Why Pope Francis Is A False-Prophet

Pope Francis Is A False Prophet

Today I present to you a post from Fr. Jerome entitled: Why Pope Francis Is A False-Prophet.  Fr. Jerome is a pseudonym. Due to the times in which we live, this has become necessary.The subject matter is difficult, but he has handled it in a very careful manner and it needs to be read.

Fr. Carota was never shy about tackling subjects that were difficult.  In fact, he received a lot of flack for doing just that.  This is something that we need to think about carefully and something that should drive us to our knees beseeching God to have mercy on His Church.


By Father Jerome 10/15/2016:

After Jesus’ resurrection, Our Lord said “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.”—Mt 28:19.  To the contrary, Pope Francis said this week: “It is not right to convince someone of your faith.”  This means Pope Francis is now directly opposing Jesus Christ, and it is time for me to speak up.

I am an American diocesan priest who does not belong to any congregation.   To write what I am about to write would normally be tantamount to forfeiting my soul in most centuries of Church history.  I realize that.  But I am so convinced that we have a false-prophet on the throne of Peter that I have reached the point that silence on Pope Francis is now tantamount to a grave sin of omission.

First of all, we need to understand terms and history.  Material heresy is simply theological error against Divine Revelation (Scripture and the Magisterium).  Formal heresy is when the person in question has been actually tried and found guilty before an ecclesiastical tribunal of superiors in the Catholic Church.  But none is higher than the Pope, so what to do if the worst is elected?

Great minds of the 16th century (like Suarez and St. Robert Bellarmine) hold that the only way to transfer a materially heretical Pope to the charge of formal heresy would be to convene an imperfect council.  An imperfect council consists of all Cardinals minus the Pope, convened specifically for the removal of at least one anti-Pope or Pope-in-possible-error.  Of course, today, the most courageous of clerics can only muster enough strength to request a “clarification” for the erroneous doctrines coming out of Rome. (outlined below.)

Thankfully, we have only had a few Popes in history who spoke heresy from the chair of Peter.   In the 14th century, Pope John XXII taught that a saved soul does not enjoy the beatific vision until Christ’s return at the final judgment.  Of course, the Church teaches a saved soul need only wait until the end of his purification.  Although John XXII’s error was a “minor” heresy, he still knew he had to recant on his deathbed.  Still, everybody knew back then: Not everything the Pope says is infallible.  How we ended up forgetting this as Catholics of the 21st century is beyond me.

But what is different today is that Pope Francis is speaking error (or at least scandalous ambiguities) almost every week. The magnitude is stunning, both in quantity and quality.  Quantitatively, Pope Francis speaks so frequently against the Bible and Tradition that even traditional websites have stopped making lists.  Qualitatively, it is remarkable that theological error has finally made it into an apostolic exhortation, namely, Amoris Laetitia.  Among other errors, he essentially says that those in mortal sin may receive Holy Communion with the permission of their spiritual director.  This is not a confusing aspect that needs “clarification.”  It is a material heresy.

What right do I have to make such an accusation?

St. Thomas Aquinas writes:  “It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, ‘Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.'”—Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q. 33, Art 4, reply to objection 2

But we must remember that there are theological facets to Pope Francis’ heresy that are more disturbing than even Amoris Laetitia, for they strike at the very nature and divinity of Jesus Christ.

For example, when Pope Francis preached at the Domus Santae Martae in May 2013, he said in a homily:  “We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’  But do good: we will meet one another there.”  By “there,” he meant heaven.  In other words, atheists can go to heaven by doing good works. This is clearly error.  Now, some theologians defend this statement, claiming it is in concert with the Catholic Church’s teaching on the potential salvation of those who remain in invincible ignorance of the Gospel yet follow their conscience.  However, the problem with such a defense is this:  No one who is listening to the Pope is invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church!

Even if a person were ignorant of the Gospel and the Church, Pope Francis has still promoted the ancient heresy of Pelagianism.  Pelagianism is the teaching that good works without faith can save a man’s soul.   To say that an atheist can go to heaven by “doing good” is so clearly heresy that even Protestant readers on this blog will quickly identify it this as an overturning of a common theology of grace.

The material heresy against the Divinity of Christ goes deeper.  Regarding the young Jesus being in the temple, he said in his 2016 Epiphany homily in Italian:  “Instead of returning home with his family, he stayed in Jerusalem, in the Temple, provoking great suffering to Mary and Joseph, who were unable to find him. For this little ‘escapade’ (questa ‘scappatella’), Jesus probably had to ask forgiveness (dovette chiedere scusa) of his parents.”  I believe that to call the temple-based worship of God “a little escapade” is a blasphemy that would get any youth minister fired from the parish of even my more moderate priest friends.  Why can’t these friends of mine recognize the error of the Pope?  It is a false understanding of authority, namely, that the Pope is not under the Gospel or the Magisterium.

His Epiphany homily is erroneous or even heretical because we don’t have to guess what Jesus said to his parents after being found in the Temple.  Jesus said to Mary and Joseph:  “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?'”—Luke 2:49.  Thirdly, Jesus never “asked forgiveness.”  I know that even semi-orthodox theologians will defend this by saying that subjectively Joseph and Mary needed emotional comfort.  I wonder:  How are they blind to the fact that for a Pope to say that the Son of God “probably had to ask forgiveness” is still a clear denial of the Divinity of Jesus Christ?  This is a heresy, even if we translate the Italian scusa roughly as “excuse me,” which is etymologically similar.  To me, the bishops’ silence on these Christological errors are as condemning as the child abuse scandals.

The silence of lukewarm-but-orthodox bishops and Cardinals prove that Pope Francis is the greatest false-prophet in the history of the Church.  Why?  Because a false-prophet deceives even the elect, for Jesus Himself said “False christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.”—Matthew 24:22

I am not above “the elect,” but I do know how to read the Bible and the Catechism, and the teaching of Pope Francis is obvious error.  He now speaks boldly against the Bible and the Catholic Faith almost every week without anyone to stop him!  Why don’t the bishops recognize it?  I personally believe that the orthodox ones do recognize the error.  But they are hand-shackled by the snowballing of their silence from day-one, a snowball that has become a veritable mountain of sinful omission.  And now it is out of control.  The first day of this cowardly and silent mayhem began in 2013 during the Papal Conclave.   No one blew the whistle on the fact that  the last Papal Conclave used six ballots in one day, even though only five are allowed.

The evil of the 2013 Conclave goes even deeper:  A group of northern European Cardinals (extremely influential in the gay agenda) called the “St. Gallen group” admitted to forcing Pope Benedict out of his office and lobbying their own man with evil designs into the Conclave in 2013.  This man was Bergoglio become Pope Francis.  This is not a conspiracy theory.  They even admitted it here.  This means that Pope Benedict XVI may not have resigned in a valid manner.  The Code of Canon Law says that “a resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.”—CIC 188.  Again, put these three things together:  Certain Cardinals say they forced Pope Benedict out.  The same Cardinals say they got Bergoglio in.  Canon Law says that any resignation under “substantial error” is “invalid.”  This means that Pope Benedict may still be the Pope, even though he apparently denies descending from the throne in duress.

If Bergoglio is the Pope, then his ascension to the throne was valid but not licit, to use sacramental language for a non-sacramental act.  The goal of the faithful remains the same:  Follow Jesus Christ and the traditional Magisterium of the Catholic Church.  Avoid the wolf in sheep’s clothing.  I am without a doubt that this is the most dangerous moment in Church history, for even orthodox Catholics are being deceived by this false-prophet.

A bad Pope can not be “sent-packing” as someone suggested.  An imperfect council would require courageous bishops, but the bishops now back the false-prophet because of their silence. For this, they may get a false-prophet’s reward (cf. Matthew 10:41) for their grave sin of omission.  Every one of them with the internet and a decent education stands by Pope Francis’ error in their cowardice to speak out against a deceitfully brilliant Pope now openly saying “It is not right to convince someone of your faith.  Proselytism is the strongest venom against the path of ecumenism.”

Thus, there remain only two options for you to look for in the future:

1) The “two Popes” in Rome be given courage and repentance to work things out and then lead the Church to holiness.  This is not impossible for God.  Consider the influence of Saul and how he became the chosen vessel and standard bearer of Christ-crucified, the Apostle Paul.  Less certain is the coming enlightenment of all consciences.  If this happens, both could become great saints.

2) If such a conversion does not happen, we have still been promised a future prelate who will “restore the spirit of her priests” in the 16th century apparitions of Our Lady of Good Success.  The future Pope will do great good, but he will also have to posthumously condemn all the works of Pope Francis—even the less-harmful teachings.  Why?  Because when a Pope (or anti-Pope) has been found posthumously guilty of heresy (like Pope Formosus at the Cadaver Synod at the end of the 9th century) 100% the of erroneous Pope’s works must be condemned by the next Pope. This is not out of spite, but because it is too dangerous for future Popes, bishops, priests and lay people to maneuver through the dead Pope’s waters, considered to be at once brackish and clear.

Towards the end of his life, the Apostle John spoke of only one thing:  Love.  A courageous group of young Christians asked him why he always repeated the same words over and over.  The Apostle answered:  “Because it is the precept of the Lord, and if you comply with it, you do enough.”  He spoke only of love.  But the beloved disciple (who rested his head right against the heart of Jesus Christ) knew that part of love was to warn his flock against theological error.  Once at a public bath, St. John ran into a heretic named Cerinthus.  The Apostle John turned to his friends and said, “Let us, my brethren, make haste and be gone, lest the bath, wherein is Cerinthus the enemy of the Truth, should fall upon our heads.”

We can not love our flocks if we do not warn them of heresies and those who promulgate them, even if is uncomfortable to point out that a false-prophet has temporarily hijacked the Seat of Peter.  Faced with a false-prophet such as Pope Francis, we Catholics must always remember that none of this is a deal-breaker against Christ’s promise of the indefectibility of the Church, for the articulated faith and morals of the Catholic Church remain untouched by wicked men, even wicked Popes.

The Conciliar Creed of the Church of Man – Louie Verrecchio

Here is another post from harvesting the fruit blog.

What are your thoughts?

 


Francis interfaith

During his General Audience of Wednesday, October 28, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, otherwise known as Pope Francis, delivered what may rightly be considered a concise “Profession of Faith” for the One-World Religion of Apostate Rome; let us call it the Conciliar Creed of the Church of Man.

Certainly, Francis is not the first bishop in white to embrace the Church of Man that emerged after Vatican Council II and its anthropocentric tenets, but he is by far its boldest evangelist to date.

As such, he is rather plainspoken (at least for those with ears to hear) about his desire to lure naïve souls away from Eternal Rome and the Holy Mother who nurtures her children in heavenly hope, in exchange for the suffocating confines of an earthbound religion that offers little more than fleeting good feelings born of pure sentimentalism.

At this, let us examine this Conciliar Creed of the Church of Man through the eyes of a so-called “traditionalist,” aka Catholic.

Citing the 50th anniversary of Nostra Aetate – the Declaration on the Relation of the Catholic Church to Non-Christian Religions of Vatican II – Francis opened his address by saying:

The Second Vatican Council was an extraordinary time of reflection, dialogue and prayer which aimed to renew the gaze of the Catholic Church on herself and on the world. A reading of the signs of the times in view of an update oriented by a twofold faithfulness: faithfulness to the ecclesial tradition and faithfulness to the history of the men and women of our time.

One notes with gratitude the clarity with which Francis speaks of the purpose for which the Council was called; to renew the gaze of the Catholic Church on herself and on the world by way of an update.

First, let it be said that the Church has never been called to gaze upon herself and the world; rather, she is called to gaze upon Christ as she cooperates with Him in redeeming the world!

That said, Francis does speak some truth.

Unlike the previous twenty ecumenical councils of the Church, Vatican II had nothing whatsoever to do with her actual mission; answering doctrinal questions of profound importance, much less addressing any sort of ecclesial crisis. Rather, this Council was called in order to “update” the Church according to the exigencies of modern men.

This update, according to Francis, was carried out, not in faithfulness to the Church’s Founder and Head, Christ the King, and the mission that He gave her, but rather to “the men and women of our time.”

Oh, sure, he paid lip service to the “ecclesial tradition,” but let us be clear:

Authentic ecclesial tradition is always and everywhere ordered toward the Christianization of the all the world for the salvation of souls; i.e., baptizing all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever that Jesus commanded.

As Francis went on to make clear, however, this is not the mission of the Church of Man over which he lords; rather, it is to promote the One-World Religion of Apostate Rome.

Drawing from Nostra Aetate, Francis speaks of the following points as “always timely”:

The growing interdependence of peoples … the human search for the meaning of life, of suffering, of death, questions which always accompany our journey … religions as the search for God or of the Absolute, within our various ethnicities and cultures.

As if to dispense with any questions that may logically arise concerning the dangerous errors that permeate all of the non-Catholic religions, he spoke of “the benevolent and attentive gaze of the Church” on these religions, repeating after the Council, “she rejects nothing that is beautiful and true in them.”

Coming now to one of the main tenets of the Conciliar Creed of the Church of Man, he cites Nostra Aetate 3, saying:

The Church regards with esteem the believers of all religions, appreciating their spiritual and moral commitment.

How much more clear can it be made?

The primary focus of Apostate Rome and the Church of Man is man himself; it is manwhom this church lavishes with esteem!

By contrast, Holy Mother Church looks to Christ the King as her primary focus. As such,her “benevolent and attentive gaze,” and her esteem is always and everywhere directed toward Him, and not, as Francis proudly professes on behalf of the Church of Man, toward all of the world’s religions without distinction.

For the true follower of Christ; i.e., the citizen of Eternal Rome, there can be no “appreciation” expressed for the “spiritual and moral commitment” of men who reject Our Blessed Lord. To do so would not only be a grave offense against Christ, which should be our first concern, but it would also consign those who are so “committed” to death. How dare we!

Francis continues:

The Church, open to dialogue with all, is at the same time faithful to the truths in which she believes, beginning with the truth that the salvation offered to everyone has its origin in Jesus, the One Saviour, and that the Holy Spirit is at work, as a font of peace and love.

Don’t be lulled to sleep by his misuse of familiar phrases that were stolen from Catholic tradition; rather, focus on the central message that is being conveyed, which is essentially this:

Jesus Christ and the Holy Catholic Church, His Mystical Body, is not so much the solitary way of salvation apart from which no one is saved; rather, salvation simply has its “origins” in Christ.

This is a key distinction; one that allows those who dwell in the Church of Man to assert that salvation is attainable for those who reject the Catholic faith in favor of dwelling within in a religious community distinctly outside of the Church.

This much is made perfectly plain the Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II, UnitatisRedintegratio, which states of “the separated Churches and Communities,” meaning – schismatic and heretical communities far too numerous to number:

For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Once again, do not be lulled into complacency by the traditional sounding qualifier, “which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.”

These communities have no efficacy with respect to salvation as communities.

Even so, the message of the Council has been made perfectly plain in the behavior of churchmen even to the highest places ever since; the Catholic Church is now understood as just one community of salvation among the many to which one might belong.

The Captains of Newchurch feel justified in maintaining this falsehood because they are willing to go only so far as to say, as Francis proclaimed, that salvation has its origins in Jesus, which is rather different than professing that salvation is attainable only in Christ Jesus, and therefore, His Mystical Body here present on earth, the Church.

The modernists are very subtle indeed, but it is in reducing Our Lord to the “origin of salvation” that they convince themselves and others that the way of salvation is notconfined to His Mystical body.

In any case, Francis is not content simply to speak only of the baptized; rather, he suggests that all men are destined for the same end as he cites, “the common origin and the common destiny of humanity.”

Do unrepentant sinners, martyrs and saints share in a common destiny?

Certainly not!

That said, in order to truly understand the mind of Francis and the Conciliar Creed of the Church of Man that he professes with candor, we must remain mindful of the fact that those who dwell in the Church of Man are not preoccupied with the salvation of souls; that is a Catholic concern that they no longer share.

You see, the One-World Religion of Apostate Rome views salvation as a given; as such, it is preoccupied with mere temporal concerns.

Let us listen once more to Francis:

The Council, with the Declaration Nostra Aetate, has indicated the way: “yes” to rediscovering Christianity’s Jewish roots; “no” to every form of anti-Semitism and blame for every wrong, discrimination and persecution deriving from it. Knowledge, respect and esteem for one another are the way. Indeed, if this applies in a particular way to relations with Jews, it likewise applies to relationships with other religions as well.

Alas, there is so much insight conveyed in even the smallest of words for those who labor to scrutinize all things through a Catholic lens!

Notice that Francis proclaims “knowledge, respect and esteem” for all religions, even those that plainly reject Christ, as the way.

My friends, inadvertently or not, he is stating very plainly what every Catholic worthy of the name has long since recognized – for Apostate Rome, Jesus Christ is no longer the Waythat all who wish to come to the Father must follow! He has been unceremoniously replaced by earthbound efforts aimed at glorifying man!

Those who truly believe that Jesus Christ is the Way cannot but withhold their “respect and esteem” from those religions that reject Him!

Once again, I feel compelled to reiterate that the Church of Man is not preoccupied with the mission that Christ gave to His Church. Francis makes this entirely plain when he says:

The dialogue that we need [among all of the world’s religions] cannot but be open and respectful, and thus prove fruitful. Mutual respect is the condition and, at the same time, the aim of interreligious dialogue: respecting others’ right to life, to physical integrity, to fundamental freedoms, namely freedom of conscience, of thought, of expression and of religion.

What is the aim?

It certainly isn’t the salvation of souls; it is neither the attainment of Truth nor Life, but simply human “respect” ordered upon a false “right” to “freedom of conscience, of thought, of expression and of religion.”

Continuing, Pope Francis expounds upon the earthbound mission of the Church of Man in some detail, saying:

The world, looking to us believers, exhorts us to cooperate amongst ourselves and with the men and women of good will who profess no religion, asking us for effective responses regarding numerous issues: peace, hunger, the poverty that afflicts millions of people, the environmental crisis, violence, especially that committed in the name of religion, corruption, moral decay, the crisis of the family, of the economy, of finance, and especially of hope.

For Francis, “believers” are not only Christians, but Jews and Muslims, as well as others who claim just any sort of “religion.” This much is made clear as he continued:

We believers have no recipe for these problems, but we have one great resource: prayer. We believers pray. We must pray. Prayer is our treasure, from which we draw according to our respective traditions, to request the gifts that humanity longs for.

Be not fooled by the call to prayer!

As the abomination that took place in the Vatican gardens in June of 2014 at Francis’ behest makes plain, all prayer is not righteous. (For those who may have forgotten, a Muslim cleric chanted a prayer from the Qur’an calling on Allah to grant victory over the infidels.)

On the one hand, one may be moved to anger at these words.

How can this man, adored throughout much of the world as the “People’s Pope,” declare that the Church has “no recipe” for the world’s problems?

It’s an outrage!

On the other hand, it must be said that Francis is being perfectly honest, and refreshingly so, if only we are willing to listen.

He is telling us what he believes. He is reciting, not the faith of the Church, but rather theConciliar Creed of the Church of Man. Furthermore, he is telling us the truth – the church that he wishes to build over and against the Church of Christ has no cure for the human condition!

The most Francis can offer, therefore, is an invitation to join him in focusing on man, his supposed “dignity” and his “rights;” making of man an idol, and his temporal condition the overriding concern of one’s life.

It is an invitation quite unlike that of Saint Peter (and his faithful successors) who exhorted the Lord’s enemies:

Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38).

With every passing day, it seems, it is becoming more and more difficult for men of good will and moderate intelligence to deny that Rome has indeed fallen into apostasy, and the leader of the pack at this moment is Francis.

In conclusion, I offer a prediction based upon the following words spoken by Francis during his audience:

There have been so many events, initiatives, institutional or personal relationships with the non-Christian religions in these last 50 years, that it is difficult to recall them all. A particularly meaningful event was the meeting in Assisi on 27 October 1986. It was willed and sponsored by St John Paul II … The flame, lit in Assisi, has spread throughout the world and is a permanent sign of hope.

Before I get to the obvious, notice how the flame of the Holy Ghost that came upon the Church at Pentecost, the true and inextinguishable sign of “hope” for mankind as imparted at Baptism, has been corrupted in service to the One-World Religion of Apostate Rome.

It is deceptive and disgusting.

Now, for the prediction…

There can be no doubt that Francis will soon announce his intentions to convene Assisi IV, and the abominations that one might expect to take place there will be nothing short of stunning.

While some may see this as bad news, I tend to see it as good news in that it will be yet another occasion for all to witness the solitary blessing that this disastrous pontificate has to offer; namely, incontrovertible evidence attesting to both the magnitude of the crisis in the Church of today, and the undeniable fact that among men there is no greater danger to souls walking the earth at this moment than one Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Pope Francis – “all the divorced who ask will be admitted.”

Yes, he said it over the phone to his favorite journalist, Italian editor Eugenio Scalfari of La Repubblica (the Pope’s daily and favorite newspaper), in a conversation on October 28, revealed by the latter in an editorial published this Sunday.


There is no reason to doubt its accuracy. We are way past the time of doubting the accuracy of the Scalfari quotes. Not now, that the papal interviews to Scalfari have been published on the Vatican website, that they have been occasionally published by the Vatican publishing house (LEV) itself – for instance, as part of the book to the right.

 

It was a direct quote by Scalfari, as the Pope explained to his dear Atheist friend what the Synod had decided (in fact as an answer to another editorial on the Synod Scalfari had published in Repubblica).
The quote is the following:

 

In the same phone conversation of the past Wednesday, he declared himself very interested in the article I had dedicated to him two Sundays beforehand. He asked me what I thought of the conclusions of the Synod on the family. I responded — as I had already written — that the compromise that the Synod had reached did not seem to take into account the changes had had taken place in the family in the past fifty years, [and] therefore pointing towards the recovery of the traditional family was an objective that was completely unthinkable. I added that the open Church willed by him finds herself before a family that is open both in its goodness and in its wickedness, and that it is this that the Church finds before her.
“It is true — Pope Francis answered — it is a truth and for that matter the family that is the basis of any society changes continuously, as all things change around us. We must not think that the family does not exist any longer, it will always exist, because ours is a social species, and the family is the support beam of sociability, but it cannot be avoided that the current family, open as you say, contains some positive aspects, and some negative ones. … The diverse opinion of the bishops is part of this modernity of the Church and of the diverse societies in which she operated, but the goal is the same, and for that which regards the admission of the divorced to the Sacraments, [it] confirms that this principle has been accepted by the Synod. This is bottom line result, the de facto appraisals are entrusted to the confessors, but at the end of faster or slower paths, all the divorced who ask will be admitted.” [Rorate translation, emphasis added]

 

Honestly, friends, is there any doubt that is how Francis, who has championed this notion from the first moment, sees this? Is there any doubt this is what will be (with some variation, some Pharisaic language) in the post-Synodal exhortation? Now what?…

(Editorial, La Repubblica, Nov. 1, 1015, p. 27 – PDF – 2nd page here)
(Source: La Repubblica – tip, image, pdf provider: Secretum meum mihi blog)

Declaration Concerning the Synod on the Family – Bishop Fellay

The Final Report of the second session of the Synod on the Family, published on October 24, 2015, far from showing a consensus of the Synod Fathers, is the expression of a compromise between profoundly divergent positions. Of course we can read in it some doctrinal reminders about marriage and the Catholic family, but we note also some regrettable ambiguities and omissions, and most importantly several breaches opened up in discipline in the name of a relativistic pastoral “mercy”.  The general impression that this document gives is of confusion, which will not fail to be exploited in a sense contrary to the constant teaching of the Church.

This is why it seems to us necessary to reaffirm the truth received from Christ (1) about the role of the pope and the bishops and (2) about marriage and the family. We are doing this in the same spirit that prompted us to send to Pope Francis a petition before the second session of this Synod.

1. The Role of the Pope and the Bishops[1]

As sons of the Catholic Church, we believe that the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter, is the Vicar of Christ, and at the same time that he is the head of the whole Church. His power is a jurisdiction in the proper sense. With regard to this power, the pastors, as well as the faithful of the particular Churches, separately or all together, even in a Council, in a Synod, or in episcopal conferences, are obliged by a duty of hierarchical subordination and genuine obedience.

God has arranged things in such a way that, by maintaining unity of communion with the Bishop of Rome and by professing the same faith, the Church of Christ might be one flock under one Shepherd. God’s Holy Church is divinely constituted as a hierarchical society, in which the authority that governs the faithful comes from God, through the pope and the bishops who are subject to him.[2]

When the supreme papal Magisterium has issued the authentic expression of revealed truth, in dogmatic matters as well as in disciplinary matters, it is not within the province of ecclesiastical organs vested with a lesser degree of authority—such as bishops’ conferences—to introduce modifications to it.

The meaning of the sacred dogmas that must be preserved perpetually is the one that the Magisterium of the pope and the bishops has taught once and for all, and it is never lawful to deviate from it. Hence the Church’s pastoral ministry, when it practices mercy, must begin by remedying the poverty of ignorance, by giving souls the expression of the truth that will save them.

In the hierarchy thus instituted by God, in matters of faith and magisterial teaching, revealed truths were entrusted as a Sacred Deposit to the apostles and to their successors, the pope and the bishops, so that they might guard it faithfully and teach it authoritatively. The sources that contain this Deposit are the books of Sacred Scripture and the non-written traditions which, after being received by the apostles from Christ Himself or handed on by the apostles under the dictation of the Holy Ghost, have come down to us.

When the teaching Church declares the meaning of these truths contained in Scripture and Tradition, she imposes it with authority on the faithful, so that they might believe it as being revealed by God. It is false to say that the job of the pope and the bishops is to ratify what the sensus fidei or the common experience of the ‘People of God’ suggests to them.

As we already wrote in our Petition to the Holy Father: “Our uneasiness is caused by something that Saint Pius X condemned in his Encyclical Pascendi:  an alignment of dogma with supposed contemporary demands. Pius X and you, Holy Father, received the fullness of the authority to teach, sanctify and govern in obedience to Christ, who is the Head and the Shepherd of the flock in every age and in every place, whose faithful vicar the pope should be on this earth. The object of a dogmatic condemnation could not possibly become, with the passage of time, an authorized pastoral practice.”

This is what prompted Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to write in his Declaration dated November 21, 1974: “No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries. ‘But though we,’ says St. Paul, ‘or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.’”[3]

2. Marriage and the Catholic Family

As for marriage, God provided for the increase of the human race by instituting marriage, which is the stable and perpetual union of a man and a woman.[4] The marriage of baptized persons is a sacrament, since Christ elevated it to that dignity; marriage and the family are therefore institutions that are both divine and natural.

The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children, which no human intention should prevent by performing acts contrary to it. The secondary end of marriage is the mutual assistance that the spouses offer to each other as well as the remedy to concupiscence.

Christ established that the unity of marriage would be definitive, both for Christians and for all mankind. This unity possesses an indissoluble character, such that the conjugal bond can never be broken, neither by the will of the two parties nor by any human authority: “What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”[5] In the case of the sacramental marriage of baptized persons, this unity and indissolubility are further explained by the fact that it is the sign of Christ’s union with His Bride.

Anything that human beings may decree or do against the unity or indissolubility of marriage is not in keeping with the requirements of nature or with the good of human society. Moreover, faithful Catholics have the serious duty not to join together solely by the bond of a civil marriage, without taking into account the religious marriage prescribed by the Church.

The reception of the Eucharist (or sacramental Communion) requires the state of sanctifying grace and union with Christ through charity; it increases this charity and at the same time signifies Christ’s love for the Church, which is united with Him as His only Spouse. Consequently, those who deliberately cohabit or even live together in an adulterous union, contrary to the laws God and of the Church, cannot be admitted to Eucharistic Communion because they are giving the bad example of a serious lack of justice and charity, and they are considered public sinners: “He that shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery.”[6]

In order to receive absolution for one’s sins within the framework of the Sacrament of Penance, it is necessary to have the firm resolution to sin no more, and consequently those who refuse to put an end to their irregular situation cannot receive valid absolution.[7]

In keeping with the natural law, man has a right to exercise his sexuality only within lawful marriage, while respecting the limits set by morality. This is why homosexuality contradicts natural and divine law. Unions entered into apart from marriage (cohabitation, adulterous, or even homosexual unions) are a disorder contrary to the requirements of the natural divine law and are therefore a sin; it is impossible to acknowledge therein any moral good whatsoever, even diminished.

Given current errors and civil legislation against the sanctity of marriage and the purity of morals, the natural law allows no exceptions, because God in His infinite wisdom, when He gave His law, foresaw all cases and all circumstances, unlike human legislators. Therefore so-called situation ethics, whereby some propose to adapt the rules of conduct dictated by the natural law to the variable circumstances of different cultures, is inadmissible. The solution to problems of a moral order must not be decided solely by the consciences of the spouses of or their pastors, and the natural law is imposed on conscience as a rule of action.

The Good Samaritan’s care for the sinner is manifested by a kind of mercy that does not compromise with his sin, just as the physician who wants to help a sick person recover his health effectively does not compromise with his sickness but helps him to get rid of it. One cannot emancipate oneself from Gospel teaching in the name of a subjectivist pastoral approach which, while recalling it in general, would abolish in on a case-by-case basis. One cannot grant to the bishops the faculty of suspending the law of the indissolubility of marriage ad casum, without running the risk of weakening the teaching of the Gospel and of fragmenting the authority of the Church. For, in this erroneous view, what is affirmed doctrinally could be denied pastorally, and what is forbidden de jure could be authorized de facto.

In this utter confusion it is now up to the pope—in keeping with his responsibility, and within the limits set on him by Christ—to restate clearly and firmly the Catholic truth quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus,[8] and to keep this universal truth from being contradicted in practice locally.

Following Christ’s counsel: vigilate et orate, we pray for the pope: oremus pro pontifice nostro Francisco, and we remain vigilant: non tradat eum in manus inimicorum ejus, so that God may not deliver him over to the power of his enemies. We implore Mary, Mother of the Church, to obtain for him the graces that will enable him to be the faithful steward of the treasures of her Divine Son.

Menzingen, October 27, 2015
+ Bernard FELLAY
Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X

Found Online Here

Parallel Synod – Something Is Amiss

Rorate has posted an article that, if true, is very serious.  It appears the “conclusion” of the synod has already been written.


BOMBSHELL – SECRET PARALLEL SYNOD: Papal Post-Synod Document ALREADY being drafted by Jesuit group to allow communion for divorced and other aberrations

Summary: Italian journalist Marco Tosatti reveals that A SECRET PARALLEL SYNOD has been established in Rome, a cabal composed almost exclusively by Jesuits, with the occasional Argentinian presence (easy to guess who), to draft the necessary post-synodal documents to implement whatever the Pope wants to implement. And they will implement it, no matter what, as the secret committee to draft the Annulment reforms has shown; what everyone supposed was true in fact is true: the Synodal process is a sham.
***
The always admirably well informed Marco Tosatti, who has refused to become a stealth spokesman for the pontificate and has kept his journalistic integrity — and, for this reason, has become, along with Sandro Magister, the best Italian religious correspondent in the current pontificate — reports today on the most recent machinations for 2015 “Synod on the Family”, which opens in a few days.

Because since, as Edward Pentin revealed in detail, the 2014 Synod was rigged, the 2015 will be rigged beyond all measure, as Pentin himself reported on September 29 at the National Catholic Register, on procedural changes to be announced tomorrow (Friday) that will make any control over the outcome impossible by Synod Fathers who realize they are being cheated (as happened last year – the manipulators learned their lesson):
At last year’s meeting, the interim document, properly called a relatio post-disceptationem, caused controversy after it was sent out to the media before the synod fathers had read it. Critics said the document lacked references to Scripture and tradition, and most controversially, appeared to imply the Church was considering giving tacit acceptance of same-sex relationships — an issue that was hardly discussed during the meeting’s first week.
The probable decision not to have an interim report may be an effort to avoid last year’s controversy from recurring. But some fear it will lead to less transparency, and worry the timing could be intentional in order to facilitate the advancement of controversial proposals as time runs out for discussion.
Another rumored change is that the rule on propositions having to pass by a two-thirds majority might be eliminated and a simple majority take its place.
This would favor a controversial proposal, such as Cardinal Kasper’s, because his thesis only received a simple majority at the last synod. (It should have therefore been rejected under the rules in place, but the Holy Father insisted that it, and the paragraph on a new approach to same-sex relationships that also failed to achieve a two-thirds majority, remain in the lineamenta (guidelines), for this October’s synod).
And in fact the first part of Marco Tosatti’s article today translates what Pentin reveals in his own piece in the Register. Then, Tosatti adds his own exclusive information, which is quite explosive, considering that the last time a secret papal commission met, what we got was the most authoritarian canon law reforms in the history of the Church, in violation of all understanding of the proper boundaries of papal power and establishing de facto Catholic divorce under the guise of easy acccess to “annulments”:
In this context [that is, of the procedural changes mentioned by Edward Pentin], news has arrived to us for about twelve days that around thirty people, almost all of them Jesuits, with the occasional Argentinian, are working on the themes on the Synod, in a very reserved way, under the coordinatin of Father Antonio Spadaro, the director of Civiltà Cattolica [the official journal of the Holy See], who spends a long time in Santa Marta, in consultation with the Pope.
The discretion in the works extends also to the Jesuits of the same House, the villa of Civiltà Cattolica, Villa Malta, on the Pincio [Hill], where part of the work is done. One possibility is that the “task force” works to provide the Pope the instruments for an eventual post-synodal document on the theme of the Eucharist to the remarried divorced, on cohabiting [couples], and same-sex couples.
Update: A final observation is in order. As Pentin and other observers have noted, it has been said that the Pope may wish to avoid a typical post-synodal EXHORTATION, which has been the typical papal document following the creation of the post-conciliar format of the Synod of Bishops. These exhortations have typically been papal lists of the majority decisions of the synods, as guided by the popes, and interpreted by them, and have guided future decisions. This is obviously not what we mention above. Considering the character of Francis, it is not surprising that he now wants to avoid a wordy exhortation that leads nowhere. No, the post-synodal documents being prepared secretly should obviously have an executive or legislative nature and would be promulgated with a different shape and weight than that of a mere exhortation. It would obviously make no sense for the Pope and his allies to go through this immense process and get absolutely no palpable result (text) from it, right?…