Cupich: Rotten Fruit for the Church

Let us pray for an end of this scourge on the Catholics of the Archdiocese of Chicago before Chicago - home to the most Latin Masses of any American city - sees the Ancient Liturgy removed steadily from the Faithful.  Kyrie eleison!

From the SSPX website:

Archbishop Blase Cupich has been one of the rising figures in the Catholic Church, and will be made even more prominent this fall.

Chicago Archbishop and Cardinal-elect Blase Cupich encouraged his fellow bishops to respond with courage and vigor “for what the Church is called to be!” The following statement was reported by Vatican Insider (Oct. 12, 2012):

The Holy Father’s visit a year ago [in USA] provided him with an opportunity to see first-hand the vitality and vibrancy of the Church in the US. At the same time, he offered a challenging vision of what the Church is called to be and so it is now up to all of us, the bishops of the US, to respond with courage and vigor."

Chosen by the Pope himself to participate to the 2015 Synod on the Family, Cupich supported the proposal of Cardinal Walter Kasper to provide a path for civilly remarried persons to receive Holy Communion while respecting the decision that such persons, along with homosexuals in relationships, “make about their spiritual lives” (Chicago Tribune, Oct. 17, 2015). Cupich was one of the bishops scandalizing the world by endorsing Kasper’s proposal during the Synod and highlighting the importance of conscience.

It comes therefore to no surprise that Cupich reiterated his support for giving Communion to divorced remarried in an interview last week. But this time, he presents himself as faithful to the Pope’s position!

My position is the same as that of Pope Francis, who has indicated that the proper interpretation of 'Amoris Laetitia' was given by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn and then again by the bishops of Argentina, for which the Pope noted ‘no further interpretation is needed.’ So if people want to know what I think, they should refer to those sources.”

Cupich is well-known for his liberal stance on numerous issues.

On Prolife Issues

Despite reminders on the sacredness of life, Cupich has a history of downplaying the urgency of the question by calling for balance, dialogue, and respect or other approaches.

As Sandro Magister put it in the Chiesa News (Sept. 30, 2014):

Cupich’s voice - as noted both by conservative Catholics, with distress, and by progressives, with satisfaction - always rings out loud and clear when the talk is of immigration or the death penalty, but he seems to get laryngitis every time there is a discussion of abortion, euthanasia, and religious freedom, or criticism of the Obama administration over health care reform."

In August 2015, in the wake of the Center for Medical Progress videos exposing Planned Parenthood’s baby body parts trafficking scandal, Cupich wrote on in the Chicago Tribune (Oct. 26, 2015) that unemployment and hunger are just as appalling as killing children in the womb.

Cupich has been constant in requesting that priests and seminarians of his successive dioceses (Spokane, WA and Rapid City, SD) not participate in 40 Days for Life prayer vigils outside of abortion facilities.

Back in November 2014, Cupich stated that giving Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians was a positive move. Asked on CBS’s Face the Nation if he would give Communion to pro-abortion politicians, the archbishop said he hoped the grace that comes to people from the Eucharist would bring them to the truth.

Ten years before, during the 2004 presidential election, he refused to join those bishops condemning pro-abortion Catholic politicians and holding that they should not receive Communion. "We cannot cherry-pick particular issues. We have to be willing to talk about all issues. Our position begins with protecting the unborn, but it doesn't end there," he told the Rapid City Journal (May 2, 2004).

When most bishops refused to let Catholic Charities employees serve as navigators for the Affordable Care Act, Cupich bucked the trend: whatever problems the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) had with “Obamacare” and its contraception mandate, he was committed to using the infrastructure of the Church to help poor people access health insurance. He was the second-to-last bishop to join the fight against the contraceptive mandate.

As voters faced a November 2012 referendum on the legalization of same-sex marriage in Washington state, Cupich wrote a pastoral letter calling for "a substantial public debate . . . carried on with respect, honesty and conviction" and asked for "careful consideration" of the church's position on the referendum. In that referendum, voters approved the law by a 54%-46% margin.

On the Liturgy

Cupich has a constant record of hostility toward the traditional liturgy. It is said that in his first Mass as pastor of St. Mary in Omaha, NE his hometown, he reprimanded a young parishioner for attempting to receive the Communion on her knees.

In 2002, as Bishop of Rapid City, SD, Cupich prohibited children to make the first Communion or to be confirmed in the traditional Latin Rite. That same year, according to the Rapid City Journal (May 27, 2002), he prohibited a traditional Latin Mass community from celebrating the Paschal Triduum liturgies according to the 1962 Missal by locking the doors of Immaculate Conception Church during the Easter Triduum. The Good Friday liturgies took place on the sidewalk.

In 2011, then still Bishop in Spokane, WA, Cupich wrote The New Roman Missal: A Time of Renewal, a historical overview on liturgical renewal to introduce the new English translation of the Roman Missal.

Cupich’s vision is the same one which caused the liturgical revolution of the 1970s. Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio had no effect on him. He considers the traditional Latin Mass as dreadful and incomprehensible to the people. Its rites, according to Cupich, inspires church architecture such as altar rails which he claims have kept people far from the altar and impeded "full and active participation." By Cupich’s logic, the “old” Mass definitely belongs to a time long ago to which today’s Catholics are unable to relate. Lamenting those who did not accept the changes of the Novus Ordo Missae, Cupich holds that Catholics have to understand that the reform of the Second Vatican Council was, in fact, an improvement. And so he praises Communion under both species, Mass in the vernacular, lay participation in the liturgy, and the simplification of the rubrics.

Role of the women in the Church

For his Installation Mass on the Archdiocese of Chicago on November 2015, Bishop Cupich specifically requested both men and women altar servers. There were therefore four women and four seminarians.

Here is his vision of the role of the woman in the Church, as reported in Origin (Sept. 2013):

It would be a very great mistake to reduce the whole issue of women to the question of ordination. The church must engage the larger issue of women and begin by listening to women themselves. The failure of the church to attend to the concerns of women themselves is a very serious problem. . . . This is a very big knot that needs attention and it will not be untied lec­turing women, and it will not be solved unless men in authority in the church clearly and deeply understand that there is a very great difference between the way women approach things and the way men approach things."

Ecumenism

In 2011, Cupich started a new annual ecumenical service at Our Lady of Lourdes Cathedral of Spokane by inviting Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Lutheran, and Methodist ministers on Good Friday.

In April 2012, he supported the decision of Roman Catholic Gonzaga University of Spokane to invite Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu to speak at its graduation ceremony and receive an honorary degree.

Beginning January 2017, Archbishop Blase J. Cupich of Chicago is supposed to serve as the first Catholic co-chair of a new National Catholic-Muslim Dialogue, sponsored by the Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the USCCB.

Summary

Cupich is clearly a favorite of Pope Francis. In a two-year period, he has been the Pope’s personal candidate—against numerous objections—for four crucial roles: Archbishop of Chicago, participating in the 2015 Synod on the Family, becoming a member of the Congregation for Bishops, and now being elevated to the College of Cardinals. Cupich will now exercise one of the most prominent roles in deciding who to appoint as new bishops in the United States.

It stands to reason that Cupich will use his new-found influence and power to impose his liberal vision on the Church. Let us pray fervently for the Church and our pastors!

Read more >>

Lay Eucharistic Ministry Born of Communist Infiltration

Guest Article By David Martin

On June 29, 1972, on the occasion of the ninth anniversary of his coronation, Pope Paul VI declared to the world, "From some fissure the smoke of satan entered into the temple of God."

The pope was referencing the diabolical forces that had infiltrated the Church through the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).

Now a key objective of Vatican II was the empowerment of the laity, in keeping with its theme of "active participation of the faithful." With the Council came the new definition of priesthood as The people of God. It saw whole Church as one hierarchy or priesthood, but in different ranks, with the ordained ministerial priesthood being only one rank of this priesthood. What was proposed was the fallacy that we are all priests of one hierarchy.

"The common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood are nonetheless ordered one to another; each in its own proper way shares in the one priesthood of Christ." (Lumen Gentium 10)

It is a well known and documented fact that the agents of Communism began entering our Catholic seminaries as far back as the 30s for the purpose of destroying the Church from within. Over a thousand such agents had infiltrated the seminaries prior to 1940. The testimonies of ex-communists like Bella Dodd and Manning Johnson who had testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee more than confirm that these agents of the sickle and hammer had been building their forces against the Church with the intention of breaking in and indoctrinating the faithful with anti-church principles.

Their plan was to first absorb Catholic philosophy and teaching in the seminaries so as to give them inside access to masterfully communicate and pull the Catholic hierarchy away from their traditional roots, so that they in turn would embrace revolutionary ideas and become pawns of ecclesial subversion. The Leninist "clenched fist" ideal would now be applied in a spiritual way where the "empowerment of the laity" would be a means of overthrowing the Church's monarchical structure, so that a new sense of democracy and religious liberty would take precedence over the established rule of religion issuing from the Seat of Peter.

Hence we have the modern-day role of lay Eucharistic ministers that are supposedly empowered to perform the priestly function of giving Communion. Eucharistic ministers indeed have been empowered, but their empowerment is from the dark forces. What we’re seeing today is Marxism in full swing. The insidious efforts of communists to infiltrate the Church are now manifest through this and other like practices, e.g. women lectors, lay liturgists.

It was a well orchestrated plan to undermine the priesthood so that spiritual revolution would later ensue under the pretext of a "renewal."

Bella Dodd said in the early 50s: "In the 1930s we put eleven-hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within." Twelve years before Vatican II, she said, "Right now they are in the highest places in the Church." She predicted that the changes they would implement would be so drastic that "you will not recognize the Catholic Church."

Dodd explained that of all the world's religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by communists. Her work as a communist was to give the Church a complex about its heritage by labeling "the Church of the past as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies throughout the centuries."

The focal point of attack would be the Holy Eucharist, as we read in the memoirs of communist agent AA 1025, whose briefcase was discovered after being killed in an auto accident in the mid-sixties. "To weaken more the notion of 'Real presence' of Christ, all decorum will have to be set aside. No more costly embroidered vestments, no more music called sacred, especially no more Gregorian Chant, but a music in jazz style, no more sign of the Cross, no more genuflections, but only dignified stern attitudes. Moreover, the faithful will have to break themselves from the habit of kneeling, and this will be absolutely forbidden when receiving Communion.... Very soon, the Host will be laid in the hand in order that all notion of the Sacred be erased."

Again AA 1025 says, "In the Mass, the words 'Real Presence' and 'Transubstantiation' must be deleted. We shall speak of ‘Meal’ and ‘Eucharist’ instead. We shall destroy the Offertory and play down the Consecration and, at the same time, we shall stress the part played by the people. In the Mass, as it is today, the priest turns his back to the people and fills a sacrificial function which is intolerable. He appears to offer his Mass to the great Crucifix hanging over the ornate altar. We shall pull down the Crucifix, substitute a table for the altar, and turn it around so that the priest may assume a presidential function. The priest will speak to the people much more than before. In this manner the Mass will gradually cease to be regarded as an act of adoration to God, and will become a gathering and an act of human brotherhood."

The foregoing coincides with leaked plans of the Masonic P2 Lodge in Italy that were issued just before Vatican II. Consider this excerpt from their 34 guidelines that were made effective March 1962.

"Get women and laity to give Communion, say that this is the Age of the Laity. Start giving Communion in the hand like the Protestants, instead of on the tongue, say that Christ did it this way. Collect some for Satan Masses."

Can we understand now why the Church today has been virtually overthrown by the post-conciliar revolution? Vatican II opened its doors and invited these agents of Satan to sit in on the Council and participate in the drafting of its documents. Or hadn't it occurred to us why the 1964 Vatican II Instruction Inter Oecumenici commanded that the traditional prayer to St. Michael at the end of Mass be "suppressed?" (Article 48) Obviously the old devil didn't want the faithful praying against him.

The same document states: "The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people." (Article 91) This coincides with the memoirs of the above mentioned agent who said, "We shall stress the part played by the people" and who complained that "the priest turns his back to the people and fills a sacrificial function which is intolerable."

There is no arguing that the faithful are called to have "active participation" in Christ, but this participation will consist in silent meditation on the Passion and contemplation on the Sacred Mysteries, not in assuming priestly functions or engaging in liturgical busy-body activity. We are called to sanctify our souls and to work out our salvation "with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12), which means we must respect Christ's monarchical authority and not attempt to assume functions which we are not authorized to perform.

If the Catholic hierarchy would simply follow rules and regulations and keep with the Church’s 2000-year tradition of having only consecrated priests administer Communion, their household wouldn’t be in such a shambles today. If heresy and apostasy now abound, it's because the hierarchy has lost confidence in the rule of tradition, fulfilling St. Paul's prophecy: "There shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but... will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears." (2 Timothy 4:3)

If priests would dump their modernist inventions and let down their nets the traditional way, they would again bring up a marvelous catch for Christ, but if they continue on their present path of change and "renewal," they will continue laboring all night in the dark as they have since the Council.

If the church today is largely ignorant of the physical and supernatural presence of Christ in his sanctuary, it is because of these socialist lay-empowerment movements through which the Eucharist has been profaned. The Eucharist is the very heart of the Mystical Body around which the entire Church must revolve, therefore the members of Christ are dead members if they will not adore His True Body in the manner commanded by Christ, namely, by receiving on the tongue and from a priest only.

It was not without reason that St. Basil declared Communion in the hand to be "a great fault." St. Thomas Aquinas taught: "Because out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica)

The Council of Trent reaffirmed the Church's continuous teaching forbidding lay people from administering Communion. "It must be taught, then, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful, the Holy Eucharist. That this has been the unvarying practice of the Church... as having proceeded from Apostolic tradition, is to be religiously retained." - The Catechism of the Council of Trent

St. Paul warns that "whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and of the Blood of the Lord... For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord." (1 Corinthians 11: 27,29)

Hence it would be better never to receive Communion than to go up everyday in cafeteria fashion and receive from people who are not empowered to administer the Body of Christ. Though it has become a widely accepted "common-law" practice today, the use of Eucharistic ministers at Mass is illicit in that it radically breaks with the Church's 2000-year tradition.

The argument that Pope John Paul II sanctioned the use of Eucharistic ministers holds no water, since he was very much against this practice. The following is from his Redemptionis Sacramentum, issued March 25, 2004.

"If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers [priests] for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons." (Article 157)

How is it that most Catholic parishes today are embroiled in this lay ministry program in spite of this and other like prohibitions? It's because the tumor of communism continues to spread its cancerous errors throughout the Church. The ugly hand of communism has truly reached in to desecrate the Holy Eucharist.

Let us pray that the pope will finally consecrate Russia to the Blessed Virgin, so that the red tumor can be eradicated and health can be restored to Christ's Mystical Body

Read more >>

Francis Open to Women Deacons?

Guest Article by David Martin

In an interview with journalists on June 26, Pope Francis feigned anger and surprise over two-month-old reports that he has opened the door to allowing women deacons in the Catholic Church.

"The first to be surprised by this news was me," the Pope said on June 26 during an in-flight press briefing en route to Rome following his three-day visit to Armenia. "They said: 'The Church opens the door to deaconesses.' Really? I am a bit angry because this is not telling the truth of things."

Nice try, but his speech in fact indicates he is open to the idea, since he admitted to journalists that he agreed to study the question of women deacons. "We had heard that in the first centuries there were deaconesses, the pope said. "One could study this and one could make a commission. Nothing more has been requested."

Herein we see applied the typical modernist ploy of pretending a theological question is open for discussion when in fact it has already been decided by the Church for centuries. If Francis is open to studying the question of women deacons, then clearly he is open to allowing them. If he was truly against women deacons and was resolved never to allow such a thing, he would never consider a commission to study this.

Nor would he be open to feminists that are proposing this. It was their clamor for women deacons this past spring that led him to study this question. In a special audience on May 12, the pope addressed 800 members of the International Union of Superiors General (USIG) which largely focuses on the role of women in the Church, and obstacles "hindering" it. The question was raised as to whether or not there were ordained women deacons in the early Church, at which time one of the sisters asked the pope: "Why not construct an official commission that might study the question" of opening the diaconate to women.

"I believe yes," the pope said. "It would do good for the Church to clarify this point. I am in agreement. I will speak to do something like this," adding later that "it seems useful to me to have a commission that would clarify this well."
The pope's action indeed has opened the door to women deacons, which in turn has been a spur for feminists.

Of such women Francis said on June 26, "Woman's thought is important." Noting how women think differently from men, he said, "One cannot make a good decision without listening to women." Oh Really? Adam listened to Eve, and look what happened to the human race! Is Francis advocating that the clergy should do the same?

His aberration of seeing women as authorities is seen in his General Audience of April 15, 2015, in which he said that "more weight and more authority must be given to women," emphasizing that women should not only be heard, but be given a "recognized authority."

With this same frame of reference, the pope earlier this year sanctioned a special section of L'Osservatore Romano entitled "Women-Church-World," in which three writers have been calling for a reexamination of Church policy. Since March 1 the Vatican's official newspaper has been publishing essays suggesting that women now be allowed to give homilies at Mass.

Sister Catherine Aubin, a Dominican theologian, argues that women should be allowed to lead spiritual retreats and do homilies at Mass. She asks, "Why can’t women also preach in front of everyone during the celebration of Mass?"

Sister Madeleine Fredell who preaches to various ecumenical congregations including the Lutheran Church, says, "I believe that listening to the voice of women at the time of the homily would enrich our Catholic worship."

These are the very people—these and others like them—that have been clamoring for a commission to examine the question of women deacons. Unfortunately, the idea of women deacons, as with women homilists, lectors, speakers, and Eucharistic ministers, is a closed book, as it completely breaks with the Church's 2000 year tradition. According to Christ, His Apostles, and the saints, women have no business on the altar, nor is it their place to lecture in the Church.

St. Paul is to the point. "Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith... For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church." (1 Corinthians 14:34,35)

Francis should close his ears to feminists and be open only to the Holy Spirit. Has feminism not brought with it enough promiscuity, abuse, and abortion for the pope to not know it is sinful? Does he not realize that in the same way sin entered the world through Eve, it is now entering upon his church through the brazen followers of Eve? If Pope Pius XI rightfully condemned women's participation in ministry as "a grave disorder to eliminate at all cost" (Quadragesima Anno), why would Francis now applaud such a thing?

What we're seeing today in Rome is a distrust and contempt for the eternal ordinance which God in His goodness had established for His Church in the beginning. Somehow our "theologians" of today feel that tradition is outdated and is no longer effective in saving souls, despite the fact that it has so beautifully stood the test of time.

St. Paul offers the cure for this ill that would have us cast off the continuous guidance of the Holy Spirit. "Extinguish not the spirit. Despise not prophecies. But prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:19-21)

Sources:

• http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-angry-over-media-slant-on-women-deacons-55348/
• http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-says-hes-open-to-studying-the-female-diaconate-94916/

1st Photo Source: Casa Rosada (Argentina Presidency of the Nation), 2013

Read more >>

Pope Francis: Catholics who Hold to Tradition are Idolaters

Guest Post by: David Martin

Concerning the many "surprise" statements of Pope Francis that have stirred controversy throughout the Catholic world, we've heard the argument for months that the "media is twisting his words" or that "he is being misinterpreted." What it really boils down to is that his words are sometimes shocking and people are in denial about this.

It is true that the media will certainly do their part to stretch his words, but it's time that Catholics come to grips and understand that most of these reports do not misrepresent, but reflect his true position on many Church issues. His own writings and video-taped sermons leave no question as to what he is saying. If we can see and hear him on video, where is the mistake?

For instance, in his sermon at the Vatican Casa Santa Marta this past January, He all but gave the Church a beating for its "obstinate" adherence to tradition. The following is from his sermon on January 18, 2016, as reported by Vatican Radio.

"Christians who obstinately maintain ‘it’s always been done this way,' this is the path, this is the street—they sin: the sin of divination. It’s as if they went about by guessing: ‘What has been said and what doesn’t change is what’s important; what I hear—from myself and my closed heart—more than the Word of the Lord.’ Obstinacy is also the sin of idolatry: the Christian who is obstinate sins! The sin of idolatry. ‘And what is the way, Father?’ Open the heart to the Holy Spirit, discern what is the will of God."

An absurd notion this is that Christians who adore God and who refuse to bow to the idol of change are "obstinate idolaters," but if they bow to strange deities that tempt them with these changes, e.g. the charismatics, women preachers, Communion for adulterers, etc, then they are blessed. For months the pope has been lashing out against conservatives for not showing openness to proposed changes that would include gays and civilly remarried Catholics as regular members of the Church.

Another example of Francis' dissent from Church teaching is his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetita issued on April 8, wherein he denies the Church's dogma on the reality of everlasting punishment for those who sin mortally. "No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves." (AL 297)

Clearly this is his writing, so there is no doctoring of text. The message is quite clear and he puts his heart into what he is saying, so it's a disservice to him and to the Church to pretend he didn't say these things or that he meant something else.

But it's also a disservice to defend his position on these many issues. Melchior Cano, the great Dominican theologian from the Council of Trent, said: "Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See—they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations."

We can look to the example St. Catherine of Sienna to spur us in the right direction. In the summer of 1376 she went to France and urged Pope Gregory XI to get back to Rome. Through sinful and political manipulation, the residence of the papacy had momentarily been changed to Avignon, France, which proved to be a scandal. Weak and disloyal bishops were influencing the pope to adopt this change, which he did against the tradition of the Church.

Metaphorically, we too must urge Pope Francis to get back to Rome, from which he has dissented on a number of theological issues. His heart and mind belong in the Church, not in the secular world. He too must renounce the Cardinal Kaspers, the feminists, the gays, and the infamous U.N., and not allow these agents to dictate his policy and run his administration.

In a letter to Pope Gregory XI following her trip to France, St. Catherine exhorted the pope to stand up like a man against his advisors, saying, "Up, father, like a man! For I tell you that you have no need to fear."

We make St. Catherine's words our own, and we ask that Francis stand up against the modernists and come to the defense of God's children who at present are being misled and scandalized through his subverted Vatican hierarchy.

And may he consider the true "logic of the Gospel" concerning the everlasting punishment that awaits those who failed in their Christian duties, where Jesus says: "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me... And these shall go into everlasting punishment." (Matthew 25:41-43,46) 

Read more >>

Pope Francis: We must have dialogue among religions

Guest Post by David Martin

Pope Francis' ecumenical prayer intention for January 2016 is that all religions will collaborate and be one. In his monthly address delivered on January 6, the feast of the Epiphany, the pope said that the diversity of religious groupings on earth "should lead to a dialogue among religions" and stressed that "We should not stop praying for it and collaborating with those who think differently."

The pope's January prayer intentions was released via video and has scandalized Catholics and non-Catholics the world over. In the spirit of Vatican II the pontiff makes use of highly ambiguous wording to make his point seem irrefutable, saying, "Many think differently, feel differently, seeking God or meeting God in different ways. In this crowd, in this range of religions, there is only one certainty that we have for all: we are all children of God."

This is another attempt to use ambiguous language to advance the so-called validity of all religions. Naturally the members of all religions are the "children of God" in that they are created by God, but they are not the "adopted" children of God through baptism, the sacrament which Jesus told Nicodemus was indispensable for salvation. (John 3:5) The implication here is that non-Catholics are all the "members of God's universal Church," which is not true. Without explicitly committing heresy, the pope strongly insinuates that all religions are blessed and guided from above, which blatantly opposes the Church's dogmatic teaching that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true religion on earth, outside of which there exists no salvation. (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) While heresy is promoted, the advocates of ecumenism hide behind his slippery wording and say, "he didn't preach explicit heresy."

Actions will best prove this. If the pope says that members of other faiths are the "children of God," then he is obliged to help them and not deprive them the riches of the Catholic Faith, lest contempt be shown for the Church's mission to Catholicize the nations. The Church's divinely instituted mission is to convert Jews, Gentiles, and members of other religions, but now Rome is denying Christ's commission to "teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" and to "teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." (Mt. 28:19) A pope's duty is to reach out and convert the outsiders so that they too can possess Christ, and not shrink out of fear and deny the Church's mission just so outsiders will praise him. Under the guise of mercy humanity is being deprived of the Kingdom of Heaven, which is what the Year of Mercy really boils down to.

We give the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt, however, as rumors continue to circulate about his melancholia and his suspected use of anti-depressants to keep it in check. Sadly, the pope is being used as an instrument to spread these ecumenical ideas abroad, and it appears it's beginning to catch up with him. Many have noted that his speech these days is sometimes slurred, as can be heard in the Jan. 6 video.

We can only pray that Pope Francis will stand his ground and state forth the truth and nothing but the truth for good of humanity, remembering that he is the visible representative of He who is "the way, and the truth, and the life." (John 14:6) The world today is treading in fetters and chains, but the truth of the Catholic Faith is what will "make them free." (John 8:32) 

Read more >>

Profanation and Apostasy

Guest Article written by David Martin

The holiday season with all its feasting and merry-making is an appropriate time to reflect on the profanation of the temple, which is the major issue facing the Church today. Desecration is rampant throughout the universal Church through the present frenzy of secular activity that is tearing the Church asunder.

Today’s “contemporary” pop liturgy, the use of lay Eucharistic ministers at Mass, and the widespread practice of receiving Communion in the hand are among the many abuses that are destroying the Faith. The Church has become a meeting place for heretics and a stomping ground for ecumenicists that are trying to merge the Catholic Church with other world religions, fulfilling St. John’s prophecy that the Holy City will be overrun by the Gentiles for a symbolic time of forty-two months. (Apocalypse 11:2)

The primary difference between the Church of yesteryear and that of today is that the former demonstrated a healthy cognition of the divine presence in the sanctuary. The Church before Vatican II conducted itself with reverence and respect, evidenced especially by the way Catholics were more observant of God’s laws and ordinances, both in their personal lives, and in the context of divine worship. The Church before the Council was more focused on the presence of Christ in the tabernacle, which in turn was reflected in the true charity and selfless giving that existed among the faithful.

Whereas the church in our time has largely turned its back on the divine presence and is taken up with  a new-found encounter with its “environmental” surroundings. Yea, the church today is abuzz with all manner of socialist, busy-body activity, only because the new makeshift procedures since the Council have brought about this unprecedented shift of focus where the emphasis today is on the community.

We might say that a new order of distraction prevails. The post-conciliar church is bent on appeasing itself with change, as opposed to the Church of old which labored to appease God with sacrifice. Divine worship has become cheap, superficial, and mechanical, where the congregation is wound up in robotic fashion to sit down, stand up, shake hands, and utter pre-constructed “psalms and responses,“ while the minds and hearts are blank! Very little heart and soul goes into today’s Sunday Mass worship.

This is lamentable when we consider that the Holy Eucharist is the very heartbeat of the Mystical Body, around which the entire church must revolve. Hence a true renewal is needed to place the church back into focus with its Head. Genuineness in worship means contrition and compunction of heart, and that the church go down on its knees before God in the Eucharist. Without this self-abasement before the King of kings, the mercy of God does not rest on His people. (Lk 1: 50)

Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem when He threw the money-changers out of the temple was significant in that it marked the only time in the Gospel when He became downright angry and even violent with the Jews. This was to serve as a lesson for all generations to come that the wrath of God is especially enkindled against those who abuse the House of God for their own selfish gain.

Christ indeed will come among us again to fling the wrongdoers from His House, but this time it won’t be just for matters of money, but for heresy and blatant betrayal of the Faith before the people. The Pharisees in purple hats will tremble and shake “because they have transgressed the laws, they have changed the ordinance, they have broken the everlasting covenant.” (Isaias 34:5)

Enough could not be done to sensitize ourselves to the horror of the present sacrilege and how it is re-crucifying Christ in His own House.  St. Padre Pio relates that when he was alone in the choir to pray, he observed a young monk who appeared to be dusting the candelabra near the altar. When he asked who he was, the monk answered: “I am a brother of yours that made the novitiate here. I was ordered to clean the altar during the year of the novitiate. Unfortunately many times I didn’t reverence Jesus while passing in front of the altar [didn’t genuflect], thus causing the Holy Sacrament that was preserved in the tabernacle to be disrespected. For this serious carelessness, I am still in Purgatory.”

If this was the verdict for a simple monk who wasn’t quite perfect, what can we expect for a church today that has been turned into a socialist merry-go-round with the use of churches for concerts, plays, meetings, rehearsals, heretical talks, kiddie Masses, charismatic séances, and all manner of sham religious activity that has overrun the sanctuary and made the Holy Place a shambles?! Christ today is an outcast and exile in His own Church, crushed and buried under the sins of His people who neither reverence nor take notice of His physical and supernatural presence on the altar. The people stream into the church talking, laughing, and swinging to the beat of a new gospel (guitar Mass), while women come in half-dressed exposing the indecency of their flesh for their own gratification!

The worst of it is that the present-day profanation of the temple is carried on in the name of God,   which shouldn’t surprise us. The Pharisees condemned and crucified their Savior in the name of “God their father,” but Jesus told them who their father was, the devil, just as the devil is the father of those who seek to turn the Church into a humanist meeting hall. The modern day “renovation” of the Church is done to placate the complaints of those who protest, thus making the renovators protestors in the process. Thereby they display contempt and mockery for the Holy Place, as did the Pharisees who saw the temple as a forum to advance their own egoistic designs.

Unfortunately the Church’s mission has taken the brunt of this latter-day revolt. Pope Francis has emphasized how the Church must reach out and reinstate souls to the friendship of God, but how shall this be done if the church is serving to repel souls? Very few parishes today have kept their traditional beauty so as to attract conversions and vocations. The Church has been so discredited by all the ridicule that outsiders no longer take her seriously as in former times. If clergy and laity no longer believe that the Creator Himself dwells in the tabernacle in full Body and Spirit, how will outsiders ever believe this? If the church is not first enlightened from within, how shall it enlighten those from without? The Church has truly lost its magnetism, and is presently not effective in drawing souls to Christ.

Yea, the post-conciliar revolution is driving souls from the Church and bringing the scourge of God upon His people! The Blessed Virgin at Fatima warned of the divine scourge that was to come in the latter days, but this scourge will not be of little knots on a rope, but of boots, tanks, guns, and nuclear warfare over mankind. The chastisement indeed is coming, but the most painful part of it will be the devastating knowledge that it was justly due to man’s sins. In the final analysis the world will have learned that it was the profanation of the temple that incited God’s wrath and set in motion the great chastisement through which billions were lost.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Read more >>

Should Catholics Try to Convert Jews?

Guest Article By David Martin

Catholics should "not try to convert Jews," the Vatican has said in a recent document that attempts to nullify the Church's 2000 year policy on Jews. The December 10 statement from the Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations with Jews says that Jews are exempt from any need to believe in Christ as the Messiah, on the grounds that God never annulled the old covenant with the Jewish people.

Entitled The Gifts and Calling of God are Irrevocable, the document says that Jews have their own covenant with God without Christ. "The church is therefore obliged to view evangelization to Jews, who believe in the one God, in a different manner from that to people of other religions and world views," it says. "In concrete terms this means that the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews."

What the Vatican is really saying is that Rome has no sense of love or duty toward the Jews, nor any sense of obedience to Christ's command that we extend the riches of Christ to them for their salvation. The Church's mission from the beginning is to convert infidels and Jews, but now Rome has denied Christ's commission to "teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" and to "teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19) This commission applies to all peoples without respect to race, color, creed, which is why the Church is called Universal or Catholic.

What we're really looking at is anti-semitism, since the document works against the peace and welfare of the Semitic peoples by teaching them to ignore their Maker on the cross. What does Rome have against the Jews? The Church's mission from the beginning is to extend mercy to the Jews, not to withhold it from them. Has Rome gone Nazi? Traditionally the Church had always sought to convert the Jews and all peoples, that they might come partake in the Lord's Banquet as His special guests, but now they're being told to stay in their own prison camp and starve! So much for the mercy of "inclusion."

What we are looking at too is heresy, since this document breaches the Church's infallible teaching that there exists no salvation outside the Catholic Church. "Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins." – Unam Sanctam, Papal Bull of His Holiness Pope Boniface VIII; November 18, 1302.

Again the Church teaches: "Those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock." – Cantate Domino, Papal Bull of The Council of Florence; His Holiness Pope Eugene IV 1438-1445.

The Vatican statement offers no justification for its heterodox position on Jews, other than to say that the question of how Jews can be saved while not believing in Christ "remains an unfathomable mystery in the salvific plan of God." Nay, there is no mystery. The sin of heresy has been committed in Rome. Jews or any grouping cannot be saved if, having been presented with the truth of the Catholic Faith, they refuse to believe in Christ as the Savior of the world.

The Vatican bases its statement on the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people, which is an error. It is true that the Jews were the chosen people of the Old Testament, but this was merely a figure of the chosen people to come in the New Testament—the Christians who adore Jesus Crucified in the Sacrifice of the Mass. God's covenant today is with the members of His Church who honor the Messiah, and not with those who "wag the head."

The document argues that modern Judaism is intertwined with Christianity, which is also an error. The synagogue is intertwined rather with the Masonic temple, for which reason it is sometimes called the Judaeo-Masonic synagogue. If Jews and rabbis today are defensive about being called "Jew," it is because of a deep-seated guilt that permeates the Jewish culture on account of the centuries-old consent to the perfidy of their forefathers who murdered the Christ.

Let's get it straight: the Pharisees and Jews who opposed Christ in His day were not Jews by conviction, but were renegades who had completely left the Jewish religion and who had broken the covenant. The true Jews of Christ's time were those who walked with Him into the New Testament, at which time Judaism was made forever null and void, symbolized by the fig tree that suddenly withered away on Christ's way up to Jerusalem. (Matthew 21:19)

Hence Judaism has not existed since the time of Christ, nor can it possibly exist from thence, no more than a seed can exist once it becomes a tree. The seed of Judaism grew into Christianity so that what remains today is not Judaism, but the legacy of the Pharisees who murdered the Christ.

The written form of the Pharisaic tradition is the Talmud, penned by the descendants of the Pharisees, which forms the backbone of modern Judaism and which hurls the most hateful and pornographic insults against Jesus Christ, even condemning Him to hell to boil in His own excrement. Obviously God has no covenant with this sort of thing, nor is this connected in any way with the Judaism of the Old testament.

That is to say that Judaism A.D. has no connection with Judaism B.C., since the very point of the Old Testament Judaism was to earnestly look forward to the coming of the Messiah, not to kill Him. There was nothing in the Psalms or prophets, or in any of the unwritten Jewish tradition that said "let us oppose the Christ when he cometh."

The argument that the Jews still await the coming of the Messiah holds no water. If they don't recognize the Messiah that their fathers hung on the cross 2000 years ago, they certainly won't recognize Him when he comes again. And besides it will be too late then.

They now have the chance to recognize the One True Messiah depicted bleeding on the cross above the altars of the Catholic Churches of the world. There exists no other Messiah, so it behooves the Jews to embrace this fact and to come to grips with it. We pray for their conversion, that they may be delivered from their curse and live in the friendship of their Creator from whom they've been estranged for 2000 years, save the converts.

As for the renegade bishops in Rome that are doing this terrible disservice to the Jews, let them cease from consorting with the synagogue just for gifts and its thirty pieces of silver. What we are seeing today in Rome is infidelity in all its various facets, whether it's dignifying divorce through "annulments," or granting sacraments to adulterers, and now this latest perfidy of betraying the Son of Man with a kiss.

The Vatican hierarchy needs to understand that the Jews are not special, which must be said of any grouping on earth. There is no respect to persons with God. Only the Catholic Church purchased by the Blood of Christ is special in God's eyes, being the Creator's gift to man, so let the clergy resume their missionary spirit and bring the truth of the One True Faith to all peoples without the fear of human opinion, remembering that "fear is not charity: but perfect charity casts out fear." (1 John 4:18) 

Read more >>

Annulments: The "Get Out of Marriage Card" for Catholics

In recent days Pope Francis has made headlines by championing a new process of streamlining annulments in the Church under the intention of promoting mercy and reconciliation to the lost sheep of Christ's flock.

Unfortunately, this latest scandal to the indissolubility of marriage has undone decades of work by Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II to prevent annulments being nothing other than the "Catholic Divorce."  If divorce is not possible for a Catholic and with the number of annulments measuring in the tens of thousands each year, how is it that so many invalid marriages are allowed to be contracted to begin with?

Along with the grave error of homosexual marriage which I recently wrote on, the issue of annulments are a very pressing and grave concern.  If we fail to act, we shall certainly incur the judgment of God upon this very unholy and pagan world.

To start, let's examine the basics.

Q: What is an annulment? What is a divorce?  How are they different?

A: Fr. Peter Carota from the Diocese of Phoenix summarizes:

Up till lately, the Catholic Church has always upheld the Holy Bond of Marriage between a man and a woman.  That means that the marriage bond was indissoluble which means “till death do us part”.  But since the annulment process has been so liberalized and made easy since Vatican II, the marriage bond has been terribly weakened.

Many people refer to the annulment process as the “Catholic divorce”.  Annulment means that a couple go through a long process written questions, witnesses, canon lawyers and interviews to prove that there never was a marriage bond.   I am not saying that there is not sometimes true grounds for annulments, but I think the whole thing has to be seriously looked at and be sure that we are not going against Jesus’ admonition: “What God has united, let no one separate”.

Grounds for an annulment of the wedding vows can be:

1) Not wanting children, because the purpose of marriage is to have children.

2) Hidden drug and alcohol abuse (and probably other addictions) at time of marriage .
3) Infidelity before, during and after the marriage.

4) Immaturity to be able to make a life long commitment, like marrying at 17 and the marriage only last a very short time.

5) Forced to marry by spouse, parents or circumstances like pregnancy.

6) Physical or verbal abuse before, during and after the marriage.

Then there is also what is called the “Pauline Privilege” that deals with the conversion of an unbaptized spouse to the Catholic faith and the other unbaptized spouse does not support it.

Another whole very important area is the “Lack of Form”.  This is where a baptized Catholic gets married without a Catholic marriage.  This is for sure not a Catholic marriage and can be nulled.  A Catholic only is validly married when they have filled out all the papers, have permission from the pastor, have the marriage witnessed by a priest or deacon and two witnesses.   This only applies to baptized Catholics.

All other marriages between non Christians or non Catholics are valid and can not be nullified with out an annulment process.  This means that the non catholic spouse has to be willing to go through giving information for the catholic annulment process.  Most find this very annoying.  All marriages that take place outside the Catholic Church are valid because they are not Catholics and are not required to go by Catholic canon law.

Q: How have annulments changed since before Vatican II in the 1960s?

A: This picture illustrates how serious the situation has become.

From 1952 to 1955 there were a total of 392 annulments issued for the entire world.  This is seemingly in line with what an annulment is - it is a statement that a marriage was never validly contracted.  You would logically expect that few of the people who claim to live a married life are actually not really married.

But in 1997 there were 73,000 annulments issued worldwide!  It is simply ludicrous to believe that so many invalid marriages take place.  If they do take place, shouldn't one of the greatest concerns in the Church and society be limiting the number of these invalid unions?

Sources: What We Have Lost: And the Road to Restoration

Q: How have annulments changed under Pope Francis?  How do these changes attack the indissolubility of marriage and undermine the Sacraments? 

A:  Father Glen Tattersall of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter recently published a response to the actions taken just last week by Pope Francis to change the annulment process.  His response concretely summarizes the grave concerns of modern annulments.

Dear Brothers & Sisters in Christ,

Recent days have witnessed what I regard as a grievous blow to the sanctity and indissolubility of marriage, under the guise of mercy and the salvation of souls. Pope Francis has issued, motu proprio, new legal provisions for declarations of nullity of marriage. In the Latin rite, these provisions are contained in the Apostolic Letter Mitis Iudex Dominus Jesus.

I cannot deny the Pope’s power to promulgate these new provisions, but with all the respect that is due to his office, I find myself bound to question their appropriateness. It will be necessary to go into greater length in coming weeks or months, so today I will confine myself to the broad scope of the changes and my general concerns. 

Because marriage is instituted by God, and according to God’s law and man’s nature is indissoluble (an indissolubility that is absolute in the case of sacramental marriage), marriages must be regarded as valid until proved otherwise. The Church cannot annul a true marital bond, merely declare – after a careful and precise canonical process – that a given putative marriage, after all, is not real because the conditions for validity have not been met. This means that the truth about the validity of the marriage bond is the fundamental consideration proper to the juridical process of a tribunal. In discovering this truth, the Church through the tribunal provides a true pastoral service to souls.

The result of the new dispositions imposed by Pope Francis is to subvert this, and to establish as a priority instead the subjective interests of the parties. The most important novelties by which this is achieved are the general abolition of double judgment (by which cases are submitted to a second tribunal for a confirmatory judgment), the granting of wide powers to Diocesan Bishops to make their own determinations of cases, and the provision of a fast track process where both parties consent, and certain factors are present – a number of these factors, such as brevity of married life, having no actual bearing on any question of validity!

This is indeed a revolutionary decree, hurriedly draped up in a vague semblance of conservative legal form. Aside from anything else, it seems to me that declarations of nullity under these new provisions, potentially, will be so lacking in juridical integrity, and therefore in any corresponding moral certitude, that it may become impossible to distinguish a legitimate case of nullity from one without any real basis. The implications are obvious, and terrible. This, on the eve of a Synod that was supposed to dealing with such matters…. So much for collegiality!

Sincerely in Christ,
Fr Glen Tattersall, PP

Q: What is the Negative Effect of Annulments?

A: Lyle J. Arnold, Jr. in his article "Snookering the Indissolubility of Marriage" explains:

In a book dealing with the problem of divorce published one year before Vatican II, this paradox is pointed out: “Just when the post-Christian world has entered into an unparalleled period of hedonistic ideals, and of contempt for such unprofitable notions as a world to come, self-control, and penance, Catholics have emerged from their own private enclave to become more a part of the world around them than they had been for centuries." (Whom God Hath Not Joined by Claire McAuley (c) 1962 pp 5-6)

It was with this world of "hedonistic ideals" that Vatican II merged, not to remedy the problem, but to insure its success. Its objective was to promote and accelerate the engine driving this hedonism by adding the dynamism of the Church to it. One field where its effects were clearly felt is Catholic marriage. To destroy the indissolubility off marriage is to destroy the august benefits of the family. In the annulment process, practically any pretext has been accepted to end marriages and the result is that some 60,000 annulments a year have taken place.

An annulment made under the authority of Church is now a form of divorce in every way but name. The "Catholic divorce" is extremely harmful to the family and society. It hurts children as well as spouses, often induces applicants to misrepresent the past, and drives many away from the Church. It is a disaster.

In His Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:31-32), Our Lord expressly forbade divorce, but the Jews rejected this precept forthwith. Passing through the district of Peraea, we see Him assailed by His bitter enemies, the Pharisees, who nowhere leave Him in peace. Having decided to hasten His death, they were always on the watch for some “error” on His part so they could condemn Him.

They thought they had found one on the subject of marriage. With hearts of malice, the Jews posed this question to Our Lord: “The great lawgiver Moses allowed divorce and remarriage. Do You deny the validity of the Law of this man of God?"

Our Lord pointed out that Moses made this temporary concession because of the hardness of the Jews' hearts. He allowed divorce in some instances in the Old Law, but this temporary permission came to an end in the New Covenant. Thus, He reestablished the indissolubility of marriage in all its chaste beauty.

Indissolubility of marriage was the rule of law in the Catholic Church from the time of Our Lord until Vatican II, when the agents of Progressivism devised a method to snooker Our Lord's command, that is, to place the indissolubility of marriage in an almost impossible situation.

Q: What can we do?

A: Pray for the family.  Pray for the intercession of the Holy Family to intervene and help us in this a time of great necessity.

Read more >>

The Will of the People Is Not the Supreme Law

Blessed Pope Pius IX rejects the claim that the will of the people is the supreme law:

"And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right." But who does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?" (4).

Source: Quanta Cura

Read more >>

Meditation on the Great Apostacy

“During this unhappy period there will be laxity in divine and human precepts. Discipline will suffer. The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded and the clergy will not respect the laws of the Church. The Holy Canons and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and elaborate arguments. As a result, no principle at all, however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will not remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretations, modifications and delamination by man. These are evil times, century full of dangers and calamities. Heresy is everywhere and the followers of heresy are in power almost everywhere. Bishops, prelates and priests say they are doing their duty, that they are vigilant. – St. Francis of Paola

Read more >>

Radical Marxist up for Beatification in Helder Camara

This is a guest post by David Martin:

Of the many blunders of recent Vatican history, one that stands out is the Vatican's February 25th decision to open up the process for the beatification of Latin American born Monsignor Helder Camara (1909–1999), who served as auxiliary Bishop of Rio de Janiero and later as Metropolitan Archbishop of Olinda and Recife. Do our dear Vatican cardinals really know what this man was about? Hopefully Pope Francis will act to halt this process.

Dom Helder Camara began his career as a pro-Nazi militant in the 30s and 40s, and was ordained wearing the ill-famed Nazi "green shirt" under his cassock, so deep were his convictions. Thereupon his remaining days on earth were spent as a communist activist implementing Marxist principles inside the Catholic Church. We know from ex-communists like Bella Dodd and Anatoliy Golitsyn how a number of Communist agents entered the seminaries back in the 30s and 40s for the purpose of deliberately destroying the Catholic Church from within. Camara fits the pattern perfectly.

He is especially known as one of the champions of the so-called "Liberation Theology" condemned by the Vatican in 1984, and is also known for the key role he had in assisting the infamous "Comblin affair" which was committed to bringing down the Brazilian government and establishing dictatorial anarchy among the people. His Marxist convictions continued to the end.

His moral views followed suit, being radically pro-feminist, pro-divorce, pro-abortion, pro-women's ordination, and he made a number of eccentric statements that more than show him up as a theological crackpot. For instance, when asked by Professor Plinio de Oliveira in 1968 if he would kindly expel the notorious theological professor Joseph Comblin for his attempts to destroy the Church in Brazil, Camaro replied, "Everyone has the right to dissent."

His views on women's ordination alone rendered him a heretic. During the Second Vatican Council he addressed a group of bishops, and asked with insistence: "Tell me, please, if you can find any effectively decisive argument that impedes the admission of women to the priesthood, or is it just a male prejudice?"

If that's not absurd, consider the statement he made in the presence of the Vatican II fathers in 1965, wherein he gleefully projected: "I believe that man will artificially create life, and will arrive at the resurrection of the dead and… will achieve miraculous results of re-invigoration in male patients through the grafting of monkey’s genital glands."

Is this a man that Rome should be considering for canonization? Why not just beatify Hitler or Nelson Mandela? Camara has no miracles or merits to his credit, and much offense, but just because he blew some nice words around about the "the poor" to conceal his evils, our mainline media is promoting him as some kind of hero.

Camara was a walking scandal whose work brought much misery, pain, and poverty to the people, and now he is being hailed as a champion of religious freedom who loved the poor? We all know how Communism today is being advanced under the guise of "peace, brotherhood, and love." The agents of the red bear don't show their true horns anymore, but use this kind of pacifism to lull the masses. As they say, "the reds of yesterday are the greens of today."

Suffice to say, religious freedom means walking with God, not walking in sin. Mercy means delivering man from sin and from the advocates thereof. If the Vatican fathers had any love of the poor or love of religious freedom, they would quickly dispense with this plan to canonize one who labored so assiduously to put his fellow man in chains.

Read more >>

When Must a Catholic Obey the Pope?

In today's world, we are faced with a dire situation that is virtually unprecedented in the history of the Church.  We need only look to Pope Francis' comments of late on how Catholics should not "breed like rabbits," his support for adulterers, his abuse of the Holy Thursday Liturgy during the Washing of the Feet, the grave controversies arising from last year's Synod on the Family regarding contraception and divorce, and much more.

The point of this post is not to discuss any of these issues.  But, in light of the above, if a Pope were to command us to do something contrary to the Deposit of the Faith, if he were to teach an error, if he were to abuse the Sacred Liturgy, or anything of the like, must we support him or even obey him?

In light of Cardinal Burke's recent comments, it is especially important for us to consider this at a time when many bishops are teaching things contrary to the Faith and causing scandal.

Let's start with some important sources on the topic. Even though these sources may be old, they are nonetheless relevant to this discussion and hold weight because they encapsulate the authentic teaching of the Church's Magisterium.

"...that it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not go against the universal custom of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed" -Pope Innocent III

"Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See - they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations." Melchior Cano, theologian of the Council of Trent

"We affirm without hesitation that all the striving of men will be vain if they leave out the Church." Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum #16

And let us not forget St. Robert Bellarmine:

“Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.”

The Church is not without some history on this matter.  Pope Vigilius for instance was a heretic who was excommunicated by the Second Council of Constantinople.  The Faithful were not only discouraged from following him; on the contrary, to follow him would have been a grave sin.

I am not alleging the current Pope to be a heretic.  It seems all to common that when anyone so much as questions the directives of the modern popes after Vatican II, that those with the questions are accused of such.  On the contrary, I am not.  However, the issue of the possibility of a heretic as Pope is relevant.  After all, if a Pope were to be a heretic, would he have to be followed?  Could a Pope even be a heretic?  Would he lose his right to rule or would it declare null and void all of his actions as if he were never a Pope?

The Remant published an article by Robert J. Siscoe in November 2014 on this very subject.  I quote:

“Indeed the Church has the right to separate herself from an heretical pope according to divine law. Consequently it has the right, by the same divine law, to use all means of themselves necessary for such separation…”

- John of St. Thomas

“The Church must render a judgment before the pope loses his office. Private judgment of the laity in this matter does not suffice.”

- Robert J. Siscoe

A recent article by Fr. James V. Schall S.J., which was re-posted as “the article of the week” on the popular Traditional Catholic website Rorate Caeli, has caused quite stir in some quarters. In the short article, which is titled On Heretical Popes, Fr. Schall briefly discusses the claims of heresy leveled against the post-Conciliar Popes, especially Pope Francis, and raises the question of whether a pope can fall into heresy, and, if so, how the Church would go about deposing him. The article was written in a very moderate tone, but the issues addressed were evidently too much for the extreme Left and their newly discovered Ultramontanism.

A writer at the ultra-liberal National Catholic Reporter reacted with outrage that Fr. Schall would dare mention such issues during the current Pontificate. He declared Fr. Schall’s article to be “irresponsible and inflammatory”, and suggested the only response to this “danger” is “to seek even harder to embrace Pope Francis and his effort to renew the Church.”

In light of recent events, even mainstream Catholics are beginning to openly ask if it is possible for a pope to be a heretic, and, if so, what means would the Church possess to remedy such a dangerous situation. For if Providence could permit a man to be raised to the Pontificate whose words and actions risked leading countless souls into sin and heresy, surely the Good God has likewise provided the Church with the means necessary to protect herself, and to remedy the dire situation. During the First Vatican Council, Bishop Zinelli, a Relator for the Deputation of the Faith (the body charged with explaining the meaning of the schemas to the Council Fathers), said the following about the hypothesis of an heretical Pope: “God does not fail in the things that are necessary; therefore, if He permits so great an evil, the means to remedy such a situation will not be lacking”. (1)

In this article, we will delve deep into the issues that were only touched upon by Fr. Schall. We will not only consider the possibility of a Pope falling into heresy, but, more importantly, the way in which an heretical Pope can be deposed. We will consider this complex and difficult question on both the speculative and practical level by consulting the theologians and canonists who have written on the subject over the centuries. We will employ the distinctions necessary to navigate through the minefield of possible errors that touch upon the issue of deposition, while carefully avoiding the heresy of Conciliarism.

I highly encourage you to read all of Mr. Siscoe's article by clicking here.

 

For those unfamiliar, the SSPX website has provided a translation for the words of Cardinal Burke that were referenced at the beginning of this article

Cardinal Burke: I cannot accept that Communion can be given to a person in an irregular union because it is adultery. On the question of people of the same sex, this has nothing to do with marriage. This is an affliction suffered by some people whereby they are attracted against nature sexually to people of the same sex.

Question: If perchance the pope will persist in this direction, what will you do?
Cardinal Burke: I shall resist, I can do nothing else. There is no doubt that it is a difficult time; this is clear, this is clear.

 

And so, we could summarize this question (When Must a Catholic Obey the Pope) by saying again the wisdom of Pope Innocent III, namely "...that it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not go against the universal custom of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed."  And furthermore, should a Pope teach anything contrary to the Deposit of Faith as our forefathers and their forefathers held to it, we should resist such a Pope and hold true to the same Faith that we have received (St. Paul: "Tradidi quod et accepi —I have transmitted to you what I have received").

Read more >>

Synod Document "Relatio post disceptationem" Encourages Sin, Destroys Catholic Teaching

I have chosen to stay away from the topic of the current Synod but as the mid-term report from the Synod was released, we can now see for ourselves the evil being wrought by men who claim to be successors to the apostles.  It is simply unprecedented in the history of the Church! We ought to pray and do penance before the wishes of evil bishops spread heresy and apostasy far and wide in the barque of Peter.

The Secret Synod Does What We Expected: Evil  

by Christopher A. Ferrara  

As if we didn’t know it before, today we learned why the Secret Synod was conducted in secret, with the faithful not being permitted to see the texts of the participants’ addresses or even to know which bishop or cardinal was advancing which position. The Secret Synod was conducted in secret because evil advances in shadows. 

Many others, and not just traditionalists, have already expressed outrage over the disastrous “Relatio post disceptationem,” which appeared on the Vatican website today, October 13. This is the anniversary of Pope Leo’s vision of Satan’s attack on the Church (leading to his composition of the Leonine prayer suddenly abandoned after Vatican II), the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, and the derailing of the Second Vatican Council by Cardinal Liénart’s violation of the procedural rules in seizing the microphone in order to demand new drafting committees for the conciliar documents. 

By way of the comments of others, suffice it to note, as reported by Vatican Radio, that no less than the President of the Polish Episcopal Conference, Archbishop Stanislaw Gądecki, “did not hesitate to say that this document departs from the teaching of John Paul II [meaning the entire Magisterium regarding marriage and procreation], and even that in it can be noticed traces of the anti-marriage ideology. According to Archbishop Gądecki, this text also highlights the lack of a clear vision for the synodal assembly.” 

I must disagree with the final sentence of the report. The Synod had a very clear vision: nullification of the Church’s censures of sexual immorality of all kinds, including sodomy, and with this nothing less than an effective decommissioning of the Church as moral preceptor of humanity. This is what the aged Modernist cabal Pope Francis put in charge of this sham of a Synod has in view.  Continue reading the excerpted article... 

Read more >>

Catholics & Cremation: Why It Is Not Allowable

IS CREMATION ALLOWED?

History

The burial (inhumation) of the bodies has always been the most general and constant practice of the people. Egyptians and Persians buried their dead. The Egyptians even embalmed the cadavers of famous persons. Tacitus (History V, 5) says that the Greeks and the Latins buried the dead. In the Old Testament, Tobias is praised by St. Raphael the Archangel because he buried the dead at the risk of his life: “When thou didst bury the dead by night, I offered thy prayer to the Lord” (Tob. 12, 12).


In the gospel of St. Mark, we see Joseph of Arimathea “buying fine linen”, and after that “taking down the Body of Jesus, he wrapped Him in the linen and laid Him in a sepulchre (…) and when the Sabbath was passed, Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James, and Salome brought sweet spices, that coming, they might anoint Jesus” (Mk 15, 46; 16,1). At the time of the first Christians, cremation was spread among the Romans. It was a consequence of the decadence of the society for instance, at the time of Sylla and Marius the proportion between burial and cremation was one to fifty.

But the first Christians vigorously reacted against this practice. They buried their dead at the risk of their life. It was indeed very dangerous for them, because burial made them be recognized as Christians, and the persecuting Romans, when they discovered the cemeteries of the Christians, confiscated them and exhumed the bodies, as under the order of the emperors Valerian or Diocletian.

Such resistance has only one possible explanation: it came from a commandment given by the Apostles themselves.

Pope Saint Innocent I (401-417) said that the violation of this order is one of the most serious scandals, and it will never be changed. No dispensation can be given, adds the pope, except in the case of necessity (epidemic, war, etc.). When the barbarians converted to the Catholic faith, the Church obliged them to bury their dead and to stop burning them, even under death penalty as it was at the time of Charlemagne (eight century).

As Christianity spread, proportionally the practice of burial prevailed over cremation.

When cremation is used against the Catholic Church.

It is the French Revolution of 1789 which talked again about cremation. And in the last quarter of the XIXth century, the Masonic societies obtained from the governments of Europe the official recognition of this practice. It was accepted in Italy in the year 1876, in France in the year 1887.

The motives given by the advocates of incineration were hygiene, lack of space in the great cities to put cemeteries, risk of burying somebody alive. These reasons are still put forward today. But are these motives really serious?

Concerning hygiene, this objection is an insult to all the civilized nations, which practiced inhumations. Monastic orders, which buried their dead in the cloisters never had, because of this, infections, epidemic or stain in the water they drew nearby!

Concerning the alleged lack of place in the great cities, everybody knows that many dead are buried one over the other, and above all, what is this “progress” of the world which would make us now incapable to give a decent burial to our dead?
Not to be troubled by the argument of the partisans of cremation, let us quote the testimony of a witness of an incineration:

“It was the most poignant impression of horror I ever had. I have shivers, and cold sweat on the forehead when I remember this body twisting, these arms thrashing the air as to ask mercy, these fingers tightening, these black leg giving great kicks, catching fire as torches”.

Which son would dare to burn like this the body of his mother, or of his father! Bishop Freppel (bishop of Angers in France, last century) called this action savagery, and said “How can we make disappear the cadaver of our beloved parents which such violence on the day of their funeral?”

How can we pray in front of a funeral urn containing the ashes of our parents? Cemeteries, where they quietly rest, waiting for the general resurrection, are on the opposite a continual invitation to pray for the repose of their souls.

But we understand better the profound motive of this campaign for cremation when we read, in an advertising leaflet for this practice. “To choose cremation is to enter in the universal humanistic chain of union attached to the defense of human values” (Cremation Association of the Basque Coast).  Here, it is no more question of hygiene, lack of space, etc. but we find the objective of Freemasonry, this occult society whose goal, under the pretext of human values, is to destroy Catholicism and all the orders put by God in the world.

Doctrine of the Catholic Church

The first intervention of the Holy Office against cremation date from the period when Freemasonry began to revive the pagan custom of cremation: January 12th 1870; May 19th and December 15th 1886; July 27th 1892; May 3rd 1897.

When Canon Law was promulgated in 1917, it summarized the previous condemnation of cremation in the following three canons:

Canon 1203: “The bodies of the faithful must be buried, and cremation is reprobated.  If anyone has in any manner ordered his body to be cremated, it shall be unlawful to execute his wish.”

Canon 1240, 5° says that “Persons who have given orders for the cremation of their bodies are deprived of ecclesiastical burial, unless they have before death given some signs of repentance.”

Canon 2339 says that “Persons who, in violation of the prohibition of Canon 1240, dare to order or force the ecclesiastical burial (of those who are to be deprived of it) incur excommunication ipso facto; and persons who of their own accord give ecclesiastical burial to the above mentioned, incur an interdict from entering a church.”

In an Instruction dated June 19th 1926, the Holy Office said that the Last Sacraments could not be given to a person who is asking for cremation for itself.  It adds that, entering in a society for cremation linked with Freemasonry makes this person incur the penalties for joining Freemasons, especially excommunication.  Public Masses for the repose of the soul of persons who asked for cremation, are also forbidden.  It comes from Canon 1241, which forbids public Masses for persons having been deprived of ecclesiastical burial.

Obviously let us not forget that the Holy Church permits cremation in exceptional circumstances, as in times of epidemic, war, etc. (same Instruction)

WHAT ARE THE REASONS FOR THE CONDEMNATION OF CREMATION BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?

The first reason comes from the particular circumstance which made cremation having been newly promoted by Freemasonry.  Because of this fact, cremation becomes a public profession of irreligion and materialism.  But it is important to understand that it is not the most important reason.  The Catholic Church does not condemn cremation only because Freemasonry promotes it.

The Holy Catholic Church condemns cremation because it is a barbarous custom opposed to the respect and piety that one must have for our dead, even on the natural level.  And in the eyes of faith, by burial, the body laid under the earth where it will wait for its resurrection.  St. John Chrysostom says that the cemeteries are as dormitories where the dead are waiting for the day of resurrection.  Only  exceptional reasons (as in epidemic or war, etc.) can obliged for the burning of the bodies

Conciliar modernism and the doctrine of the Catholic Church. In the new Canon Law promulgated in 1983 (n. 1176 paragraph 3), the actual authorities of the Church do not forbid anymore cremation “unless it was chosen because of reasons opposite to the Catholic doctrine” (for example, denial of the dogma of the resurrection of the bodies).

But isn’t it in fact a great help given to all these associations for cremation founded all over the world now to spread this practice?  These associations are inspired by Freemasonry which is now spreading cremation to fight the Catholic Church and its beliefs.

Even if the new Canon Law continues to deeply recommend the burial of the bodies, its new politics of no-condemnation favors once again the action of the enemies of the Church who, by their diabolical hatred of the creation of God, kill the fetus by abortion, the sick and the old people by euthanasia, and savagely destroy the bodies of the dead by cremation.

One can also add that cremation endangers the practice of the veneration of relics.

Practical Conclusion

In the churches and chapels of the Society of St. Pius X, as we teach the traditional doctrine of the Catholic Church, we also keep its traditional practices. Therefore, we continue to follow the teaching of the traditional Canon Law of 1917, which expresses the constant thought of the holy Catholic Church:

S The bodies of the dead must be buried - cremation is forbidden.

S   Ecclesiastical burial will be denied to those who asked for the cremation of their bodies.

Let us honor our dead by burying their bodies with respect in a cemetery, and taking care of their souls by Masses, prayers and sacrifices. N. B.  What is said about the bodies must be applied to the members of the body (if cut by surgery for example) or to the dead fetus: they must be buried and not incinerated.
                                         
- Quoted From an article of Fr. Pinaud, SSPX  published in “Le Sel de la Terre.”

Read more >>