THE ECCLESIATICAL FOG IS NOT LIFTING, IT IS THICKENING

SSPXnews & events

You are here:

Amoris Laetitia: The Fog Thickens

November 20, 2017
Cardinal Walter Brandmüller and Cardinal Raymond Burke pictured at a Pontifical High Mass in St. Peter’s basilica to mark the 10th anniversary of Summorum Pontificum, Sept. 16, 2017. (Edward Pentin photo)

On November 14, one year to the day since the publication of the dubia, Cardinal Burke was interviewed by National Catholic Register’s Edward Pentin.

One year has passed since the publication of the dubia, five questions about Amoris Laetitiasubmitted to Pope Francis by Cardinals Burke and Brandmüller, together with Cardinals Meisner and Caffara, both recently deceased.

The Cardinal affirmed in the November 14th interview that confusion surrounding the proper interpretation of Amoris Laetitia has made the situation of the Church “ever more urgent,” and is “continually worsening.”

Amoris Laetitia Not an Expression of the Magisterium

With reference to Amoris Laetitia, he said that “by their very nature, affirmations that lack…clarity cannot be qualified expressions of the magisterium.” He pointed out also that those who hold that Church discipline has changed with regard to reception of the Eucharist by those in an objective state of sin “contradict each other when it comes to explaining the reasons and the consequences.” He surmises that “the goal of the interpreters is to arrive, in whatever way, at a change in discipline, while the reasons they adduce to this end are of no importance, nor do they show any concern about how much they put into danger essential matters of the deposit of faith.”

Attack on the Nature of Morality and the Sacraments

Cardinal Burke speaks of two pernicious consequences of this situation: firstly “a paradigm shift regarding the Church’s entire moral practice,” in which moral norms become relative and subjective consciences are given primacy in matters of morals.

The second effect of the cloud of confusion surrounding Amoris Laetitia is, according to Cardinal Burke, an erosion of “the sense of the ecclesial sacramental practice.” “The decisive criterion for admission to the sacraments has always been the coherence of a person’s way of life with the teachings of Jesus.” If the criterion becomes an absence of subjective culpability, “one would endanger the very regula fidei, the rule of faith, which the sacraments proclaim and actuate not only by words, but also by visible gestures.”

Another Plea for Clarity

“One year after rendering public the dubia,” Cardinal Burke told Mr. Pentin in conclusion:

I again turn to the Holy Father and to the whole Church, emphasizing how urgent it is that… the Pope should confirm his brothers in the faith with a clear expression of the teaching regarding both Christian morality and the meaning of the Church’s sacramental practice.”

USCCB to Develop Pastoral Plan Based on Amoris Laetita

On November 14, 2017, LifeSite News reported that Bishop Richard Malone of Buffalo, NY, of the US bishops’ Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth, was asked by a member of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property whether Amoris Laetitia allows Catholics living in adultery to receive Communion.

“That’s not an answer I’m going to provide for you,” was the Bishop’s response. “It’s not in my provenance [sic] to respond to that question right here.”

On the same day, the USCCB voted 223 to 12, with three abstentions, to develop a formal “Renewed Pastoral Plan for Marriage and Family Life Ministry and Advocacy” in light of Amoris Laetitia.

A Referendum on Pope Francis?

Another event at the US bishops’ meeting was portrayed by some media groups, including news service Crux, as a referendum on Pope Francis’ popularity: the election of a new head for the bishops’ committee on pro-life issues. Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City was chosen over Cardinal Blase Cupich, who was a favorite of progressives for the role and, according to Christopher White, writing for Crux on November 14, “considered a protégé of Francis.”

However, bishops on both sides denied there was any question of acting for or against Pope Francis. The Catholic Herald reported that the editor of the Catholic News Agency, JD Flynn, tweeted after the vote:

CNA has talked with bishops who emphasize this is not a referendum on Francis. Bishops voting for both candidates told me it was only about trying to discern the best fit.”

While conservative Catholics have been celebrating Archbishop Naumann’s election, commentator Phil Lawler at CatholicCulture.org has pointed out that the main reason for celebration is not that Archbishop Naumann will make any dramatic changes for the better (although his stance on pro-life issues has been historically conservative), but rather that the pro-life committee has been spared Cardinal Blase Cupich, who would undoubtedly have made radical changes for the worse. In an op-ed for the Chicago Tribune, Cardinal Cupich articulated his position on abortion, writing that it is a problem on the same level as poverty, unemployment and other social justice issues.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

WORKING DRAFT FOR THE SYNOD ON YOUTH 2019

St-Peters-Basilica-Exterior

Working Draft

Mulierem Vocamus- We Call Women.

2019 Exhortation

  1. So many girls and young women plaintively and humbly recounted their call from the Holy Spirit to the priesthood that they cannot be ignored. We must recognize that these girls and young women, and those who identify as such, catholic and not, many of them but teenagers, are not lying and they are not mistaken. 1 The Spirit is the Spirit of Truth and We know that the Father of Lies would not do this because a house divided against itself would fall – unlike the totally united Church of today.2

 

  1. With 79% of the 485 carefully chosen bishops (representing over 7.93% of all bishops) agreeing in their post-synodal report (well-researched and painstakingly prepared before the synod began), We now see that We must integrate joyfully all the faithful into all the sacraments, We issue this proclamation. To do otherwise is to practice an intolerance, prejudice, injustice, and bigotry that can only be of the devil, as would be opposition to this truth, truth latent for centuries and now brought into the light by Us.

III.              We now develop the insights of these relatively few enlightened shepherds  and the fruits of the indwelling of Our Spirit in these girls and women who have been called (and we pray daily  for those girls and women who were led into error by The Evil One and said there was and is no such call). Based on these pre-synodal and synodal private revelations, and the report of the shepherds – We now elevate what they have done to real, just doctrine.3    For almost two millenia We have not heard, or We have ignored, Our Spirit, but now We hear, now We listen, now We act. 4

  1. Canon 1024 is, by Our decree, hereby changed from “A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly” to “Only A Baptized Person receives ordination validly.”  This is Our teaching and We order that it be held definitively, without question or ridicule, by all the faithful. We apologize for:  the centuries of error, the mistakes of numerous ecumenical councils, the falsehoods of so many declarations, the wrongheadness of so many bulls, so many simply wrong encyclicals, and, frankly, the stupid errors of almost all  predecessors in this office.5 We are heartily sorry to all the girls and women called by Us who have been denied the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
  2. We note that Jesus’s Command Of The Lord that only males be ordained, clearly present in His inspired Holy Scripture, was for His time on earth only, and that divergent interpretations of this Command, applying it misogynistically and patriarchally – for almost two thousand years – were mistaken and/or of the devil.

 

In conclusion, We solemnly proclaim  these teaching of old which are now again revealed.6

Hat Tip:  Guy McClung

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

THERE SEEMS TO BE LITTLE DOUBT THAT SOME OF THE OFFICIALS HIGH IN THE VATICAN CURIA OF THE PRESENT PONTIFICATE ARE MEMBERS OF THE MASONIC ORDER

How the Prohibition Against Freemasonry Disappeared from Canon Law

OnePeterFive
Google+PinterestPocket

By Fr. Paolo M. Siano

From October 20 – 29, 1981, the Plenary Congregation of the Pontifical Commission for the Revision of the Code of Canon Law met in the Vatican to discuss and vote on the renewal of canon 2335 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law which conferred excommunication on Catholics enrolled in Freemasonry or other sects which conspired against the Church and against the State. This canon was ultimately not renewed in the new 1983 Code of Canon Law.

It is interesting to note the two positions that existed within the Plenary Congregation: a minority position which favored renewing Canon 2335 (excommunicating Catholics enrolled as Freemasons), and a majority position which successfully proposed that this canon would not be renewed and thus there would be no excommunication of “Catholic Freemasons.”

I will now consider several points of the record of the Plenary Congregation translated from the Latin by Fr. Zbigniew Suchecki, OFM Conv., and published in the review “Religioni e Sette nel mondo (Religions and sects in the world)” of GRIS (Socio-Religious Research Group) of Bologna, in issue number 1 of 2008 dedicated to the theme “The Catholic Church and Freemasonry.”

The principal arguments of the majority position seem false to me and pastorally imprudent. They may be summarized as:

  • Canon 2335 should not be renewed because to do so would go against the principles of the revision of the Code of Canon Law approved by the 1967 Synod of Bishops and Pope Paul VI, which requested the reduction of the number of cases calling for the penalty of latae sententiae.
  • Because there are various degrees of adhesion to Freemasonry, it is not possible to know at which degree activity against the Church begins or if the offender, “judge of himself,” would know with certainty that he is culpable of acting against the Church and thus incurring the penalty [of latae sententiae excommunication].
  • The opinion remains valid according to which canon 2335 applied only to those who actively worked against the Church, as attested by the Notificatio of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of July 18, 1974.

Among those who held this position:

  • Esteban Gomez, OP [Dominican from Spain] (instructor at the Angelicum in Rome) asserted that “it is more grave to be a communist, and so if we have a canon excommunicating freemasons we would also have to have a canon excommunicating Communists”.
  • Cardinal Rosalio José Castillo Lara, SDB [Salesian Venezuelan, nephew of the Archbishop of Caracas] (Secretary of the Pontifical Commission for the Revision of the Code of Canon Law), was in accord with Gomez and asserted that “Freemasonry is not the same in all countries”.
  • Cardinal Franz König [Archbishop of Vienna] affirmed that “the position of the German Bishops’ Conference (see below) applies only to Masonry in that country but not for all…” König appealed to the same rescript of the CDF of 1974.
  • Bishop José Vicente Andueza Henriquez [Venezuelan bishop, also a Salesian] affirmed that “in countries like Venezuela Freemasonry coexists peacefully with the Church,” and that “there are Freemasons ‘of good faith’ who do not work against the Church but who cooperate with her…” Bishop Henriquez further maintained that “the excommunication of Freemasons is futile, it does not stop them from adopting new methods, and renewing this penalty in the new Code of Canon Law would stir up ‘needless new animosities.’” According to the Venezuelan prelate, “in Latin America the true danger is Communism, not Freemasonry.”
  • Bishop Roman Arrieta Villalobos, President of the Bishops’ Conference of Costa Rica, was convinced that “in many parts of the world Freemasonry no longer conspires against the Church, neither openly nor secretly”.

Let us now consider the principal arguments of the minority position favoring the renewal of the penalty prescribed by canon 2335:

  • The German Bishops’ Conference observed that the Church has the right to indicate clearly to the faithful whatever is dangerous for their faith, and “the adherence of a Catholic to Freemasonry shakes the very foundations of the faith.” After about six years of dialogues with the official leadership of Freemasonry of Germany (expressly favorable in its attitude towards the Church), the German bishops had nevertheless concluded that the essence of Freemasonry was the same, and so they asked for the renewal of canon 2335 in the new Code of Canon Law. Other bishops’ conferences, in contrast to the German conference, had perhaps not been familiar with authentic Masonic facts, documents and rituals. It was noted that anti-Church activity is one of the very principles of Freemasonry.  Moreover, German Freemasonry had made a “categorical refusal” to the bishops who asked to examine the rituals of the other degrees beyond the first three. If judgment about Freemasonry in each country were left to the individual bishops’ conferences, “one can well imagine how many and how great would be the pressures brought to bear upon bishops by influential persons of power or social influence, as well as the pressure of public opinion formed by thinking that is not alien to Freemasonry.” The German bishops observed still further that “for almost the entirety of the faithful it is impossible to form an exact judgment on this question. The right of the Church is properly this: to indicate to the faithful where dangers are hiding for their faith and for their Christian life.”
  • Cardinal Giuseppe Siri [Italian, from Genoa] observed: 1) Nothing has practically changed in the procedures of the Masonic sect. 2) If one objects that the authority of the Church (Paul VI) has said that the penalty ought to be reduced, I respond: ‘In taking counsel we must do those things that are fit for this time.”
  • Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger [German, Prefect of the CDF] noted that the different positions of the bishops’ Conferences do not signify that Freemasonry is different in different places, but that other Bishops were not as well-informed as the German Bishops, who had found that the essence of Freemasonry affirms relativism between truth and falsehood, between good and evil, the same relativism that feeds the contemporary moral crisis. For this reason Freemasonry constitutes “an extraordinary danger” and one that is much “more subtle” as compared to communism. In the first 3 degrees German Freemasons were open to dialogue, but in the 30 higher degrees they held to “an arcane discipline that became ever more severe.” Ratzinger maintained that the “opinion” of Fr. Gomez was “made with a certain lenience, which does not correspond to the gravity of the question and to the work [of research] which we have done.”
  • Cardinal Pietro Palazzini [Italian, Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints] replied thus to the “unanimous” objection of the Consultors of the Pontifical Commission for the Revision of the Code of Canon Law: “the renewal of Canon 2335 does not violate the principles approved by the Pope and the 1967 Synod of Bishops; the reduction of penalties does not imply the elimination of all penalties; among the German bishops who asked for the renewal of Canon 2335 were some who took part in the [1967] Synod but who, having learned from experience, understood the necessity of maintaining the penalty of excommunication for Freemasons because their “creed” is “apostasy, at least implicitly”; that is, it eliminates truth and revealed religion while welcoming Catholics as “useful idiots”. In pastoral practice there is a need to avoid equivocating and to clearly show the sure way to salvation. Freemasonry is more dangerous than Communism, because while Communism is the explicit enemy of the Church, Freemasonry is is more subtle.

* * * * *

In the wake of the position of Cardinal König, Bishop Henriquez, etc., it seems one can also add the “Commentary on the Code of Canon Law” published in 1985 by the Pontifical University Urbaniana (PUU), then republished in 2001 by Libreria Editrice Vaticana (LEV) with the presentation of Cardinal Mario Francesco Pompedda, Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. In both editions (PUU, pp. 806-807; LEV, p. 814), edited by Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto [appointed in 2014 by Pope Francis to chair the pontifical commission for the reform of the marriage nullity process], on the topic of “Freemasonry” it is understood that “it is not easy to apply canon 1374 (which calls for a just punishment for anyone who enrolls in an association which works against the Church) unless the competent universal and local ecclesiastical authority clearly indicate which organizations fall under the authority of that canon…” [Editor’s note: as we have reported in the past, Msgr. Pinto himself has held a spot on one of the most well-known lists of suspected ecclesiastical Freemasons for decades.]

I ask myself: why does this commentary not cite the 1983 Declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which reaffirmed the incompatibility between being a Mason (of any sort whatsoever) and being a Catholic?

In short, I am of the opinion that the crisis of the Church, yesterday as also today, results among other things from the differing attitudes of the Prelates of the Church towards Freemasonry.

Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino

A version of this article originally appeared at the website, Amici del Timone di Ferrara. It has been translated, edited, and reprinted with permission.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

IF GEORGE SOROS IS NOT THE ANTI-CHRIST, HE IS CERTAINLY THE ANTI-CHRIST’S BANKER

Featured Image
George Soros
Natalia DueholmNatalia Dueholm

Farage’s November 14 statement came during a debate on leaked documents called The Paradise Papers, which shed some light on politicians’ offshore investments throughout the world. The database containing 13.4 million files originated from the offshore law firm Appleby, and is still being analyzed by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ)

Initial coverage on the Papers by the mainstream media focused mainly on British royalty, some celebrities, big corporations, and Donald Trump’s entourage. At the beginning, it could be considered a tool against the Trump administration. However, the papers also contain the names of prominent Democratic donors, among them Soros. Though his name has been mentioned, few specifics have been given about the U.S. billionaire.

RELATED:  George Soros gave millions to these feminist groups to promote abortion around the globe

An exception to this media silence has been Spencer Woodman of the ICIJ. Woodman wrote, “Private equity funds controlled by Democratic mega-donor George Soros used Appleby to help manage a web of offshore entities.” Woodman cites a document detailing “the complex ownership structure of a company called S Re Ltd that was involved in reinsurance, or insurance for insurers. The structure … included entities based in the tax havens of Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands.”

Woodman added that “a spokesperson for Soros — who has donated money to ICIJ and other journalism outlets through his charitable organization, the Open Society Foundations — declined to comment for this story.”

Possibly, members of the European Parliament including Farage did not know that Soros’ name appeared in the Paradise Papers. Of course, having an offshore account is not necessarily illegal. At any rate, Farage argued that we should be interested in Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF) because the grant-making giant recently received $18 billion from its founder.

RELATED: How billionaire George Soros is trying to hijack the Catholic Church for his progressive agenda

What’s more, Farage pointed out that the group’s influence in the European Commission and Parliament is “truly extraordinary.” For instance, last year, OSF had 42 meetings with the European Commission, and even published a list of “reliable friends in the European Parliament with 226 names on it.” This constitutes 30 percent of all 751 members.

According to Farage, to have a debate “on full political and financial transparency,” those 226 members of the European Parliament identified as “friends” by OSF should answer a couple of “fair questions.” The first one is if they ever received funds directly or indirectly from OSF. The second is how many of their events they attended. Farage also wanted them to disclose a list of any meetings, with the representatives (of OSF), including Soros. He also called on the Parliament to create “a special committee to look into all of this.”

Paradoxically, it is possible that putting liberal Soros and his OSF on the spot was caused by the actions of left-leaning politicians and media. Farage remarked that “the use of money and the influence it may have had on the Brexit result or the Trump elections has reached the level of virtual hysteria.” Farage indicated that when  political subversion, collusion and offshore money are discussed, “maybe we are looking in the wrong place?”

In Britain, he said, the Electoral Commission recently launched an investigation to find out whether the Leave Campaign (pro-Brexit) took offshore or Russian money. This investigation was the result of questions asked by MP Ben Bradshaw, who, Farage explained, is linked to Soros’ OFS.

RELATED: George Soros spending more than ever to push his liberal agenda worldwide

Across the Atlantic, Russian influence in American elections is the subject of investigation in the House and Senate, as well as by the Special Counsel and former FBI Director Robert Mueller. While the left-leaning media constantly accuse Donald Trump of colluding with the Russians, House Republicans talk about Soros’ meddling in the elections of different countries. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, has recently spoken about Soros’ organizations manipulating elections in Macedonia. What’s more, with U.S. taxpayers’ money, King added. He also said the book of notorious activist Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals, a guide for radical change, was translated into Macedonian. The disruptive techniques described in the book “were manifested within the election efforts in that part of the world.”

Political transparency should not be a partisan issue. Just as the Americans have the right to know the truth about Russian influence in the U.S. elections, they also have the right to know how their tax dollars are being used to manipulate elections abroad.

RELATED: