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 >>

Faithful Catholics Express Grave Concerns over Amoris Laetita

Guest Post by David Martin

On EWTN’s April 14, World Over Live program hosted by Raymond Arroyo, canon law expert Fr. Gerald Murray and Robert Royal, Catholic author and president of the Faith and Reason Institute, expressed serious concerns over Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetita, and sympathized with concerns that many Catholics are having about the "problematic" parts of the document.

For example, in Paragraph 3, Francis says that "not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the Magisterium... Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs."

In other words, each country or region can decide for itself which doctrines, laws, and disciplines it will adopt according to the whims of the people. This disagrees with tradition. The Church is universal so that its laws and teachings apply equally in all places and in every age. It is man that must change to conform to God, but God never changes. His unchanging doctrine and rule of law constitute the highest good for all peoples, so that any altering of the rule shows insensitivity and negligence, and contributes to the detriment of the people.

If we have a church today that is divided, confused, and out of grace, it is precisely because of this relaxation of the rule. Catering to the people and allowing secular influence into the Church is the plan of the Freemasons to destroy the Catholic Church.

It all started at Vatican II with the introduction of cultural diversity, i.e. changes of discipline, introduction of vernacular, where "active participation of the faithful" now became the focus. For example, in Article 37 of the Concilium it states that "the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity" but rather "respects the genius and talents of the various races and peoples" and even studies with sympathy "these people's way of life," so that "she admits such things into the liturgy itself." The end result today is a Church divided, and a general falling away from God.

Note that the Church before the Council was united and whole. It was unthinkable that the Church would even consider giving Communion to those living in adultery, but now the Church sanctions this in defiance of it's own teachings. Amoris Laetitia permits some divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Communion with no stipulation to live as brother and sister. (Paragraph 300, note 336) Footnote 351 to Article 305 explicitly states that the "help" offered by the Church to those living in adultery can "in certain cases... include the help of the sacraments." That is, the Church helps adulterers by giving them Communion.

This not only breaks with the Church's centuries old discipline on the reception of Communion, but constitutes a change of doctrine, since altering the discipline now proclaims to the Church that adultery is no longer a mortal sin.

The pope in Amoris Laetita says that the Eucharist "is not a reward for the perfect," so who then are the beneficiaries of this reward? The Eucharist is a reward, not for the perfect, but for those striving to "be perfect, as also your heavenly father is perfect." (Mt. 5:48) It is divine medicine for the contrite, and must be merited. It is not a formality for the casual, the lukewarm, and the ungrateful.

But especially, the Holy Eucharist is not for adulterers or those who flirt with the same sex. Jesus said, "Give not that which is holy to dogs." (Mt. 7:6) Concerning those that are divorced and civilly remarried, St. Paul warns, "Know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ." (Ephesians 5:5)

According to the Apostle, the reception of the Holy Eucharist by such persons is a sacrilege, and works to their condemnation. (1 Corinthians 11:27-29) What manner of insanity is this that benched Catholics are now permitted to approach the Eucharist while their souls are degraded with sin of a mortal nature? Is Rome deliberately attempting to send these souls to Hell? Where is the mercy, Your Holiness? Your mission is to admonish and instruct souls about the proper reception of Communion, not to Protestantize them.

We pray that Pope Francis will repose confidence in the tradition of the Apostles that was passed on by his predecessors of the Petrine Office. And we pray he not listen to the rebellious spirits loosed "in the high places." (Ephesians 6:12) To long has Kasper the unfriendly ghost been haunting the Church with his weird ideas, too long have the spooks of modernism been springing their surprises on the faithful. We don't need these "gods of surprises," but we need the One True God Who never surprises His people with respect to how we are to approach Him in the Blessed Sacrament. If the Church today is in darkness, it is because the sins of the church are standing between God and his people, courtesy of our high clergy that make no effort to cure the flock of this moral leprosy.

We pray that Francis will show true mercy on souls by leveling with them and passing on to them the good things of tradition that have proved fruitful, remembering the exhortation of St. Paul: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (1 Thess. 5:21)

Read more >>

Francis defends Judas, Whacks the High Priests

 

Guest Post by David Martin

Pope Francis is not happy with his good bishops. For the past several months he has showed irritation toward Vatican conservatives who oppose his synodal proposals that we show more openness to homosexuals and civilly remarried Catholics. It seems he has been on a rant by constantly lashing out against traditional cardinals whom he compares to the "doctors of the law" that "are closed to the prophecies and the lives of persons," though he does this indirectly through little digs that surface in his homilies.

His morning homily at the Vatican Casa Santa Marta on April 11 was no exception to this. Therein he defended Judas as the "poor man," while lamenting that "the doctors of the letter" had no compassion on him. "It hurts when I read that small passage from the Gospel of Matthew, when Judas, who has repented, goes to the priests and says: ‘I have sinned' and wants to give... and gives them the coins. ‘Who cares! - they say to him: it’s none of our business!’ They closed their hearts before this poor, repentant man."

First of all, it's important to note that there was no contrition in Judas' repentance. Were it otherwise, he would have gone directly to Jesus and apologized to him. He rather went and hung himself with a halter, which was an act of final impenitence—a mortal sin. Revelation has it that he is now one of the demons of Hell who tempt the faithful on earth, something God would never permit had he truly been innocent and contrite.

And whereas the chief priests were most wicked, they were not inhumane to Judas, because Judas was not seeking their forgiveness or understanding. Judas simply returned the money to them because he didn't want to bear the blame of the Crucifixion; he couldn't face up to what he did. It was an attempt to wash his hands. Like Pilate, he knew of Jesus' innocence, so he said, 'look to it yourself, I don't want your money.'

One cannot help to note, too, how Francis laments so deeply the hardness of heart wherewith the high priests behaved toward Judas, yet he says nothing of the cruelty and hardness that they demonstrated toward the Son of God whom they were about to kill. Where in the Church's history was it said or taught that the high priests were evil because they were mean to Judas?

The pope's homily on April 11 came on the heels of his widely criticized Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia issued on April 8, wherein he confirms the proposals of the October 2014-15 Synods on the Family that the Church be open to the lives of unrepentant gays and adulterers. Francis' thrust is that we accept them into the Church as they are, but this unfortunately blesses sin before the faithful—something that God will never ratify. "Woe to the world because of scandals?" (Mt 18:7)

As expected, Amoris Laetitia breaks with 2000 years of tradition by permitting some divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Communion with no stipulation to live as brother and sister. (Paragraph 300, note 336) Footnote 351 to Article 305 explicitly states that the "help" offered by the Church to those living in adultery can "in certain cases... include the help of the sacraments." That is, the Church helps adulterers by giving them Communion.

This not only breaks with the Church's centuries old discipline on the reception of Communion, but constitutes a change of doctrine, since altering the discipline now proclaims to the Church that adultery is no longer a mortal sin.

But it also defies the warning of St. Paul to those who approach the Blessed Sacrament while in serious sin. "Therefore 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 eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself." (1 Corinthians 11: 27-29)

From the onset the pope's focus was never about admitting Communion to gays and adulterers, but about integration. The "liturgical, educational, pastoral, and institutional" roles advocated by the October 2015 Synod were outlined by the pope two years ago, as we read in the Dec. 8, 2014 issue of CNS: "Pope Francis said that the Catholic Church must consider various ways to integrate the divorced and civilly remarried in the life of the church—not merely allowing them to receive Communion, but letting them serve as Eucharistic ministers and godparents."

These attempts are futile. The path to integration has already been laid out through holy tradition. Those living in sin simply need to renounce their lifestyle and partner, and go to confession, so that their integration will be complete. Now they can be reinstated into the Church and even receive Communion, so that the Eucharist will now help them, and not condemn them as St. Paul warns.

But allowing irregular couples into the Church as they are only sustains their offense, so that they remain separated from God and unable to be saved should they die without repentance. It deceives them, and deceives the faithful, which is no charity.

True charity means converting the wayward, that they might leave their unhappy state and be joined with Christ in His Church, but Francis sees this as an imposition. Jesus cleansed the lepers that they might be liberated from their affliction, yet Francis leaves the morally afflicted in their leprosy to suffer, and then calls it love and mercy.

Love is in the faithful keeping of God's laws, as expressed by Christ: "If you love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15) Yet, Francis expresses irritation over tradition-minded Catholics who faithfully keep the law, comparing them to the hypocritical Pharisees and high priests who followed the law to "the letter." Let us not forget that the Pharisees were not the teachers of the law, but were apostates that had completely left the Jewish law, evidenced by their sorcery, their child abuse, and their murder of the Messiah who gave them the law. The Pharisees never obeyed God's law, but only pretended to. It was their pretense and hypocrisy that irked Our Lord.

Alluding to our traditional bishops, the pope on April 11 spoke of these callous high priests, saying that all that mattered to them "were the laws, so many words and things they had built." What is implied is that the holy doctrines and traditions of the Catholic Faith are just "traditions of men" which today's Pharisaic conservatives have built up for themselves. Has Francis not considered that he is the Pharisee persecuting these holy men?

The pope said: "History tells us of many people who were judged and killed, although they were innocent: [were] judged according to the Word of God, against the Word of God. Let’s think of witch hunts or of St. Joan of Arc, and of many others who were burnt to death, condemned because according to the judges they were not in line with the Word of God." 

Francis seems to think that the Cardinal Burkes and good bishops are the "judges" who persecute the innocent—whom he holds to be the poor gays, Judases, and adulterers—because they don't adhere to their own "stiff-necked" version of the Word of God. He overlooks the fact that all the martyrs through the centuries, and without exception, were the staunch Catholics who adhered strictly to the laws, doctrines, and tradition of the Faith, so much so, that they chose to die rather than compromise one point of tradition. We speak of those tough and holy bishops, virgins, hermits, and fighters for Heaven who absolutely refused to change with the times. This is why they were saints.

Francis has forgotten that in every case, without exception, it was the left-wing dissident Catholics, heretics, Marxists, infidels, adulterers, homosexuals, i.e. the enemies of tradition, that inflicted this persecution upon the Catholics. This persecution has now reached unprecedented heights.

We today are witnessing the re-crucifixion of Christ; the Mystical Body is truly passing through its Passion. It is a reply of the Crucifixion as the scribes and high priests of the new order go about stirring up the people against Jesus and His traditions. Sorrowfully, we see Francis at the helm persecuting the innocent while praising the names of the martyrs, which calls to mind the Pharisees who pretended to honor the memory of the prophets, but who were "the sons of them that killed the prophets." (Mt. 23:31)

We've seen the replay of the Crucifixion; now we need a replay of Damascus. Jesus cries out today, saying, "Francis, Francis, why do you persecute me?" We pray he will open his heart and recognize who his true friends are—the Bishop Schneiders, Cardinal Burkes, and Cardinal Sarahs—that he may open his eyes and see their genuine love for God's people, evidenced by their tireless efforts to bring the pure waters of tradition to the thirsting flock.

May Francis do likewise. May he open his eyes and understand that if he loves souls, he will labor with all his will to bestow on the people the treasures of the Catholic Faith in all its facets—the knowledge of Heaven, the saints, the mystics, the miracles, the dogmas, the laws, the Tridentine Mass—that they be enriched and edified like no other people on earth.

And may he likewise deign to reach out and extend the beauties of the Faith to all peoples, that they may leave their particular ideas, miseries, idols, and religions, and be joined with Christ in the bosom of His Church. The jewels of sacred tradition were not to be hoarded, but shared. What greater mercy can the pope show for poor sinners than by enriching them with the glories of the One True Faith!

Jesus said to Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter answered, "You know that I love thee." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep." We pray that Francis will embrace the Church's mission to convert the world, and not see this as "competition" or the pompous flaunt of Pharisaic peacocks that want to fan their ostentatious feathers. May he see it rather as the Church's mission of mercy, as given to us by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago.

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/04/11/pope_francis_warns_against_those_who_judge_with_closed_hea/1221870

Read more >>

Rome to Dignify Luther's Revolt through Joint Commemoration

Guest post by David Martin

Vatican Radio announced on January 25 that Francis and the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) will hold a joint ecumenical commemoration of the "Reformation" on October 31, 2016, in Lund, Sweden. The event will attempt to showcase "the gifts of the Reformation" while lamenting centuries of division over it. The inter-religious conference will also include a "Common Prayer" service which is based on a Catholic-Lutheran liturgical guide published recently by the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation.

The October 2016 meeting comes in anticipation of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation that Catholics and Lutherans will jointly celebrate in 2017, under the title, "Lutheran-Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation." That Catholics and Protestants will jointly commemorate a rebellion that was deliberately begun to destroy the Catholic Faith is certainly no small news. Conniving with Luther's revolt is something that was started by the German Alliance at Vatican II, and now we see it coming to a head.

The worst of it is that this is being advanced under the illusion of divine guidance. The Church's mission is being cast aside in the name of God and replaced with "dialogue," which is nothing more than a denial of the Faith and a willingness to be subverted with error. Christ never once "dialogued" with the people, but rather instructed them on the path of salvation, and this in turn is what He commissioned His priestly representatives to do. (Matthew 28:19,20) The Church's mission from the beginning is to instruct the world on salvation and to extend the riches of Christ to all peoples, that they might leave their particular miseries, idols, and creeds, and be converted to the Catholic Faith.

But now Rome is denying its mission and consorting with the enemies of the Faith in order to gain their gifts and their thirty pieces of silver. This is what the new dialogue of "mercy" boils down to—a stab in the back. The Son of Man is again betrayed with a kiss. What Jesus told Saul at Damascus He now says to our Jesuit pope: "Francis, Francis, why do you persecute Me?"

Catholics the world over were bewildered by a sermon delivered by Francis on January 18, in which he all but excommunicated Christians "who obstinately cling to what has always been done and who do not allow others to change." He condemned Catholics who are of "closed heart" and who resist "change," calling them "obstinate rebels" and "idolaters." To think that we're "idolaters" for adoring the True God and for not allowing ourselves to be led by false spirits and deities that our forefathers knew not!

This is precisely the change that Francis advocates, namely, the spirit of Vatican II, the Charismatics, ecumenism, environmentalism, and now this latest move to be one with Lutherans in a joint-commemoration which will attempt to showcase the so-called "gifts of the Reformation."

Has our dear Holy Father forgotten that Martin Luther was a blasphemer and heretic who taught that Jesus was an adulterer and who dubbed the Sacrifice of the Mass "sacrilegious and abominable?" Thanks to Luther and his rampage, a better part of Europe was led into apostasy. The man was a theological crackpot who rejected six books of the Bible and who preached that Jesus died on the cross so that man can sin freely without the fear of eternal punishment. Consider Luther’s own words:

“Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly... No sin will separate us from the Christ, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.” (From Luther’s letter to Philip Melanchthon, August 1, 1521, LW Vol. 48, pp. 281-282)

Should the Vatican hierarchy be commemorating the work of such a man? Did they forget that Martin Luther was rightfully excommunicated by Leo X in January 1521? How is it that Rome is now finding common ground with apostates who look to Luther as their mentor?

Under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit the Council of Trent condemned Luther and his Reformation and decreed that those who hold to its errors are now an anathema, which means it's no longer a consideration. The Reformation is now a dead issue, forever placed in the tomb, which means Catholics may no longer consider or reevaluate its precepts.

How is it that Rome will now dignify the work of one whom the Church officially holds to be an enemy of the Christian Faith?

See our Prayer for Heretics and say that prayer today.  And for more reading consider: The Errors of Martin Luther.

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 >>

Our Lady, Undoer of Knots by Marge Fenelon

A few days ago I received in the mail a copy of Our Lady, Undoer of Knots by Marge Fenelon to review.  I admit that before receiving this book I was unfamiliar with both devotion to Our Lady under this title and with Ms. Fenelon.  After finishing the book, I am glad to have come across both.

The book is a very short read - I finished it in only around 3 - 4 hours.  However, the substance of the book is quite spiritually edifying.  Using the image of Our Lady, Undoer of Knots, the author shows us how our Blessed Mother can help undo the knots of disorder, sin, and confusion in our lives.  Each chapter features a great prayer to Our Lady, Undoer of Knots.

The book is structured around the 2014 pilgrimage of Pope Francis to the Holy Land.  Each chapter focuses on one of the holy sites visited by Pope Francis (e.g. The Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre, the Church of All Nations near the Grotto of the Agony, the Basilica of the Nativity, et cetera).  Using some of Pope Francis' words as a guide and her own experiences visiting, touching, and venrating these holy sites, Ms. Fenelon has crafted a powerful meditation.  This book has helped me see even more the need for us to pray for peace in the Holy Land and to contribute to the support of the sacred sites there.

While in Jerusalem at a museum documenting the Holocaust, the author describes the reaction of the Jewish tour guide who blamed the Church.  I am glad to read in here how the author refutes the notion that the Church did nothing - citing the example of Pope Pius XII who saved thousands in the Vatican itself.

In this time of crisis in the Church, many books written nowadays are questionable on their orthodoxy - if not outright heretical.  This book was sound in its Theology and inspiring.  I am happy to recommend it.

My only reservations for the book include:

• The book does not capitalize pronouns that reference our Lord's name.  
• The book at the back under "How to Pray the Rosary" includes the "Luminous Mysteries" that are not an actual part of the Rosary and which I do not promote.
• The book mentions the prayer of Pope Francis with members of the Orthodox Church and other clergy (with a mention of Lutherans) without disclaiming that there is no salvation outside of the Church and that we should pray for their conversion.

However, despite these issues that I would have changed had I served as the editor, I found spiritual benefit in this book and am happy to recommend Our Lady, Undoer of Knots by Marge Fenelon.

Our Lady, Undoer of Knots, pray for us!  Pray for the Church!  Pray for the conversion of sinners!

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 Year of Mercy: What is Mercy?

With the announcement of a Year of Mercy by Pope Francis, we should start by asking ourselves "what is mercy?"  And let us follow up that question with another: "what does mercy require of me?"  Far too many think mercy is a nothing more than a complacency with sin in practice: "God loves me.  I am forgiven.  I can go and not feel bad about my sins."

On the contrary, true mercy is found in prayer and penance.  It is found in our spiritual works of mercy: admonishing sinners to repent, go to Confession, and reunite themselves with the Sacraments.  True mercy is not a "feel good ideal" similar to how the protestants view salvation.  True mercy is inseparable from Catholic notions of penance.

Bishop Fellay in his Letter of May 2015 provided a reflection on True Mercy.  The following an except from that document:

What exactly is [mercy] about? In itself mercy is a word that is dear to the heart of every Catholic, because it designates the most touching manifestation of God’s love for us. In past centuries the apparitions of the Sacred Heart were nothing but a more intense revelation of this mercy of God toward mankind. The same must be said about devotion to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Nevertheless true mercy, which implies this initial, extremely touching movement of God toward the sinner and His misery, continues in a moment of the creature’s conversion to God: “God desires not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live” (cf. Ezek 33:11). Hence the Gospels insist on the duty of conversion, renunciation and penance.  Our Lord went so far as to say: “Unless you do penance, you shall all perish” (cf. Lk 13:5).

This call to conversion is the heart of the Gospel, which we find in St. John the Baptist as well as in St. Peter. When sinners, touched by preaching, ask what they must do, they hear only this recommendation: “be converted and do penance.” The Blessed Virgin in her apparitions in recent centuries, both in La Salette and in Lourdes or Fatima, says nothing different: “prayer and penance”.

Now the new preachers of a new mercy insist so much on the first step taken by God toward human beings who are lost because of sin, ignorance and misery that they too often omit this second movement, which must come from the creature: repentance, conversion, the rejection of sin. Ultimately, the new mercy is nothing but complacency about sin. God loves you... no matter what.

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 >>

UPDATED: Pope Calling for Joint Commemoration with Lutherans in 2017

(Another example of Luther's heresy against our Lord)

The Church acted most impeccably and pastorally in putting down Luther's revolt in the 16th century. Let that be our reflection, that it might encourage Catholics to stand behind the Church's verdict, and thus motivate them to encourage separated brethren to renounce the Reformation in everything it stood for. Let that be the only common denominator that unites the joint commemoration in 2017.

The following is a Guest Post by David Martin:

Pope Francis is calling on Catholics to "celebrate together" the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, under the title: “Lutheran-Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation.” On December 18, 2014, he received a delegation of the German Evangelical Lutheran Church at the Vatican and told them:

“In 2017, Lutheran and Catholic Christians commemorate together the five hundredth anniversary of the Reformation. On this occasion, Lutherans and Catholics will, for the first time, have the opportunity to keep one and the same global ecumenical commemoration, not in the form of a triumphalist celebration, but rather to confess our common faith in the Triune God." (The Eponymous Flower, December 18, 2014)

This echoes his October 21, 2013, speech to the members of the Lutheran World Federation and the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity, in which he praised "the many advances made in relations between Lutherans and Catholics in these past decades," emphasizing how "commitment to progress in spiritual ecumenism...constitutes the soul of our journey towards full communion." (Zenit News, October 21, 2013)

The problem is that their progress toward unity is in vain, if unity with Christ is what they are expecting. The Lutherans’ journey to ecclesial union consists in rejecting the errors of their wayward sect and confessing the Roman Catholic Church to be the only true religion on earth. They must reject the perfidy of Martin Luther who initiated his hateful “Reformation” in 1517, remembering the decree from the Council of Trent that Luther and the Reformation are not something that Catholics may unite with, lest they be an anathema.

The forthcoming celebration between Lutherans and Catholics is being spurred by the October 2013 document From Conflict to Communion, which cites the supposed progress being made towards a full communion between the two groups. Progress toward unity indeed is being made, in the same way Judas made progress in securing unity with the Pharisees, but such a unity betrays the Faith. The only solution for a true ecclesial communion is for Lutherans to give up their conflict with the Catholic Church, just as the Pharisees were required to give up their conflict with Christ if they wished to have union with him. There was nothing that Christ himself had to do, just as there is nothing His Church must do other than to wait for a humble act of contrition from separated brethren who protested the Faith in the sixteenth century.

The Catholic Church committed no fault in the way it responded to the Reformation five centuries ago, which means there must be no apologies made whatsoever. The papal condemnation of Luther in 1521 was truly the work of the Holy Spirit! Even so, Francis told the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity: “Catholics and Lutherans can ask forgiveness for the harm they have caused one another and for their offenses committed in the sight of God.” Nay, the harm was done solely by the Lutheran “reformers,” while the Catholic Church acted impeccably in God’s sight to glorify His Name and advance the salvation of souls on earth.

Francis seems to operate under the premise that ecumenical unity is some sort of gift or asset, forgetting that “the friendship of this world is the enemy of God.” (James 4:4) Since when does the Roman Catholic Church unite with world religions? Does the good pope not realize that it is the major plan of the infernal U.N., working through its World Council of Churches, to abolish the institutionalized Church of Rome and to merge all peoples and churches into an international one-world religion under the banner Antichrist?

Over a century ago this unification of all religions was foreshadowed in the writings of 19th century Freemason and excommunicated priest, Canon Roca (1830-1893), who predicted that “the liturgy of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an *ecumenical council” in a move “to deprive the Church of its supernatural character, to amalgamate it with the world, to interweave the denominations ecumenically instead of letting them run side by side as separate confessions, and thus to pave the way for a standard world religion in the centralized world state.” (Bishop Rudolph Graber PhD, Athanasius and the Church in our Time, 1974)

The dark forces of the global elite are the ones spearheading this one-world ecumenical unity for the downfall and enslavement of mankind, which means the most pastoral thing the pope could do is to rescue the flock from this plague, and not surrender them to it. Pastoral care consists in maintaining the tradition of the Faith for the welfare of the people, as expressed by St. Pope Pius X: “The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but men of tradition.”

To say that Catholics and Lutherans will celebrate the Reformation "together" is to say they're on the same side of the fence. The Holy Father says the commemoration is not to be a "triumphalist celebration" where we commemorate the Church’s triumph over the Reformation, but where we rather “confess our common faith" with Lutherans.

Since when do Catholics share in the doctrine of heretics and schismatics? To not rejoice over the Church's verdict against Luther is to rejoice with him. "He that is not with me is against me." (Matt. 12:30) The Council of Trent put the dog out five centuries ago when it rightfully condemned Luther’s work, but Vatican II unfortunately let the dog back in. This seems to be what the coming 2017 commemoration is all about.

Faithful Catholics have no recourse but to either stand behind the Church's verdict against Luther, or be partakers in his sins. In the words of St. Paul: "You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord, and the chalice of devils: You cannot  be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils.” (1 Corinthians 10:21)

WE SEEM TO FORGET that Luther was a raving heretic who was driven by the devil to tear the Faith asunder in Europe. His definition of “repentance” was to reject Catholicism, evidenced by his hateful words against the Mass: “It is indeed upon the Mass as on a rock that the whole papal system is built, with its monasteries, its bishoprics, its collegiate churches, its altars, its ministries, its doctrine, i.e., with all its guts. All these cannot fail to crumble once their sacrilegious and abominable Mass falls.” (Martin Luther, Against Henry, King of England, 1522, Werke, Vol. X, p. 220.)

Luther also contributed mightily to the mass murder of 70,000-100,000 peasants during the German Peasant War (1524-1525), which his Reformation helped to spark. Consider the following from Luther: "To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Therefore let whoever can, smite, slay, and stab them secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful or devilish than a rebel…. On the obstinate, hardened, blinded peasants let no one have mercy, but let whoever is able, hew, stab, and slay them like mad dogs." (Erlangen Edition of Luther’s Works, Vol. 24)

In 1526 Luther justified his killing of the peasants, saying, "I, Martin Luther, have during the rebellion slain all the peasants, for it was I who ordered them to be struck dead. (Erlangen LW, Vol. 59, p. 284)

Luther furthermore blasphemed against the Christ, revealing his deficit of faith. “Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well… secondly with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery.” (Luther’s Works, American Edition, Volume 54, p. 154, Concordia Publishing House)

As for his teaching on salvation and justification, the man was a crackpot who called humble contrition “hypocrisy” and who insisted that Jesus died on the cross so that we can sin freely without the fear of eternal punishment.  Consider Luther’s own words:

“Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly... No sin will separate us from the Christ, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.” (From Luther’s letter to Philip Melanchthon, August 1, 1521, LW Vol. 48, pp. 281-282)

Herein is the foundation of Protestantism which asserts that Jesus already “paid the price,” so that works will neither save nor condemn us. This is a devious lie with no scriptural basis, yet Luther knew that he could hook people with it by convincing them that it is taught in the Bible. His ploy was to twist the Scriptures, both in the wording and the interpretation, to establish the false premise that the use of our free will to please God is vain.

In planning his strategy he had his pet verses marked out which, in their twisted form, became ammunition to induce this licentious, worry-free attitude about sin. Knowing the temptation of human nature to shun responsibility for sin, the seducer invented the idea of "sin and be saved," and then used Scripture to try to substantiate his lunacy. The following is perhaps his favorite argument for advancing his doctrine:

"By the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him... For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law." (Romans 3: 20,28)

The law mentioned here has nothing to do with the Law of Christ or the performance of good works, but refers specifically to the Old Mosaic Law wherein they practiced circumcision and offered animal sacrifices to expiate for sin, with the observance of certain feast days, etc. Christ came to do away with these former works so that we are no longer under the Law of Moses, but under the Law of Christ. And this is what the Scripture is saying, that we are not justified by being Jew, but are justified by being Christian. Period. The old Jewish works are dead.

Unfortunately heretics have had a field-day with this and other like verses, thinking they have liberty to sin and to avoid good works, when in fact no such liberty is given in the Bible. It was Luther who started this idea that we don’t have to please God with works, before which it never existed in Christian history. Luther obviously didn’t think Christ was worth working for, which is what his rant boiled down to. The Gospel makes it clear that it's not only what we do that can banish souls to the eternal fires, but what we fail to do in good works.

The 25th chapter of St. Matthew states that those who neglect their religious duties in life will be hurled into hell by the Just Judge, who at His Second Coming will declare to them: "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: 41-46)

St. Paul exhorts the faithful of God to work out their salvation "with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12), because "the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works." (Matthew 16:27)  A man's works then are what justify and keep him. (James 2:17)       "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13)

If there is one thing we learn from the Gospel, it is that lip service and false protestations will not save us.

Jesus himself says, "Why do you call me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46) Christ indeed is the Savior of the world, but He will not save anyone unless they do what He says. "Not everyone that says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven: but he that does the will of my Father who is in Heaven, he shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven." (Matthew 7: 21)

What Luther lacked above all was faith. He called Jesus an adulterer, rejected several books of the Bible,    denied the necessity of good works for salvation, scorned the reality of indulgences, and denied that priests have the power to forgive sins. He maintained that the priest's role in confession is to simply declare to the penitent the forgiveness that is already his from God, arguing that it doesn't come through the priest.

This is heresy. Jesus told his representatives in the priesthood: "Receive the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall not forgive, they are not forgiven." (John 20: 22,23) Clearly we see that without the absolution (forgiveness) of the priest, the penitent is not forgiven by God.

In short, Martin Luther didn’t agree with the teachings of Jesus Christ, and had no qualms about ripping His doctrine to shreds before the people. He was a classic hypocrite, constantly accusing others of his own errors  and touting himself about his “justifications in faith,” when in fact he had no faith. He was an infidel, a blasphemer, an adulterer and a murderer, and now Rome wants to find common ground with him in 2017? Why not just   celebrate the anniversary of the Third Reich?

Every one of Luther’s charges against the Catholic Church were irrational and false. For instance he accused the clergy of “selling indulgences” in the confessional, which is not true. When penitents came to confession it was common at that time for priests to administer a penance in the form of having them place money in the Church’s treasury, because funds were needed to complete the Basilica of St. Peters in Rome. We might say a Peter’s pence was being raised, which should have exited praise, but this infuriated Luther because he couldn’t tolerate the idea of funding the “papal pig” and his palace.

If anyone would question his motives, let them consider his own words about the Catholic Church: "We too were formerly stuck in the behind of this hellish whore, the new church of the pope... so that we regret having spent so much time and energy in that vile h***. But God be praised and thanked that he rescued us from the scarlet whore." (Luther's Works, Vol. 41, p. 206)

Again Luther says: "I can with good conscience consider the pope a fart-ass and an enemy of God. He cannot consider me an ass, for he knows that I am more learned in the Scriptures than he and all his asses are.” (p. 344) “The papal ass wants to be lord of the church, although he is not a Christian, believes nothing, and can no longer do anything but fart like an ass." (p. 358)

Should the Vatican be commemorating the work of such a man? It is for reason that the Church excommunicated Martin Luther in January 1521, which means the faithful have no choice but to either stand behind this verdict,    or be partakers in his sins. As the Bible says: "You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord, and the chalice of devils” (1 Corinthians 10:21)

It is unfortunate that so many misinformed people listened to the deceiver and allowed themselves to be pulled away from the Catholic Church. Thanks to Luther and his rampage, a better part of Europe was led into apostasy, and now apostates and Catholics are asked to share a “common faith!” What does light have in common with darkness? Benedict XVI even said the Protestant religion is “no religion.”

Charity for separated brethren consists in converting them to the Faith, not in partaking in their errors. The Church from the beginning has forbidden the idea of interreligious dialogue for unity's sake, since our unity is with Christ, not with secular religions. The Church dogmatically teaches that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church (extra ecclesiam nulla salus), which means Catholics must believe this in order to be saved.

Of all the religions of earth, the Protestant sect is probably the most hostile towards the Catholic Church. It is distinguished by its abhorrence of the Virgin Mary, which is why Protestantism is so radically different than Catholicism, despite what today's ecumenical “experts" might say. Though Protestants are often good people, their sect is not good because it denigrates Mary and runs her into the ground. That is to say, not all Protestants are truly Protestant. Unfortunately it is the true Protestants that Rome is seeking unity with.

Concerning separated brethren who oppose the Faith, St. John says: "If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that says to him, God speed you, communicates with his wicked works." (2 John 1:10,11)

Why then is Rome God-speeding Luther and his schismatic sect? Under the pretext of mercy they’re despising goodness and opening the door to evil. Pastoral charity means closing the door on sin and professing the Catholic Church as the only ark of salvation, even if it means being hated by all men for it. Christ himself demonstrated this selfless zeal in the way he refuted the various religious groups of his day. Never once was He open to error, never once did he show openness to the world and its thinking, but He rather rebuked the Pharisees for their pride and their contempt of majesty. His mercy was on the humble and God fearing who struck their breast, not   on the “stiff-necked and uncircumcised of heart” who insisted on bringing their polluted errors into the temple.  

We pray that Francis will likewise demonstrate this zeal for souls by denouncing the ecumenical Pharisees in Rome that are polluting the faithful with their errors. Jesus mercifully cleansed the lepers, so let Peter follow suit and cleanse this moral leprosy from our midst, lest it work the spiritual death of God’s people.

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 >>

Cardinal Burke Repudiates Francis, Synod on the Family

Guest Article By David Martin

Cardinal Raymond Burke, who heads the Vatican's highest court of canon law and who is recognized as one of the most outstanding prelates of the Catholic Church today has gone on record as saying that the recent Synod on the Family was designed to "weaken the Church's teaching and practice.” This “weakening” apparently had the blessing of Pope Francis.

On October 17, Burke told BuzzFeed News: "If Pope Francis had selected certain cardinals to steer the meeting to advance his personal views on matters like divorce and the treatment of LGBT people, he would not be observing his mandate as the leader of the Catholic Church."

Unfortunately the Synod was controlled by a clique of liberals and their media affiliates so that the views of the good bishops in attendance were scarcely reflected in the Synod documents. The pope’s duty was to censure progressivist, anti-family action and to support the views of conservative participants who demonstrated true pastoral concern, but we saw quite the opposite.

Conservative Catholic sources report that Francis in fact has been “irritated” with Burke and other Vatican conservatives for opposing the views of Cardinal Kasper, the key spokesman of the upheaval and Francis' close ally, who maintains that divorced and “remarried” people be allowed to receive Holy Communion. Burke’s censure of Kasper and his defense of orthodoxy have unfortunately put an end to his work in Rome, as Francis has now demoted him from his position as Rome’s chief guardian of canon law, and is sending him to the island of Malta in a sort of exile to assume a rather insignificant post there. This was confirmed by Burke in his interview with BuzzFeed on October 17.

But Burke remains relentless in his defense of truth. The cardinal said: “The pope, more than anyone else as the pastor of the universal church, is bound to serve the truth,” pointing out that "the pope is not free to change the church’s teachings with regard to the immorality of homosexual acts or the insolubility of marriage or any other doctrine of the Faith.”

Given the times we are living in, the most pastoral thing the pope can do is to safeguard the flock from false pastors, so it is nothing less than appalling that suspect theologians like Cardinal Kasper were appointed to key positions of the Synod. Other participating members included Cardinal Timothy Dolan who supports gay participation in the annual St. Patrick’s Day Parade, Cardinal Donald Wuerl who from his seminary days has been known as “Wuerl the girl,” and Cardinal Godfried Danneels who is reputed for his pedophile connections and gay-marriage advocacy.

In short, a gay-lobby was in force to corrupt the Synod, as evidenced in the Synod’s midterm report Relatio post Disceptationem which embraced gayhood with open arms. The Synod fathers were all aware that Francis had read and approved the relatio for publication, so this raises some serious questions about Francis and warrants growing concerns that he clarify his position on critical moral issues. Burke said in his interview that Francis has "done a lot of harm” by not stating “openly what his position is.”

The thrust of the progressivist lobby was to drum up respect for homosexuality and to incorporate people of gay orientation, as if they were a valued part of the Catholic Church. Consider the following from the relatio issued by the Synod on Monday, October 13:

50. "Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community... Are we capable of providing for these people, guaranteeing them a place of fellowship in our communities? Oftentimes, they want to encounter a Church which offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of this, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation?"

Since when is the orientation of lewd sex offenders something that the Holy Roman Catholic Church values? The Church rather condemns homosexuality and places it on par with willful murder, listing it as one of the “four sins crying to Heaven for vengeance.”

St. Paul speaks of those offenders and enemies of the Faith "who have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy," and goes on to say that "they who do such things are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them." (Romans 1:27,32) Hence if so much as respecting homosexuality renders one "worthy of death," how is it that a Vatican synod could have the dare to foster its growth?

The same-sex aspiration of homosexuals is not a gift, but a criminal tendency springing from the devil and original sin, just as the desire to rape or murder is of the devil. If doctors go to great extent to purge cancerous tumors from the body, with how much greater urgency must the hierarchy purge these effeminate tumors from the Body of Christ? There certainly can be no integrating of filth with grace. Yet the Relatio states:

51. "The question of homosexuality requires serious reflection on how to devise realistic approaches to affective growth, human development and maturation in the Gospel, while integrating the sexual aspect."

Since when does the hierarchy reflect seriously on how to integrate sodomy with Holy Mother the Church? Have they forgotten the divine wrath and destruction that fell upon Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality? Are they so addicted to their shame that they would rather watch their brothers and sisters burn in the torture chambers of eternity before admitting their error?

Charity for homosexuals consists in rescuing them from their bondage, not in sustaining their vice so that it takes them down to the fires of Hell. The Church’s pastoral duty to gays is to correct and admonish them about their offense so that they too can be saved. It is only through repentance and amendment of life that homosexuals and mortal offenders can be admitted to the Church. The mere fact that this is been the Church’s fruitful and unwavering position for 2000 years should be enough proof that it should be the Church’s position today. “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thess. 5:21)

Hence the midterm relatio of October 13 constituted a radical break from Church teaching. By Thursday October 16, the conservative backlash was so great that it exploded into an all-out revolt that significantly altered the direction of the Synod for the better. A professor from a pontifical university in Rome who was in direct contact with the Synod fathers had this to say:
“I have spoken to a huge number of prelates in the past few days, many of them Synod Fathers. They are all furious and indignant with Francis. A president of a Conference of Bishops of a large African country even called him to my face "an agent of disruption." The right word to describe the general atmosphere reigning in the Curia and the Synod, after 18 months of a government imposed by fear and persecution, is one I've heard several times in the past week: "esasperazione" ("exasperation"). The experiences of the past century show that a government of fear and manipulation cannot subsist for long without rebellion, and that was what erupted on Thursday. It was as if a pressure cooker exploded at the end of an 18-month-long simmering.”  (Rorate Caeli blogspot.com)

The real rebellion will occur in the future if we don’t see more of this passionate defense of the Faith in Rome. History has proved that some of the most important decisions of Church history occurred in a moment of intense moral indignation, just as the indignation of the good bishops paid off at the Synod. Among the key warriors leading the charge was Cardinal Burke, the public opponent of Francis throughout the Synod, who together with several cardinals accused Francis of having inflicted “great damage” to the Church. Of noteworthy mention is Archbishop Napier of South Africa, who distinguished himself as one of the key opponents of the obscene relatio and who spoke of the “irreparable damage” to the Synod in his potent, but lucidly eloquent first speech.

Even so, the Synod on the Family did not completely alter its tune after the confrontation. The final Synod document Relatio Synodi, issued on October 18, still echos some of the gay sympathies reflected in the previous document, though significantly toned down and with more diplomacy. But nonetheless there, as we read in article 55:

“Men and women with homosexual tendencies must be welcomed with respect and gentleness. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." This ambiguous double-talk is reminiscent of the Vatican II Council which also used mushy, ambiguous wording to advance progressive agenda.

The point being that there is nothing said or even implied in the final document that homosexuality is a gravely sinful disorder generated by the devil, and one which is spawning most of the sexual-abuse throughout the Church. It would have made more sense for the Synod to extend “welcoming” arms to rapists, porn-hustlers, and gamblers, since their poison isn’t as deadly as that of homosexuals, nor is it directed against the institution of the family the way gay agenda is. It is a known fact that the lesbians and gays run the pro-death culture throughout the world!
 
But we owe our indebtedness to Cardinal Burke and those faithful ones of the conservative lobby who stood up against the obscene clique, because without their action the key architects of the Synod would have succeeded with their plan to proclaim to the world that the Catholic Church had finally embraced homosexuality as an accepted way of life. The planned “October revolution” was foiled! The Synod served as a spiritual call to arms, and one which Burke and his allies answered with a great deal of courage and zeal.

And interesting to note that Cardinal Burke is a fervent advocate of the Traditional Latin Mass wherein the priest says the Mass facing the tabernacle, ad orientum. Time and again we have seen how the old Mass fosters a sense of doctrinal purity and true pastoral concern, as opposed to the new rite which in many ways has adulterated the Faith and alienated the faithful from God.

The faithful indeed are blessed to have someone like Cardinal Raymond Burke to look to at this crucial moment of Church history. May he serve to strengthen the wearied bands, and may the Church Militant follow his lead in speaking out against error without respect to persons.

Read more >>