinal Burke on the floor of the synod meeting. It is said the book was the final straw that caused the Pope to fire Burke from head of the Apostolic Signatura.