Pope Francis stumbles in more ways than one

Reuters is reporting that the Bishop of Rome stumbled yesterday at Mass at the Lateran Basilica on his way up to the altar for the celebration of the Feast of its dedication. This is the second time in three days, the first being Saturday at St. Peter's Basilica. He is aging, stressed no doubt, and may have a brain tumour. We have sympathy for him as a man.

But let me be perfectly clear; he has stumbled in more ways than this.

If there had been any doubt that his appointment of Jozef de Kesel as Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels is a disaster for the faith, erase it from your Catholic mind. The man is a heretic and advocate of sacrilege.

As Carl E. Olson writes at Catholic World Report: 

If an archbishop-elect thinks the word "mercy" is  "somewhat condescending", what must he think of words such as "sin", "damnation", "hell", and "orthodoxy"? We don't know for certain, but perhaps that is just as well, if only for the sake of keeping one's stomach comments in place. The prelate in question is Jozef De Kesel of Mechelen-Brussels, interviewed by Kerknet and translated into English by Mark de Vries of "In Caelo et in Terra", who covers Catholic news in the Netherlands. The fuller quote: You did not take part in the Synod on the family, but will probably get to work with its proposals. What will stay with you from this Synod? “The Synod may not have brought the concrete results that were hoped for, such as allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion. But it is unbelievable how much it was a sign of a Church that has changed. The mentality is really not the same anymore. I may be a careful person, but I do not think we should be marking time. Mercy is an important word for me, but in one way or another it is still somewhat condescending. I like to take words like respect and esteem for man as my starting point. And that may be a value that we, as Christians, share with prevailing culture.” 

You can read his full report together with his erudite commentary and the link to the full interview and its official English translation.

De Kesel needs to be concerned more with esteem for Christ, than "esteem for man." He needs to have some concern for his own soul as well. 

Sandro Magister also reports of a little Jesuitical infighting. It seems there are a few Catholic Jesuits left in the world. Anthony Spadaro, S.J., of the #SpadaroBlockParty which is not quite as busy as the #RosicaBlockParty which actually trended on Twitter a few weeks back, is not one of them. He is the cause of this little storm. The reader may recall our work of this past Saturday on Spadaro based upon Magister's previous letter. The conclusion can only be that Spadaro is, in fact, speaking for the Bishop of Rome and that can be confirmed by the challenge thrown at him by his brother Jesuit at Boston College, of all places. 

Particularly striking was the peremptoriness with which Fr. Spadaro drew from the “Relatio finalis” of the synod - a text in effect open to multiple interpretations - a one-way orientation: in favor of communion for the divorced and remarried. The following commentary, however, shows how the director of “La Civiltà Cattolica” and confidant of Francis cannot disguise the fact that his conclusions contradict “the teaching of the Church” that the “Relatio sinodi” itself insists must be respected. In particular, he shows how one cannot shield oneself behind a few lines of John Paul II’s “Familiaris consortio” to draw conclusions opposed to those that are written there. The author of the commentary is a priest of the diocese of New York, Robert P. Imbelli, professor emeritus of theology at Boston College and an authoritative contributor to “L'Osservatore Romano,” in addition to “America” and “Commonweal.” An author of works of Christology and of Trinitarian and liturgical theology, his latest book is entitled: "Rekindling the Christic Imagination: Theological Meditations for the New Evangelisation". 

It's only Tuesday and it's been quite a good start to the week revealing to all, the heresiarchs and homosexualists amongst us in the Church. We've had an abomination, blasphemy and sacrilege in New York City at Our Saviour Church with the Hindu ritual, the same Archdiocese's Cardinal Dolan dancing it up withthe Rockette's (hey, their women, let's cut him some slack), the dear in the headlights Diarmuid Martin in Dublin telling all that the Church "must change" and the little episode yesterday in Buffalo promoting the sodomite agenda which the pastor deny but photos betray.

But it does not stop there. Earlier today in Florence, the Bishop of Rome spoke at the Fifth National Ecclesial Convention Annual saying once again resurrecting his lectures that those who follow the law are Pelagians. Edward Pentin has the story at National Catholic Register. So there we have it. Follow the two thousand year old Law of the Church, obey and preach the Ten Commandments and the words of Jesus, "If you love me, keep my commandments" and you're a Pharisee. Disagree with Francis of Rome, you're a Pelagian. You think that you're "superior" and you're not following the "breath of the spirit." I urge you to read The Radical Catholic's post on this speech drawing the parallels between Jorge Bergoglio and Martin Luther regarding their views on the Catholic Church and the heresy of Pelagianism.  Here is a quote courtesy of Southern Orders where you can also more: 

“We are not living in an era of change but a change of era. ... Before the problems of the church it is not useful to search for solutions in conservatism or fundamentalism, in the restoration of obsolete conduct and forms that no longer have the capacity of being significant culturally. ... Christian doctrine is not a closed system incapable of generating questions, doubts, interrogatives — but is alive, knows being unsettled, enlivened, ... It has a face that is not rigid, it has a body that moves and grows, it has a soft flesh: it is called Jesus Christ.”

For a complete repudiation of Jorge Bergoglio's statement today, given on All Saints Day visit:

http://reginaprophetarum.org/audio/20151101-Do-We-Have-Faith-of-Our-Fathers.mp3

There, did you drink it in? Do you have the Faith of Our Fathers or do you wish to sing a new church into being by these "modernist tyrants" where "even the documents of Vatican II and St. John Paul II are passé."

Do not be discouraged, all of this must come out. Do not let it get you down, Keep faith in Our Lord and His promise that the "gates of Hell will not prevail." Rejoice that we have this vehicle, the Internet - blogs, Facebook, Twitter, Email -- all these tools that our parents and grandparents did not have.

The Reuters story on the stumbling Bishop of Rome refers to the reputed tumour, perhaps, in its denial, the Vatican, “doth protest too much.” If the Pope has a brain tumour there is no way he should be making any decisions along the lines of what Spadaro, Kasper and De Kesel advocate. These men are heretics and malefactors. Does Francis really want to seek counsel from them? Will he soon make De Kesel, Cardinal and add to that the heresiarch and homosexualist Cupich for good measure? Now that Danneels is well over 80 and Cardinal George is dead, what is stopping him. Will he make the faithful Archbishops in Philadelphia and Montreal Cardinals, or will he bypass them because they stand for the faith?

He muses about a short papacy. May it be so. Not that I wish him any ill will, not at all. May he be inspired by to go for that slice of pizza and mate at a little cafe in Buenos Aires. He should consider it before December 8 and the gross insult to Our Blessed Mother with the motu proprio on Catholic Divorce. 

Benedict XVI has shown him the way. The door is open to him.

Bull Coprophagia in Buffalo

The above photo is of Sts. Columba and Brigid Catholic Church in Buffalo, a city with some beautiful churches, mostly empty. The story is reported from John Vennari at Catholic Family News.

Bishop Malone of Buffalo found out through Vennari and presumably other social media (another victory for the Catholic Internet) and promptly ordered the priest to remove it. In a response to John Vennari, the Bishop wrote:

“Thank you for your message regarding the sign at SS Columba – Brigid Church here in Buffalo. As soon as I learned of this sign, I took immediate action to have it removed. The pastor of SS Columba – Brigid Church told me that the “2 Dads” were meant to refer to a child who has both a father and stepfather. There are several children in his parish who have both a father and stepfather. However, given the potential for the meaning of this message to be misunderstood and even perceived in a heretical way, it was immediately removed.”

Yes, that's right. The priest meant those with a step-dad. Right.

But that's not all. I took a little look through the web page, Photos are always very helpful.

http://www.columba-brigid.org/9.html

Are you ready for "communion?"

Tell us now Father Roy Herberger, is that a rainbow in that stole? Is that a picnic because it certainly is not a Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is an abomination. It is a blasphemy at your hands. You are disgrace to the priesthood. A disgrace to Buffalo.

If you believe that sign wasn't about a couple of sodomites, I've some nice pristine land along the Love Canal for sale too. 

Who gave this man boy his First Holy Communion?

dob@buffalodiocese.org

Heresiarch Archbishop Diarmuid Martin - "Times have changed in Irish society and the Church must change."

Are there any men left in Ireland? Any Catholics?

Are there any men left amongst the clergy and episcopate?

Are they all sodomites and heretics?

Ireland, tell me, I know I have readers in the land of Saint Patrick, Brigid, Columba, Kevin and Malachy.

Tell me.

Or are you all a little queer too?

Dublin Archbishop: Church Must Change With the Times

by Christine Niles  •   November 9, 2015   5 COMMENTS

FILED UNDER: GOVERNMENT, CRISIS IN THE CHURCH, IRELAND, CATHOLIC EDUCATION, GAY MARRIAGE, YES

DUBLIN (ChurchMilitant.com) - Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin is saying the Catholic Church must change with the times. He is also supporting the increased secularization of Catholic schools.

At a Sunday Mass in Dublin held in honor of the 170th anniversary of the Catholic Institute for the Deaf, Martin said in his homily, "The Church is slow to change. Inertia may seem to mean that things can go on as they were and are; but the opposite is the case."

Referring to the June referendum that legalized gay "marriage" in the country, Martin continued, "I spoke some time ago of a 'reality check'; I could also have said 'a wake-up call.' Times have changed in Irish society and the Church must change." 

http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/dublin-archbishop-church-must-change-with-the-times

The days are coming, indeed, they are already here

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

The Days Are Coming, and Are Already Here

by Giacomo Cardinal Biffi 

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

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

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

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

But three things about Jesus were unacceptable to him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Love, help, and serve your enemy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this:

Soloviev And Our Time

By Giacomo Cardinal Biffi

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

A Prophetic Teaching

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Teaching Unheeded

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

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

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

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

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

Among many, here are a few examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of leaders like him we have today great need.

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

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

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

Timmy Dolan raises his leg

While at Our Saviour Church in New York a Hindu "service' of worship to the devil is permitted to take place before the Holy Altar of the One, True, God. Timmy Dolan attends the Rockettes and lifts a leg.

Well, if I meet Timmy Dolan one day, I'll bring Roxy with me and she can lift hers too. Right on his.

Of course, it could have been worse. He could have visited the Why Em See, Eh.

http://nypost.com/2015/11/05/cardinal-dolan-gets-a-kick-out-of-meeting-the-rockettes/

What does the Jesuit master reveal about the Jesuit Bishop of Rome's intention. Are we on the verge of heresy and schism?

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.