BREAKING: Circulus Angelicus "D" Cardinal Collins and Archbishop Chaput "Deo Gratias" for such faith and wisdom in the darkness or scandal and dissent!

The Church in Toronto and Philadelphia can be assured that they have true Shepherds in Thomas Cardinal Collins. and Archbishop Charles Chaput. 

A few years ago, I attended a Mass concelebrated by these two prelates followed by a breakfast, speech and book-signing whilst Archbishop Chaput was still at the See of Denver. It was obvious that they were more than just colleagues, but friends. The Church has been served well by these two faithful men. May God bless them for their faith and wisdom amidst such darkness and chaos.

Clearly, these two Shepherds are Catholic!

Relatio – Circulus Anglicus “D”

Moderator: Thomas Christopher Card. COLLINS 

Relator: S.E. Mons. Charles Joseph CHAPUT, O.F.M. Cap. 

Members of English circle D again stressed the need to support the many families that already live the Catholic understanding of marriage and family life joyfully.

Members of our group revisited the importance of the Church acknowledging the role of women and mothers and men and fathers. Our ecumenical representative felt the document should address the whole Christian community and not simply the Catholic Church. Much discussion took place about the importance of funerals in the lives of families. Members felt this matter deserves far more attention, along with the role of the family in situations of illness and death.

Members felt that when the document talks about the Word of God, it needs to more fully convey the meaning of that term in the tradition of the Church. The Word of God refers to Jesus personally, to the written word of Scriptures, but also to the word proclaimed in the community.

Bishops said that the text paid inadequate attention to chastity formation. This work should begin very early in life and should not be delayed until marriage preparation. The danger of government authorities doing sex education caused great concern for many group members.

Regarding the formation of future priests, mention was made that the text lacks any focus on the Eastern tradition of married clergy. Reflections on that should also be included.

On the formation of Christians in the virtue of chastity, members noted a natural sequence:

First, formation in chastity within the family provides a needed foundation for later life;

Next, formation in chastity for those preparing for marriage builds on that earlier foundation,

Finally, formation in chastity for married men and women continues couples’ growth in the Christian life and sets the stage for the next generation.

In addition:

Formation in chastity for those preparing to be priests is key to their own vocation, and vital to their ability to help those they serve.

Group members insisted that the main educators of the laity in terms of marriage preparation should be married couples themselves because of their experience and credibility. Priests obviously have a key role as well, but married couples and families should take the lead.

Members discussed the place of priests in marriage counseling. Some strongly supported priests doing what they can to heal troubled marriages because the priest is often the most trusted and educated person available, and people are unable to afford professional counselors. The Church needs to be prudent, but not so prudent that she avoids helping people in great need.

The group had a long exchange on pastoral approaches to divorced people who had not remarried, and also divorced people who have married again without an annulment. Members voiced significant concern that whatever is done should not lead to greater confusion among our people. One bishop said that the issue of admitting divorced and remarried persons without an annulment to Communion was such a vital matter of doctrinal substance that it could only be handled at an ecumenical council and not at a synod.

One of the synod fathers stressed the importance of using appropriate language. Instead of referring to people in difficult situations as being “excluded” from the Eucharist, we should say that they “abstain” from the Eucharist. That word is more accurate and not as negative. One father mentioned that bishops cannot be more merciful than Jesus’s words. The Lord is not bound by Church rules, but the Church is very much bound by the words of Jesus.

Some thought that the current text lacks an understanding of the Eucharistic foundation of Christian marriage, which says we cannot reduce marriage to a sexual relationship. Likewise, we can’t reduce life in the Church to receiving Communion. In the history of the Church huge segments of the faithful did not receive Holy Communion and yet were clearly considered members of the Church, beginning with the Catechumens. For those who are on a penitential path, they are not excluded from the Church even though they abstain from Communion. Other fathers thought that the number of people who are divorced or remarried without an annulment has grown in such a big way that we need to deal with this question in a new and different manner.

Members spent quite a bit of time talking about the beauty and comprehensiveness of No. 84 of Familiaris Consortio.Some suggested that FC 84 ought to be put directly into the text. One father spoke about the power of the keys and the Holy Father’s ability to change things. He said that the Pope can, in effect, twist the hands of God. Others responded that the power of the keys does not give the Church the ability to change Revelation and the faith of the Church.

One member of the group felt that the Church has forgotten Jesus in all this discussion and that the bishops and many laypeople may be perceived as Pharisees. There was a call for a commission to study the issue of Communion for the divorced and remarried over a longer period of time with greater theological precision.

There was a suggestion that the Church ought to study the notion of spiritual communion more thoroughly. Just as Protestant communities participate in the reality of the Church, those who don’t receive Holy Communion can take part in the reality of the Eucharist.

Members spent some time talking about mixed marriages and marriages of disparate cult. The practice of the Orthodox Church also featured in the discussion. Some saw this as a good pastoral path for the Roman Church. Others felt there was little clarity in the Orthodox approach because several different practices among the Orthodox actually exist.

The section on the pastoral care of persons with homosexual tendencies sparked much discussion. Some members thought that this issue should be removed from discussion in the Synod on the Family. They felt that it’s important enough to have a specific synodal meeting on the topic itself. Some suggested that the wording of the Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 2357-2359 should be used. Others saw that option as possibly damaging the credibility of the Church in Western Europe and North America.

In the section on the transmission of life and the challenges of a declining birthrate, members offered both positive and negative comments. Most members felt that No. 137 should be removed from the text or completely rewritten, because the way one forms one’s conscience is handled poorly in the current document.

In the section on adoption, some discussion ensued about the right of a child to have both a mother and a father. Members noted the difficulty of some Churches in the western world continuing to offer adoption services in the face of government pressure to support adoption by same-sex couples.

Members said the text doesn’t speak clearly enough about palliative care, and the responsibility of the Church to help families in times of illness and when dealing with the confusion around modern medical/moral problems.

Considerable discussion took place about what is missing from the text in general. Among the items mentioned were:

1. The place of Catholic schools.

2. Mary, the mother of Jesus, should have greater mention and more significance.

3. Nothing in the text expresses gratitude to consecrated women who care for the sick and the elderly.

5. Not enough attention is paid to the role of single parents and ways to support them.

6. Not enough positive discussion takes place about the value of the extended family.

7. No mention is made of the role of godparents.

8. No clarity is offered on the roles of mother and father.

9. Many thousands of people help parents educate their children, but religious teachers aren’t mentioned, and even babysitters should get at least some brief attention because they can be very helpful to parents who need to work outside the home.

10. The text avoids dealing with the issue of sexual abuse and incest within families.

11. No significant emphasis is placed on the importance of family prayer, meditation and popular religiosity.

12. Something positive should be said about migrants who leave their home countries in order to send back money to support their families.

13. Finally, some members felt that something in the document should be said about the importance of praying for our deceased family members and the significance of those family members praying for us in the Communion of Saints.

Other bonds of love and interdependency may be "good" and why the language needs to be even "harsher"

There has been much talk of language at the Synod and how it needs to change to conform with the world. Consider then this:

We must never forget that other bonds of love and interdependency, of commitment and mutual responsibility exist in society. They may be good; they may even be recognized in law. They are clearly not the same as marriage; they are something else. No extension of terminology for legal purposes will change the observable reality that only the committed union of a man and a woman carries, not only the bond of interdependency between the two adults, but the capacity to bring forth children. Let us recommit ourselves to building up the human family, to strengthening marriage, to blessing and nurturing children, and to making our homes, families and parish communities holy, welcoming places for women and men of every race, language, orientation and way of life.

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/marriage-and-the-family-humanity-s-future

http://saltandlighttv.org/blog/rosicareflections/marriage-and-the-family-humanitys-future-2

How can they be "good" if they are based on sodomy?

If they are "something else" what are they?

The "law" allows "two adults" to adopt children, regardless of whether the adults are one man and one woman. Is this rightly ordered based upon the teachings of the Church?

People are always "welcome" no matter their "orientation." What we must each struggle to purge from our lives is sin and some sins are harder to purge than others. Is this something we must continue to do or do we not call an "orientation" that is based on an "objective disorder" which can manifest as "intrinsically disordered," sin?  Do we leave people oriented towards their sin?

So, it is all about changing the Catechism and the Truth for the sake of language in a false idea that this will bring millions back to the Church. It will not. It will ease the pain of a guilty conscience in some and leave others to suffer dreadful sickness, early death and eternal Hell.

You see friends, the people in the Church think and advocate for what really is a "sodomy synod" are simply wrong. They are in charity misinformed or deluded. They may be advocates of the change in language for a variety of reasons. They may be blackmailed. They may be evil. Whatever the reason, they are wrong and they are not doing the work of Our Lord; they are not working to save souls, they may think that they are, but they are not. 

How can any of hold this opinion and belief? Because it is what the Church has taught through Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition for two-thousand years and She has not been wrong. But these men in clerics are and we know who they are, there is no need to name them. If this Synod has been good for anything it has unmasked them for all to see.

Let us consider what this man who was once a practicing homosexual, pornographic performer and occultist who was saved from all of it by Our Lord Jesus Christ think? How must this man, who has struggled to overcome a life of hell on earth because of God's grace and the Sacraments, feel? The Synodal Fathers seem to be all about "feelings," well, what about the suffering that Joseph Sciambra must endure as he sees what these bishops and cardinals, whatever their reasoning or motivation are out to do?

When Pope Francis and the rest of these men in clerical towers want to go to the peripheries and smell like the sheep, here is a man that can take them there.

God bless him; for he has more faith than some of our shepherds.

A Call for Even Harsher Language on Homosexuality from the Synod

Embracing “intrinsically disordered” - Why “less condemnatory” language hides the Truth of homosexuality

The real reason why “gay” men leave the Catholic Church…

Synod Father calls out “gay” for what it is - ABNORMAL!

Archbishop Blase Cupich wants to “accompany” “gays…”

Synod Fathers: “gays” do not need you to “accompany” them, but to be there when they return...

Do you still have the rosary Justin? Maybe you should learn to use it, again!

How does a Catholic Bishop speak? Look no further than Bishop Krzysztof Białasik

This is how a true bishop and apostle of Our Lord Jesus Christ speaks.

One who is manly and not sold out to the world having been overcome by a guilty conscience due to their own predilections for sodomy, pornography and riches.

(translation: Toronto Catholic Witness. You are free to use, please credit us). 

Bishop Krzysztof Białasik on gender ideology and abortion:

"There are different influences that promote ideologies against the family. One of these is gender [ideology].  This ideology, which destroys life, and supports abortion, homosexual unions and the adoption of children by them; euthanasia - therefore this promotes death. As John Paul II said, it is a culture of death. God is the Lord of life and not death. Therefore, we are working so that the family will find new impulses of life.
Today, abortion is a very serious problem. In many places, as in Bolivia, some physicians say that abortion is not a problem, just a small operation, the removal of "lumps consisting of a few cells." We know well and the Church teaches this: that the human being must be protected from the moment of conception. It was once thought that the mother's womb was the safest place, this is not the case today. Many women think: "it's my body!". But it is not their body, but another person. Parents have no right to kill, because it is murder. Today abortion is a holocaust on a global scale; I call it the third world war. It is done in white gloves, but it is a holocaust" 

http://torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.ca/2015/10/breaking-bishop-biaasik-at-synod.html

Shut-up you stupid little Catholic. It is I, the great Clericalist Wizard of Coleridge who knows best - The Faith is not "timeless" and I've seen the "risen lord"

This proves that we are getting to them and we must not stop.

It also proves that they don't give a rat's patootie what you or I think.

They are clericalist on top of being heresiarchs.

http://brisbanecatholic.org.au/articles/on-the-road-together-invective-fear-surprise/

On the Road Together – Invective, fear and surprise "Those voices, clinging desperately to some imagined or ideologised past, cannot point the way into the future. History will have its way, however much we try to cling to illusions of timelessness."

Connect with Archbishop Mark Coleridge:

October 20, 2015
Whatever about the press conference itself, the big surprise for me has been the ferocious reaction in some quarters to what I regard as my quite moderate remarks. Twitter has been frothing with invective, which shows what’s out there – by which I mean the fear, even the panic this Synod seems to have provoked in some. That sort of thing doesn’t look like the Holy Spirit to me – red-eyed joylessness cannot be of God. The impression is that, if you touch the slightest jot or tittle not so much of what the Church teaches but of what her pastoral practice has been or how her truth has been expressed, then the whole edifice built up over 2000 years will come tumbling down. If I believed that, I’d be panicking too and hurling lemon-lipped diatribes this way and that. But I don’t believe it and therefore find myself trusting in the path that’s opening before us, with the abuse rolling like water off a duck’s back. Voices of fear, even panic, have also been heard in the Synod Hall and the small groups, but what’s clearer to me now is that those voices within have strong links to similar voices without. It’s also clear that those voices, clinging desperately to some imagined or ideologised past, cannot point the way into the future. History will have its way, however much we try to cling to illusions of timelessness.
(...)
Once we’ve done our work, it goes to the 10-man commission who are writing the final document. They’ve been hard at it, dealing with the first two parts of the working document. Cardinal John Dew told me that they were huddled over the work yesterday afternoon and into the room unannounced walked Pope Francis – like the Risen Lord, though not (I think) walking through a locked door. He simply wished them well in the work and urged them to give him a good document. They promised to try. Another moment of the Pope of surprises. Let’s hope for some surprises from the final document.
Connect with Archbishop Mark Coleridge:

Has Father Thomas J. Rosica, fluent in five languages, misquoted Pope Francis? If so, what are the implications?

During the address to the Synod on Saturday, last, October 17, Pope Francis quoted St. John Paul II, from the Encyclical Letter, Ut Unum Sint.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html

The speech by Pope Francis can be found on the Vatican's web page.

http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2015/10/17/0794/01750.html

Nick Donnelly @protectthePope on Twitter put out the following.

In the original Italian are the Pope's words. He then quotes from the official English translation of Ut Unum Sint and then Father Thomas J. Rosica's translation of what the Pope said quoting the same document.

I asked an Italian contact to confirm the Google translation of what the Pope said and it is pretty good. He translated it as:

"I am convinced that you have in this regard a particular responsibility, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspiration of the majority of Christian Communities and in hearing the question that is posed to me by..."

Well, well, well.

When the quote of St. John Paul II, whom the Pope did quote, is changed from "I am fully aware as I have reaffirmed" as Bishop of Rome in 1995 to "I am convinced that you have in this regard..." it changes the whole message. It goes from a quote of something possessed by the Bishop of Rome to a command to the bishops of the world.

But that is not what Francis said!

Nor is it what St. John Paul II said or meant.

What is Father Rosica up to?

I'm sure it was only a clerical error, "I" versus "you." What's the big deal.

Just a clerical error, I'm sure.



Nota bene:

The Pope's original speech in Italian is here:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2015/october/documents/papa-francesco_20151017_50-anniversario-sinodo.html

Mentre ribadisco la necessità e l'urgenza di pensare a «una conversione del papato»[30], volentieri ripeto le parole del mio predecessore il Papa Giovanni Paolo II: «Quale Vescovo di Roma so bene [...] che la comunione piena e visibile di tutte le comunità, nelle quali in virtù della fedeltà di Dio abita il suo Spirito, è il desiderio ardente di Cristo. Sono convinto di avere a questo riguardo una responsabilità particolare, soprattutto nel constatare l'aspirazione ecumenica della maggior parte delle Comunità cristiane e ascoltando la domanda che mi è rivolta di trovare una forma di esercizio del primato che, pur non rinunciando in nessun modo all'essenziale della sua missione, si apra ad una situazione nuova»[31].

While I reiterate the need and urgency to think of "a conversion of the papacy" [30], willingly repeat the words of my predecessor Pope John Paul II: "As Bishop of Rome I know [...] that the full communion and visible from all communities, in which by virtue of God's faithfulness, his Spirit dwells, is the ardent desire of Christ. I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing all ' essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation "[31].

Father Rosica’s translation is:

http://saltandlighttv.org/blog/faith-education/pope-francis-address-at-commemorative-ceremony-for-the-50th-anniversary-of-the-synod-of-bishops

While I reiterate the need and urgency to think of ” a conversion of the papacy,” I gladly repeat the words of my predecessor Pope John Paul II: “As Bishop of Rome I know well […] that the full and visible communion of all the communities in which, by virtue of God’s faithfulness, his Spirit dwells, is the ardent desire of Christ. I am convinced that you have in this regard a special responsibility, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made ??of me to find a form of exercise of the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation.”

You stupid, idiot Canadians, especially you idiot Catholics!

A young Justin Trudeau, he forgot much, but he had nice hair then too.

Well you did it.

You threw out the most respected government in the western world and a Prime Minister of class and dignity, despite what other faults he may have had. An economist for a drama teacher. That is what you traded for. Our country has the lowest taxes compared to GDP in half a century, economic stability and a balanced budget, security, respect from others around the world.

What was broken?

You threw this away for a cretin who admires "China's basic dictatorship." A pot-smoking imbecile. A man who has promised to raise your taxes, run a budgetary deficit, put our country in greater debt. He has no problem keeping citizenship for terrorists, women covering their faces at citizenship ceremonies or hanging around radical jihadists in mosques - hey, take a look at how many Islamists you morons just elected.

He will stop the gateway pipeline and back the malefactor in America by not building Keystone. He will sign on to every globalist environmental treaty and he is nothing more than a puppet for globalists, Marxists and the New World Order and global governance. He hates our military, he will endanger our national security.

He is a bad man.

Courtesy of Barona

You elected a Marxist who will accept what those holding the strings on his mouth tell him to say. Justin Trudeau will help to usher in the New World Order and One World Government, just as our Pope as evident in Laudato si.

Worse and this is for you, you corrupted Canadian Catholics.

You elected the son of an publicly immoral psychotic mother who instead of being home with her family danced at a New York disco with her pantyless bottom exposed for all to see and photograph. His Jesuit educated fascist father nearly bankrupted our country and brought us abortion on demand and a Charter of Rights we did not need which will gave us so called "marriage" within the sexes and euthanasia for which he will not attempt to stop. He will legalise marijuana. He is an bad Catholic and moral imbecile. 

And even worse.

He will do what Harper cancelled and that is use our taxes to murder the innocent in the wombs of their mothers around the world. You, my stupid, stupid idiot Canadian Catholics will be party to murder! As for here, he will prohibit any governing Member of Parliament from talking or thinking or acting for the unborn. 

Read that again my Catholic friend. You voted for the most aggressively pro-baby murder government in the history of this country.

Happy now you stooges?

You elected a drama teacher.

Get ready for it.

San Juan Archbishop Roberto González Nieves supports public outing of adulterers!

Oh for heaven's sake, can you clowns get original? The pillory's been done away with. This moronic cleric wants a public outing of adulterists before they come to Holy Communion. Well, that's merciful, eh?

Who authorised the ordination of this man?  San Juan Archbishop Roberto González Nieves told the 270 prelates at the gathering that the practice of remarried Catholics entering the Communion line with their arms crossed to indicate they wish to receive a blessing, instead of the Eucharist, demonstrates that “spiritual communion is not enough.”
“This gesture shows and suggests several things,” González said of that practice during his 3-minute address to the synod. “It is a manifestation of the desire of sacramental communion and they humble themselves before the community by making clear to all their illegal status; as if to say: Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!”
Saying he wanted to present proposals to “enter into dialogue with the complexity of the pastoral reality and the salvation of souls,” González suggested to the synod that certain divorced and remarried persons might enter into something akin to an "order of penitents" through participation in "places of encounter with Jesus Christ."

http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/puerto-rico-archbishop-calls-path-communion-remarried

Mark Benedict Coleridge. Is he our latest heresiarch?

Today's press conference from the Synod to destroy the family featured Brisbane Archbishop Mark Benedict Coleridge.

Shall we take a look at what this episcopal eunuch had to day?

The Church has traditionally spoken that the second union is adulterous and I understand why. I understand the teaching and what lies behind it, including the biblical background. But at the same time, not every case is the same and that’s where a pastoral approach needs to take account of the different situations. For instance, just to say that every second marriage or second union whatever you want to call it is adulterous, is perhaps too sweeping. For instance, a second marriage that is enduring and stable and loving and where there are children who are cared for is not the same as a couple skulking off to a hotel room for a wicked weekend.  So the rubric, adultery, in one sense, it’s important but in another sense it doesn’t say enough and I think what a pastoral approach  requires is that we actually enter into what the synod is calling a genuine pastoral dialogue or discernment with these couples and the start of that is for people like me to actually listen to their story not just swamp them with doctrine or Church teaching. (Coleridge's commentary begins just before the 24:00 mark - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=timmt6EvF-0)

 

I had a conversation, not too long ago, with a priest - someone who should have been a bishop except he would not dissent on Humanae vitae back in the late 1970. He opined how angry it made him when he would hear Pope Francis say that priests were not "pastoral" or "merciful." He could not understand who it was that the Pope was speaking about. I have certainly not seen a priest any less than pastoral and merciful provided I was repentant for the wretched things that I had done and brought them to either the confessional or spiritual direction.

 

Coleridge waxes on that a "second marriage or second marriage" if it is nice and all is well, is "different from skulking off to a hotel room" and therefore, not really adultery. Well, what if the second marriage began because one or both skulked off to a hotel room? Would it be adultery then?

 

What if the first wife is at home with the other children and struggling? Is there no sin in that for the person who caused the break-up and now lives in something other than adultery?

 

Truly, who educated these men? Have they all been emasculated?

 

There is something, however, even more troubling.

 

We see and hear lots of heterodox commentary at these daily briefings. Why is there no bishops speaking orthodoxy.

Perhaps Fathers Lombardi or Rosica might wish to comment and let us know.

 

We're waiting.