The Three Popes and the End of Times in Garabandal 

 Published: Saturday, 09 November 2019 11:59  

https://www.garabandal.it/en/documentation/going-deeper/1290-the-three-popes-and-the-end-of-times-in-garabandal

The Three Popes and the End of Times in Garabandal

One of the topics that has set people talking about Garabandal is the so-called prophecy of the three popes, linked to the proclamation of an imminent end of time. It is such a delicate topic that it can be misunderstood and misinterpreted. Therefore, we are going to reflect using the information we have, taking care not to interpret what is not up to us to decide but rather up to the Church.

It was June 3, 1963. The news of Pope John XXIII’s death had just reached Garabandal and Conchita made her way to the church with her mother to pray for the Pontiff’s eternal repose. On their way, Conchita hears the unmistakable voice of Our Blessed Mother in her saying, “After this pope, there are only three left. Then [it will be] the end of times.” Soon after, the Virgin Mary specifies that even though she says that only three are left, there will be another that will “govern the Church for a very short time,” which is why She does not include him on the list. There are witnesses that affirm hearing Conchita make this clarification during that very month: June 1963. This means that, in one sentence Our Blessed Mother prophesied two things:

1. There are only three popes left. Then it will be the end of times.
2. To assure us that her first affirmation is true, Our Blessed Mother provides a sign: there will actually be one more pope, but his pontificate will be so brief that I do not count him.

We all know who that pope is whose pontificate was so ephemeral that it did not come to be a great influence on the Church’s destiny: John Paul I, pope from August 26, 1978 until his death on September 28, 1978. Pope Luciani’s 33 day-long pontificate corresponded perfectly to this exceptional prediction, impossible to predict in 1963. The three popes from Our Lady’s prophecy are therefore Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. After Pope Francis’ arrival, the start of the “end of times” will have begun.

But what does this really mean? I insist on the fact that we must be very prudent and humble when we try to explain it, like Sister Lucia at Fatima when the Third Secret of Fatima was published in 2000. Fr. José Luis Saavedra explains that, before the Holy See published an interpretation carried out by Cardinal Angelo Sodano, “he [Sodano] showed it to Sister Lucia in order to know her opinion and find out if she shared the same interpretation. Sister Lucia,” explains Cardinal Ratzinger, “responded that ‘the vision was given to her, not its interpretation. The interpretation is not determined by the visionary but by the Church.’”

A visionary cannot risk interpreting the message received. His or her duty is to pass them to the Church to be studied and interpreted legitimately. In Garabandal, this is also why Conchita left the judgment of the matter completely in the Church’s hands. We ought to do the same thing and not risk thinking up our own interpretation that might harm our faith or that of others. The comprehension of a message coming from a private revelation normally needs several years to develop. Sometimes it even needs time to see the foretold events fulfilled. But prophecy in the history of salvation cannot be confused with divination, because it is not a mere foretelling future events but a call to conversion. Prophecy reveals God’s will for the present rather than for the future. It is a call to convert today, without waiting for the prophesied events, whose mission is solely a sign and confirmation of God’s intervention in history.

Our Blessed Mother’s words are, “After this pope, there are only three left. Then [it will be] the end of times.” The adverb “then,” as Fr. José Luis Saavedra rightly points out in his book Garabandal: Message of Hope, does not mean “immediately.” Nor does “the end of times” mean “the end of the world,” as Conchita has repeated on several occasions. “There are only three left” does not mean that there will be no more popes, or that the Church or human race will disappear. We have to get all those heavy black clouds out of our head and imagination. “There are only three left. Then [it will be] the end of time” simply means that there will only be three popes before this mysterious “end of times” begins. Then there will continue to be popes and the Church and the world will continue to exist. We will have, however, entered into a new period in the Church’s history.

Our Blessed Mother did not say more than what She said in Garabandal and we cannot venture to add another word. Nevertheless, we cannot deny that we are living a very transcendent moment in the history of the Church. As I write these lines—July 2019—I am reading a commentary by Cardinal Reinhard Marx, President of German Bishops’ Conference, in which he declares that we are not in an epoch of change but “in a change of epoch.” He comes to affirm: “Whoever does not see it must adapt his or her intellect.”Surely, Cardinal Marx did not intend it, but his observation is very similar to that proclamation of the “end of times.” This end times of goes hand in hand with a great test for and purification in the Church. This is not interpreting; it is evidence that we confirm daily. The Church is currently being greatly tested, persecuted and purified. But this does not mean that the Church is coming to an end, quite the opposite, if we are faithful and respond to Our Blessed Mother’s calls this entire situation will end in a providential moment of grace.

In fact, Fr. José Luis Saavedra puts the announcement of the “end of times” with Fatima’s luminous prophecy: “Finally, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.” “Finally” is an adverb used to express emphatically the end of a pending situation. In the present case, it seems to indicate the conclusion of a period of difficulty preceding the Immaculate Heart of Mary’s triumph. For Santiago Lanús—expert in modern Marian apparitions—“the end of times,” which would begin with Garabandal’s Warning, “will last until the triumph of the Immaculate Heart announced in Fatima.” That “end of times” will be marked by a sorrowful period of interior trials and exterior persecution, in which the Church, like the girls announced in Garabandal, will look as if it is at the point of disappearing. We are already suffering some of this time of trial, but we do not give in to the evil temptation to despair or go down the path of morbidity because all the events we speak of come from the depths of the Lord’s merciful Heart. We should not fear future events but place ourselves trustfully in Our Heavenly Mother’s hands. Everything is thought out carefully for our own good and to lead us to a deep conversion.

Still, I insist that Church authority must interpret announcements like the ones in Garabandal. These demand, for their part, a particular prudence and study. Until the Church makes a public and definitive declaration on Garabandal, let us work on our conversion peacefully and with a heart full of gratitude toward Our Blessed Mother who loves us and so eagerly seeks our salvation.

Source: SAAVEDRA, J.L., Garabandal: Message of Hope. Santander, 2015.

UPDATE on Baby Tinslee: More Time Granted by Court Posted: 10 Nov 2019 07:57 PM PSTMake no mistake about it – your calls and emails made all the difference! Thank you!  Texas Right to Life is reporting a victory in the Baby Tinslee case: a judge signed a Temporary Restraining Order today – on a Sunday – which bars the hospital from withdrawing her life-sustaining care until November 22. At that point, things will have to be re-visited by the judge in the case. Hopefully, she can be transferred in the interim. How this will play out ultimately, only time will tell. But Tinslee has the very best representation. Continued prayers are very much needed for all involved.  A press conference was held today where the family, Representatives Tony Tinderholt and Tan Parker, and Rich DeOtte, a board member of TRTL, spoke. Rich explained very clearly why this law is a problem and puts families in a crisis situation unnecessarily. All were very grateful for the reprieve and very complimentary of the care Tinslee has received at Cook Children’s. There is no doubt, it is a very great hospital.  That many may disagree with a decision to use TADA does not change that. It is very likely that only a few people made the decision to use it. Given some of the reporting, I sincerely doubt there is total unanimity among all doctors and staff with regard to involuntarily passively euthanizing Tinslee. Overall, it is a great hospital. But it should not be euthanizing children – and certainly not involuntarily. Texas law should not allow this.  Cook Children’s issued a statement today saying that the baby is suffering, care should be withdrawn, that they’ve tried to find other facilities, etc. We’ve seen this before. Of course, euthanizing someone to stop suffering is the very definition of mercy killing, which is prohibited under this statute, as I mentioned previously. Whether Tinslee is suffering is hard to know and her family does not seem to agree based on their interactions with her and their belief that she needs more time. You should also note that many have lived very long lives on similar life-sustaining care as Tinslee; e.g., Steven Hawking. And, many defeat the odds. They just need some time. Tinslee is only 9 months old. Her family is just wanting more time and a chance to find another facility. Please pray for these efforts.  The bottom line with all of these cases remains that this is a situation that no one should be in. Texas law allows a hospital (or a few people at a hospital) to choose to euthanize someone by way of withdrawing their life-sustaining care against that person or her family’s will with no due process and a mere 10 days to find an alternative facility.  Note that Tinslee’s mother received the notice on Thursday, October 31. The 10th day was today, a Sunday. That means that 4 of the 10 days were weekend days; or 40% of the time she was given to find a new facility were weekends where administrative offices are closed. The final day was a Sunday.  You should also know that there were many miracles that occurred along the way here that allowed this TRO to happen on a Sunday. Your prayers were answered. Please keep them coming.  TRTL and others continue to ask Governor Abbott to call a special session to fix this, among other things, that didn’t get done this past session. There is a call to action in TRTL’s press release to that end. They are asking that your Senator be contacted for this effort. A link is provided where you can easily do so.  It troubles me greatly to see this law invoked so frequently. That paints doctors and hospitals in a bad light, when many (most) do not deserve that. But, the fact is, lives are on the line every time it is invoked and action must be taken. The fact is, this is involuntary passive euthanasia. The fact is, patients do not have due process rights under the law here. The fact is, this is a part of the Culture of Death that must be opposed.  Keep the faith and keep fighting the good fight. This is not over. But today, there was a victory along the way.  Thanks for reading!

UPDATE on Baby Tinslee – Keep Calling, Emailing, & PrayingPosted: 10 Nov 2019 12:45 PM PSTI posted an urgent call to action last night about Baby Tinslee – the latest intended victim of TADA. I have some updates for you and rather than update that post, I thought I’d just create a new post. CBS11 had this news story about Tinslee last night: About half an hour ago, Robert Montoya who is the Metroplex Bureau Correspondent for Empower Texans, reported as follows: Not only that, Ross Kecseg, also with Empower Texans, reports in a comment to Robert’s post, that Representative Tony Tinderholt, who has been at the hospital today: That’s just outrageous behavior on the part of the hospital. If the hospital has it’s way, this is Tinsel’s last day and they want to tell the mother whether or not she can photograph her child! I hope you’re seeing a pattern emerge here. But note this from my friend, Yvette DeOtte, who is quite plugged in here: Let’s go back to what I said last night about motivations: NOTE: Anticipating what TADA supporters always say in defense of these things, let me nip that in the bud. There are no assertions that anyone’s conscience is being pricked by continuing to care for this child. I have never heard that used in a hearing as a reason. That only ever comes up during legislative testimony by lobbyists for euthanasia and the occasional brief in court. Even were that the case, there are many, many doctors in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. Other doctors who are pro-life and understand who makes what decisions would continue care for her, I am certain. Anticipating another thing they might say – she’s suffering. Actually, that was not a given reason. Also, killing people because of suffering is the very definition of euthanasia. Yeah, it is. Mercy killing is also, ironically, prohibited by TADA. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Sec. 166.050.  Anticipating and responding to what others have said or asked about the role of money here, let me address that as well. Doctors and hospitals always vehemently deny that money plays any role in any decision they make. In one place on social media, one lady said she called and mentioned money and the receptionist defensively said money had nothing to do with their decisions. I’ve been in cases where the intended TADA victim had insurance or would qualify for Medicare or Medicaid soon if given enough time. To be honest, I actually don’t think money is the biggest motivator for these cases for the decision-makers.  When I add 2 + 2 I get 4. What do you get? If a doctor doesn’t want to treat, there are clearly other doctors – at that facility – who would. More than that, if this facility wants this kid out – if she’s costing them too much money or whatever – another facility will take her. With more time, additional facilities likely could be found. So, why be dead set on pulling the plug today? Why indeed. It’s not at all clear to me who is making the decision and pushing this. But it doesn’t matter. The facility has made this decision. And a child’s life hangs in the balance.  Please keep calling and praying. If the voicemail is filled up – as I’ve been told it is – then leave messages at the main number. Call Cook Children’s now!  Ask to speak to administrator Stan Davis and tell him to save Baby Tinslee Lewis! 682-885-4000 or stan.davis@cookchildrens.org.  Thanks for reading!

Former Rector of Gregorian University: A Heretical Pope loses office immediately by the law itself

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/11/11/former-rector-of-gregorian-university-a-heretical-pope-loses-office-immediately-by-the-law-itself/

Nov11by The Editor

Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, S.J, greets His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

There has been an ongoing debate as to whether a man who is the pope loses his office immediately after having taken a pertinacious and manifest position which is heretical.

Most of this debate regards citing authors in previous ages or decades, against the opinion of Bishop Athanasius Schneider and others, like Steve Skojec, who hold that he needs to be judged and/or that no one can judge him.

Here, however, is the opinion of Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda, S. J., former rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University at Rome. Father Ghirlanda is one of the most highly respected Doctors of Canon Law in the City of Rome, if not in the Catholic Church. He still teaches at the Gregorian. Considering the opinions just given by Cardinal Burke which impinge on this controversy, I think it’s apropos to cite Father Ghirlanda’s position, not made in reference to the Cardinal’s comments, but from March 3, 2013, no less, in Civiltà Catiolica, the leading Jesuit publication in Italy:

The original Italian can be found here.  Here is that text quoted in part, on this subject:

Allora, se il Romano Pontefice non esprimesse quello che già è contenuto nella Chiesa, non sarebbe più in comunione con tutta la Chiesa, e quindi con gli altri Vescovi, successori degli Apostoli. La comunione del Romano Pontefice con la Chiesa e con i Vescovi, secondo il Vaticano I (3), non può essere comprovata dal consenso della Chiesa e dei Vescovi, in quanto non sarebbe più una potestà piena e suprema liberamente esercitata (c. 331; “Nota Explicativa Praevia” 4). Il criterio allora è la tutela della stessa comunione ecclesiale. Lì dove questa non ci fosse più da parte del Papa, egli non avrebbe più alcuna potestà, perché ipso iure decadrebbe dal suo ufficio primaziale. È il caso, ammesso in dottrina, della notoria apostasia, eresia e scisma, nella quale il Romano Pontefice potrebbe cadere, ma come «dottore privato», che non impegna l’assenso dei fedeli, perché per fede nell’infallibilità personale che il Romano Pontefice ha nello svolgimento del suo ufficio, e quindi nell’assistenza dello Spirito Santo, dobbiamo dire che egli non può fare affermazioni eretiche volendo impegnare la sua autorità primaziale, perché, se così facesse, decadrebbe ipso iure dal suo ufficio. Comunque in tali casi, poiché «la prima sede non è giudicata da nessuno» (c. 1404), nessuno potrebbe deporre il Romano Pontefice, ma si avrebbe solo una dichiarazione del fatto, che dovrebbe essere da parte dei Cardinali, almeno di quelli presenti a Roma. Tale eventualità, tuttavia, sebbene prevista in dottrina, viene ritenuta totalmente improbabile per intervento della Divina Provvidenza a favore della Chiesa (4).

This is my English translation, bold face added:

Now, if the Roman Pontiff does not express that which is contained in the Church, he would no longer be in communion with the whole Church, and hence neither with the other Bishops, who are successors of the Apostles. The communion of the Roman Pontiff with the Church and with the Bishops, according to Vatican 1 (cf. footnote 3 below), cannot be manufactured out of the consent of the Church and Bishops, inasmuch as it would no longer be a full and supreme power freely exercised (cf. canon 331; cf. the Nota Previa to Lumen Gentium, 4.). Thus, the criterion is the safeguarding of the ecclesial communion itself. There, where this might no longer be the case on the part of the Pope, he would no longer have any power, because he would fall by the law itself (ipso iure) from his primatial office.  This is the case, admitted in doctrine, for notorious apostasy, heresy and schism, in which the Roman Pontiff might fall, but as a “private teacher”, which does not require the assent of the faithful,because through faith in the personal infallibility which the Roman Pontiff has in the exercise of his office, and hence, in the assistance of the Holy Spirit, we are obliged to say that he cannot make heretical affirmations while willing to impose his primatial authority, because, if he were to do such a thing, he would fall ipso iure from his office.  Nevertheless, in such cases, since “the first see is not judged by anyone” (canon 1404), no one could depose the Roman Pontiff, but there could only be a declaration of the fact, which would have to be on the part of the Cardinals, at least of those present at Rome.  Such an eventuality, however, though foreseen in doctrine, is considered to be entirely improbable through the intervention of Divine Providence on behalf of the Church (see footnote 4).

FOOTNOTES

3. Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4, Denzinger-Schonmetzer 3074.
4. Cf. F. J. Wernz. P. Vida., “Ius canonicum”, tome II, “De Personis”, Rome, 1933, 517 seqq.

When Father Ghirlanda says a heretic, who is pope, would fall ipso iure from the office – that is, would by that very fact immediately lose the office of the papacy — I believe he is speaking of Canon 1364 which imposes itself the penalty of excommunication for all apostates, heretics and schismatics, without limitation to what office they hold. But he might also be referring to the Divine Law, since as Scripture clearly teaches, no one who calls God a liar is in communion with His Son (cf. 1 John 1:5-6, for example). This not only applies to all popes, but to all Bishops and priests who hold ecclesiastical offices in the Church, that is any munus, as canon 145 §1 specifies.

What is noteworthy about the article in Civiltà Cattolica is that Father Ghirlanda is not writing an article on controversial points, he is merely reciting the received tradition, prior to the Conclave of 2013 regarding the loss of the papal office. His main thesis does NOT regard heresy in a man who is pope, but in what way a man who is pope holds or is united to the papal office, because he took the position that it is impossible for a man who was pope, but renounced the office, to be called “Pope emeritus” and that this title should NOT be accorded to Ratzinger. — He does not consider, however, the implications of the title, namely, as many have since opined, that its conferral signifies an incomplete or invalid renunciation.

Finally, I agree with Father Ghirlanda, that it is more probable the Divine Providence will prevent the final or ultimate defection of a pope (because Christ promised His prayer for Simon that his faith not fail). I would go so far to say that it is de fide, because of Scriptural support. But what exactly is that Divine Protection preventing? The event, the deviation, the pertinacity, the formal defection, the ultimate defection? All of these, step by step, with more grace the more the one who is pope deviates? That does not seem to be clearly explained by anyone, so far. But it would make a very interesting Doctoral thesis in the theology of Providence and Grace.

Contrariwise, if Christ’s prayer prevents a true Pope from final defection, then the final defection of a man whom one thinks is the pope would be an infallible sign that his canonical claim to the office was vitiated by some substantial error. This is substantially the argument of His Excellency the Most Rev. Rene Henry Gracida, Bishop emeritus of Corpus Christi, USA.

The Angel of Akita requests Prayers of Reparation for Desecration of the Vatican

Nov10by The Editor

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/11/10/the-angel-of-akita-requests-prayers-of-reparation-for-desecration-of-the-vatican/

The miraculous statue of Our Lady of Akita weeps for the sins of mankind.

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

On the Feast of Saint Francis, Bergoglio had a pagan ritual honoring Pachamama in the Vatican gardens, during which time idolatrous worship was given idols and a tree was planted to placate the demon goddess of earth. This was the first abomination. Then Bergoglio had the idol brought into Saint Peter’s and receive veneration there, along with a bowl of desecrated earth.

Most Catholics do not know, but to desecrate the Vatican Gardens is an extremely diabolic act, because when Pope Leo XIII in his haste to discover the bones of St Peter had some poorly trained Archeologists dig up the tomb of Saint Peter beneath the High Altar, they dumped all the dirt they found IN THE VATICAN GARDENS. Later is was realized that that DIRT was the ashes of Saint Peter the Apostle and the Roman Martyrs burned on stakes by the Emperor Nero.

Therefore, to desecrate the Vatican Gardens is to desecrate the SPIRITUAL FOUNDATIONS of the Church of Rome. It is a ghastly vile act!

Akita, Japan

It was not surprising, therefore, that two days later the Angel of Akita, who had appeared to Sister Agnes Sasagawa 46 years ago, should appear again. If you do not know, at Akita, which is an approved apparition of Our Lady, Our Lady’s Statue wept repeatedly in the presence of Catholics and pagans, and forewarned of a great battle inside the Church between Cardinals and Bishops. (Google “Our Lady of Akita” for more about this apparition).

I report this, because, in my work for Ordo Militaris Inc., I had the unique opportunity to visit Akita in May and pray before the miraculous statue of Our Lady. The Message of Akita is about our days and it is a powerful call to repentance, constancy, perseverance and fortitude in the face of lies and wickedness.

Remember, the Message of Akita:

If men did not repent, Our Lady at Akita warned of world wide destruction by fire from the sky, and said that Catholics would have no consolation in those terrible days but the Holy Rosary and the Sign of Her Son (the Cross). That the living would envy the dead.

I mention, on my own authority, that Tertullian, a Father of the Church, taught that the worst sin of mankind is THE SIN OF IDOLATRY and that this sin alone MERITS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD. A destruction forestalled only by Christ’s Sacrifice on Calvary and mankind’s acceptance of that Sacrifice. This is the logic of the Apocalypse: when mankind rejects the Gospel at the end of time, that Destruction will rain down upon the whole world.

So you can infer the connections between these events and what Bergoglio did and is doing.

Message of the Angel of Akita

The Message was given on October 6 of this year, and is reported by WQPH of North Worcester, Massachusetts, USA, which is an EWTN affiliate. Their report is here in full (link).

Here is the message:

This is the speech said by Sister Sasagawa that Sister M heard firsthand.

On Sunday, October 6^th at 3:30am in Akita, the same angel appeared before me (Sister Sasagawa) as from some 30 years ago (see Note 1).  The angel first told me (Sister Sasagawa) something  private.

The good thing to convey to everyone is, “Cover in ashes” (see Note 2) “and please pray the Penitential Rosary every day.  You (Sister Sasagawa) become like an child and every day please give sacrifice.”

Ms. S was asked by Sister M, may I tell everyone about this?, which when asked, per Sister M, she was told Okay by Sister Sasagawa.  Also, “Please pray that I (Sasagawa) be able to be like an child and give sacrifice,” was said by Ms. S as heard by Sister M.

-end of message-

Note 1: In Akita, the angel that appeared before Sister Sasagawa as a woman, and without thinking, Sister Sasagawa blurted out “Older sister”.  It seems she resembled her older sister who had died.  She was told “No, I am something that protects you.”

And then, “Let’s go to church”, and Sasagawa was guided there.  (It is thought to be the guardian angel of Komatsu).

Note 2: Jonah’s prophecy (Jonah 3:1-10) (October 8^th first reading) clad in sackcloth and sit upon ashes.

Since an Angel from Heaven asked us to make reparation like Jonah (see scriptural references here) I strongly urge everyone to do this.

The Penitential Rosary, what is it? Why pray it?

Here is the text of the Penitential Rosary in English, for those who have never heard of this devotion:

http://avalon44.tripod.com/r/pr.htm

Please note, that this devotion is approved by the Church.

Please note the REASONS why the Penitential Rosary is to be recited, which reasons explain why the Angel of Akita asked that we pray it, in response to the sacrileges at the Vatican:

THE PENITENTIAL ROSARY IS RECITED:

1. To implore mercy and pardon for our sins, and for all the sins of our brethren.
2. To obtain the grace of conversion, a sincere sacramental confession, and amendment of life.

Also, read what is said at the bottom of the link for the Penitential Rosary to understand more about this and why an Angel of Heaven was sent to give this message to the world.  This, I believe, is a lot more important than initiatives by men who should be doing their duty, but instead pray. For us without such a duty to act, we should be the ones praying.

Now, the combining of this Office with the Holy Rosary, said with arms extended in the form of a cross, has also been dictated by God Our Lord to Maria Concepcion Zuniga recently. He told her that “this will be a Penitential Rosary that will please the Heavenly Father a great deal,” because He, Christ, would be the One Who would stand before the faithful who recite it and offer it in remission for all the sins of the world – their own and those of others.

Among the members of a single family (as we human beings are), there must be solidarity. Some must compensate for others. And in the measure that we see God offended, in that measure we must offer penance, counteracting the works of the disordered world with works of virtue, of charity, and of atonement, for the purpose of attaining forgiveness for everyone.

Finally, the whole import of this Message from Heaven is this: IF YOU are in the state of mortal sin, habitual sin, have not confessed, YOU BETTER RUN TO CONFESSION as soon as possible, because God’s patience is running out. He is going to destroy this world sooner than we think, and the spiritual consequence of Bergoglio’s monstrosities will be terrible wars and persecutions, just like the false messiah was awarded a peace price but when on to cause 17 or more wars and the deaths of millions.

Sunday, November 10, 2019

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/11/why-is-schneider-apologist-of-franciss.html

Why is Schneider a Apologist of Francis’s “Apostasy” by Defending the Manifest Heretical Papacy of Francis against a Pope, Two Doctors of the Church and “all the ancient Fathers”?

Bishop Athanasius Schneider, in his recent interview with Michael Matt on Remnant Video called “Defend & Resist,” said about the Francis Vatican Pachamama idolatry:

“[T]he apostasy… even Pope Francis, unfortunately, defends.”

 Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine said:

“The manifest heretical pope ceases per se to be pope… This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers.”

Bishop Schneider who admits that Francis “defends” the “apostasy” or heresy of idolatry, unfortunately, claims a manifest heretical pope can not as Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales says be “deprived” of “the Apostlic See” by the Church. Schneider by claiming Francis’s heretical papacy can’t be judged by the Church is implicitly defending the Francis “apostasy” or heresy of idolatry.

Is Schneider’s opinion true or false?

Here is the answer from a POPE to Schneider’s opinion and all the Francis apologists who claim that a heretical pope can’t be judged by the Church:

 Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in “Si Papa”:

“‘Let no mortal being have the audacity to reprimand a Pope on account of faults, for he whose duty it is to judge all men cannot be judged by anybody, unless he should be called to the task of having deviated from the faith. (Si Papa)'”

“Pope Innocent III: ‘For me the faith is so necessary that, whereas for other sins my only judge is God, for the slightest sin in the matter of the faith I could be judged by the Church.’ (propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judican)”
(The Remnant, “Answering a Sedevacantist Critic,” March 18, 2015)

Moreover, the important theologian Dominique Bouix in, Tractatus de papa, ubi et de concilio oecumenico, vol. II , pars IIIa, cap. iii, p. 653ff, responded to Schneider’s opinion:

It is objected 1°. — This opinion stands contrary to the more common and ancient opinion of the doctors of the school.It is responded: That is true. But in questions not yet defined and permitted to the free disputation of the schools, it can happen that a more recent and less common opinion is true and ought at length to be recognized as such.It is objected 2°. — Moreover, it stands contrary to the authority of Innocent III, whose words these are in the third sermon for the anniversary of his consecration: Faith is so necessary to me, that, while I have God for my judge in other sins, I am able to be judged by the Church on account of the sin which is committed against faith (see Sylvius, In IIamIIæ S. Thomæ, tom. III, q. xxxix, art. 3, concl. 2).It is responded: Indeed, in that text Innocent III supposes that the Roman Pontiff can, as a private person, fall into heresy. But Innocent III spoke thus, following the opinion which was more accepted in his time; nor did he pronounce it as the Pontiff defining the faith; whence it can be said that in this, he erred. But this error of his is not heresy, because this proposition, the Pope cannot become a heretic even privately, even if it be true, is yet not an evident or defined ARTICLE OF FAITH. Therefore the cited dictum of Innocent III indeed favors the opinion which holds that the Pope can become a heretic privately; yet it does not have peremptory force.It is objected 3°. — The canon Si papa (from the acta of Boniface of Mainz, in Gratian, dist. XL, c. vi) affirms that the Pope is exempt from the jurisdiction of his inferiors, with this exception: Unless he be discovered to have deviated from the faith. And in a similar document of the fifth council under Pope Symmachus it is read: Unless he should deviate from the right faith. Therefore, even in remote antiquity the doctrine held sway undoubted, that the Pope could become a heretic[https://lumenscholasticum.wordpress.com/2019/05/05/bouix-on-the-pope-heretic/] It is objected 3°. — The canon Si papa (from the acta of Boniface of Mainz, in Gratian, dist. XL, c. vi) affirms that the Pope is exempt from the jurisdiction of his inferiors, with this exception: Unless he be discovered to have deviated from the faith. And in a similar document of the fifth council under Pope Symmachus it is read: Unless he should deviate from the right faith. Therefore, even in remote antiquity the doctrine held sway undoubted, that the Pope could become a heretic.[https://lumenscholasticum.wordpress.com/2019/05/05/bouix-on-the-pope-heretic/] Finally, one of the greatest modern theologian Fr. Ioachim Ioachim whom “Msgr. Clifford Fenton in a March 1953 article of the American Ecclesiastical Review [said] ‘holds very much the same position in the theological world of the mid-twentieth century that Cardinal Billot occupied in that of fifty years ago'” appears to disagree with Schneider’s opinion. In Salaverri’s De Ecclesia Christi, it says:1056. The doctrine of the Church. The first part is implicitly defined in the Council of Florence’s decree for the Jacobites: D 714. But concerning heretics and apostates, we deduce our teaching also from the formula of faith “Clemens Trinitas”, from can. 23 of the Second Lateran Council, and from the Bull Ineffabilis Deus of Pius IX: D 18 367 1641.

The second part, in which we hold that those excommunicated by perfect excommunication, which the Supreme Pontiff can determine, are separated from the body of the Church, is taught as Catholic doctrine by Pius XII in the encyclical Mystici corporis: AAS 35 (1943) 202ff.
1057. This whole thesis of ours is clearly taught by Pius XII and the Catechism of the Council of Trent.[16]

Pius XII writes: “But in truth, only those are to be numbered amongst the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith, who have not miserably separated themselves from the community of the Church or through most grave crimes been separated by the legitimate authority…For this reason, those who are divided from one another in faith or government are unable to live in the one Body of this sort and in its divine Spirit…Nor should it be thought that the Body of the Church, because it is insigned with the name of Christ, consists, even in this time of terrestrial pilgrimage, only of members outstanding in sanctity, or that it is constituted only of the company of those who are predestined by God to sempiternal felicity…Indeed not every crime, even if a grave wickedness, is of such kind that of its very nature it separates man from the Body of the Church—as do schism, heresy, or apostasy.”

In the Catechism of the Council of Trent we read:

“Only three sorts of men are excluded from the Church: firstly, infidels, then heretics and schismatics, and finally excommunicates: pagans indeed, because they have never been in the Church, nor ever known it, nor been made partakers of any Sacrament in the society of the Christian people; heretics and schismatics, because they have revolted from the Church, for they no more pertain to the Church, than do deserters to the army from which they have defected: yet it must not be denied that they are in the power of the Church, as ones who may be called to judgment by her, punished, and condemned by anathema. Finally also excommunicates, because by the judgment of the Church have they been excluded from her, and do not belong to her communion until they come to their senses. But concerning other men, though they be wicked and criminal, it is not to be doubted that they yet persevere in the Church.”

1058. Dogmatic value. The first part, concerning heretics, apostates, and schismatics, is implicitly defined, particularly in the Council of Florence: D 714. The second part, on excommunicates by perfect excommunication, is Catholic doctrine, especially from the words of the encyclical of Pius XII, Mystici corporis Christi, recently cited by us above.

1059. The first part is proved. Heretics, apostates, and schismatics are not members of the Church… 
          
… For the minor. That formal and manifest heretics, apostates, and schismatics formally and manifestly have severed the essential social bond of the Church’s faith or government, is clear from the notions themselves. Thus they are not of the Church, which is the congregation of the faithful, because schismatics are not congregated and heretics are not faithful.
 1060. The same doctrine is confirmed by the authority of testimonies of the holy Fathers.

a) On heretics. Tertullian: “If they are heretics, they cannot be Christians” (R 298). St. Hilary: “I am a Catholic; I do not wish to be a heretic. I am a Christian, not an Arian.” St. Jerome: “Heretics pass judgment upon themselves, receding from the Church of their own will.” St. Augustine: “Sever yourselves from the members of the Church, sever yourselves from its Body. But what still might I say, in order that they might segregate themselves from the Church, since they have already done this? For they are heretics; they are already without.” The controversy on the rebaptizing of heretics, which was agitated thence from the middle of the third century, supposed as recognized by all that heretics are outside of the Church.[17]

b) On schismatics. Cyprian: “But what pertains to the person of Novatian…you know that we in the first place ought not to be inquisitive of what he taught, since he taught from without. Whosoever he is and of whatever condition, he is not a Christian who is not in the Church of Christ…he who neither held fast to fraternal charity nor ecclesiastical unity, has lost even that which he was previously.” St. Jerome: “Between heresy and schism, we think there to be this difference, that heresy imports perverse dogma; schism, on account of episcopal dissension, separates from the Church…moreover, no schism does not fabricate for itself a heresy, so that it might seem to have receded from the Church rightly.” St. Augustine: “Heretics and schismatics call their congregations churches. But heretics, thinking falsely about God, violate the faith itself; but schismatics burst free of fraternal charity through hostile divisions, although they believe those things which we believe. For this reason, heretics do not belong to the Catholic Church, because she loves God, nor schismatics, because she loves the neighbor” (R 1562). St. Fulgentius: “Most firmly hold and doubt not at all, that every one baptized outside of the Catholic Church is unable to become a partaker of eternal life, if before the end of this life he has not returned and been incorporated to the Catholic Church. Most steadily and in no way doubt, that not only all pagans, but also all Jews and all heretics and schismatics, who finish this present life outside of the Catholic Church, are to enter into the eternal fire” (R 2274-5). Pelagius I: “Pollute not a mind ever Catholic by any communion of schismatics. It is clear that the Body of Christ is one, the Church is one…our Savior taught: a vine separated from the grapevine cannot be good for anything, but fire for burning…Do not think that they either are or can be called the Church. And indeed since, as we have said, the Church is one…it is clear that there is no other but that which is founded in the apostolic root.”[18]
[https://lumenscholasticum.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/fr-salaverri-on-whether-heretics-apostates-schismatics-and-excommunicates-are-members-of-the-church/]

Why is Schneider a apologist of Francis’s “apostasy” by defending the manifest heretical papacy of Francis against a pope, two Doctors of the Church and “all the ancient Fathers”?

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.Posted by Fred Martinez at 3:23 PM  Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Inculturation and the Law of Evangelization

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/FMfcgxwDsFkFrPhKjDjWMrCtKDHBNxnJ

Eduardo J. Echeverria

SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2019

I argued previously here even before the Amazon Synod began that the Instrumentum Laboris for the now-completed Synod understood inculturation as primarily the call to adapt or accommodate the Catholic faith to the Amazonian cultures. This understanding remains unchanged in the Final Document, Chapter III, which calls for “cultural conversion.”

Here is a representative sample of such statements:

Our conversion must also be cultural, to become the other, to learn from the other. To be present, to respect and recognize its values, to live and practice inculturation and interculturality in our proclamation of the Good News. §41

Inculturation is the incarnation of the Gospel in indigenous cultures. . .and at the same time the introduction of these cultures into the life of the Church. §51

When the missionary and pastoral agent brings the word of the Gospel of Jesus, he identifies himself with the culture. . . .The indigenous world with its myths, narratives, rites, songs, dance and spiritual expressions enrich the intercultural encounter. . . .The evangelization of the Church is not a process of destruction, but of consolidation and strengthening of these values; a contribution to the growth of the “seeds of the Word”. . .present in various cultures. §54; also §43

Proclaiming the Good News of Jesus implies recognizing the seeds of the Word already present in cultures. The evangelization that we propose today for the Amazon is the inculturated proclamation that. . .promotes the life of the Church with an Amazon identity and face. §55

What stands out in these passages is that inculturation is the unqualified identification of the Gospel with the indigenous culture and its cultural values in which we discern the “seeds of the Word” (semina verbi). Missing are the specific criteria telling us how the Church identifies the “seeds of the Word.”

Yes, the document does say without explanation that the Church, in general, seeks “to discern the voice of the Spirit who leads the Church . . . in the light of the Word of God and of Tradition.” Ok, let us hear the Word of God. St. Paul urges us, “Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies.” (1 Thess 5: 19-20) St. Paul insists, however, that discernment is also critical. “[T]est everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.” (5: 21-22)

How, then, do we identify the counter-values of the indigenous culture, distinguishing good from evil? The document does not raise this question. What about superstition? Strong shamans (men) and master potters (women) who purport to exert control in human affairs through their knowledge of “spirit forces”? What about the religious-cosmological structures of the Amazonian Quechua religions?

One must conclude that the Final Document’s approach to these matters is uncritical because it lumps them into the single category of “indigenous theology,” myths, rites, etc., as “spiritual expressions [that] enrich the intercultural encounter.” Again, no effort is made here to follow the Pauline imperative of critical discernment. Vatican II (Ad Gentes 22) gave a three-fold criterion of discernment for the assumption of cultural values: “they contribute to the glory of the Creator, manifest the grace of the Savior, or contribute to the right ordering of Christian life.”

Furthermore, are there, then, just good cultural values? What about the death-dealing cultural practices of infanticide, child sacrifice, cannibalism, and child-killing among certain tribes of the Amazon culture? Colonialism cannot be blamed for these practices.

Moreover, may we treat these good values – whatever they may be – as “neutral goods” abstracted from the religious-cosmological understanding of the indigenous peoples?

One gets the impression that the Church is being exclusively and one-sidedly transformed – converted! – to the values of the culture in the process of inculturation.

Vatican II’s theology of inculturation includes two dimensions: not only the clarifying and critical transformation of good cultural values, purifying them from their embeddedness in the culture’s counter-values, and hence from evil, and restoring to them their full meaning in light of the Christian faith, but also the insertion of the Christian faith in the indigenous culture.

The first principle of inculturation is found in Gaudium et Spes §22, proclaiming that the point of reference from whence is disclosed the mystery of man, of history and culture, is only in the crucified and resurrected Christ.

I have also written here about the former dimension, involving a clarifying and transformative transposition of good cultural values in light of Scripture and Tradition. This transposition involves the “Spoils from Egypt” trope, utilized by St. Augustine, St. John Henry Newman, St. John Paul II, and Vatican II (e.g., Ad Gentes, Lumen Gentium).

There remains to say something about the purpose of critically inserting the Christian faith in the concepts and languages of the indigenous culture. The Final Document correctly sees this as not just an option but rather a necessity. Indeed, Gaudium et Spes §44 refers to this as the “law of evangelization.” This law has been misunderstood, however, as an ongoing effort to recontextualize and reinterpret the Christian faith in the concepts and languages of the culture, leaving us with a doctrinal relativism.

Vatican II’s “law of evangelization” may only be properly understood when the alternative but complementary – rather than conflicting – formulations of revealed truths show a deeper penetration, better understanding, and more suitable presentations of those truths, of the revealed mysteries of the Catholic faith (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio §17).

These formulations, according to St. John XXIII, Vatican I, and St. Vincent of Lérins, must remain, in the words of the last named figure, within the “proper limits, i.e., within the same dogma, the same meaning, the same judgment [in eodem scilicet dogmate, eodem sensueademque sententia].” Although the truths of the faith may be expressed differently, we must always determine whether those re-formulations preserve the same meaning and mediate “the same judgment,” and hence the material continuity, identity, and universality of those truths, even when reformulations bring correction, modification, and complementation.

Thus, the Synod’s final document misunderstands inculturation and the “law of evangelization,” and continues to sow confusion.

*Image: The Vocation of the Apostles by Domenico Ghirlandaio (and workshop), 1481-82 [Sistine Chapel]

Pope Benedict XVI condemns Idolatry

Nov10by The Editor

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/FMfcgxwDsFkGBmGWDDXzrwtcfLCNTWpq

The complete transcript of this Homily can be found in 7 languages (here).

Let us not imagine, that the St Gallen Mafia and their agenda were not already known to Pope Benedict in 2008. It has been shown in other cases that his entire Pontificate was one long preaching against their errors, heresies and apostasy, for he knew what was to come.

Here are some excerpts of his Homily on Sept 13, 2008, in front of Notre Dame, at Paris. What he said that day is perhaps the reason why the French government took the burning of that Church so lightly, because the Holy Father’s homily directly attacks the Satanism behind Globalism:

In the First Letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, we discover, in this Pauline year inaugurated on 28 June last, how much the counsels given by the Apostle remain important today. “Shun the worship of idols” (1 Cor 10:14), he writes to a community deeply marked by paganism and divided between adherence to the newness of the Gospel and the observance of former practices inherited from its ancestors. Shunning idols: for Paul’s contemporaries, this therefore meant ceasing to honour the divinities of Olympus, ceasing to offer them blood sacrifices. Shunning idols meant entering the school of the Old Testament Prophets, who denounced the human tendency to make false representations of God. As we read in Psalm 113, with regard to the statues of idols, they are merely “gold and silver, the work of human hands. They have mouths but they do not speak, they have eyes but they do not see, they have ears but they do not hear, they have nostrils but they do not smell” (Ps 113:4-5). Apart from the people of Israel, who had received the revelation of the one God, the ancient world was in thrall to the worship of idols. Strongly present in Corinth, the errors of paganism had to be denounced, for they constituted a powerful source of alienation and they diverted man from his true destiny. They prevented him from recognizing that Christ is the sole, true Saviour, the only one who points out to man the path to God.

This appeal to shun idols, dear brothers and sisters, is also pertinent today. Has not our modern world created its own idols? Has it not imitated, perhaps inadvertently, the pagans of antiquity, by diverting man from his true end, from the joy of living eternally with God? This is a question that all people, if they are honest with themselves, cannot help but ask. What is important in my life? What is my first priority? The word “idol” comes from the Greek and means “image”, “figure”, “representation”, but also “ghost”, “phantom”, “vain appearance”. An idol is a delusion, for it turns its worshipper away from reality and places him in the kingdom of mere appearances. Now, is this not a temptation in our own day – the only one we can act upon effectively? The temptation to idolize a past that no longer exists, forgetting its shortcomings; the temptation to idolize a future which does not yet exist, in the belief that, by his efforts alone, man can bring about the kingdom of eternal joy on earth! Saint Paul explains to the Colossians that insatiable greed is a form of idolatry (cf. 3:5), and he reminds his disciple Timothy that love of money is the root of all evil. By yielding to it, he explains, “some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs” (1 Tim 6:10). Have not money, the thirst for possessions, for power and even for knowledge, diverted man from his true Destiny, from the truth about himself?

Dear brothers and sisters, the question that today’s liturgy places before us finds an answer in the liturgy itself, which we have inherited from our fathers in faith, and notably from Saint Paul himself (cf. 1 Cor 11:23). In his commentary on this text, Saint John Chrysostom observes that Saint Paul severely condemns idolatry, which is a “grave fault”, a “scandal”, a real “plague” (Homily 24 on the First Letter to the Corinthians, 1). He immediately adds that this radical condemnation of idolatry is never a personal condemnation of the idolater. In our judgements, must we never confuse the sin, which is unacceptable, with the sinner, the state of whose conscience we cannot judge and who, in any case, is always capable of conversion and forgiveness. Saint Paul makes an appeal to the reason of his readers, to the reason of every human being – that powerful testimony to the presence of the Creator in the creature: “I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say” (1 Cor 10:15). Never does God, of whom the Apostle is an authorized witness here, ask man to sacrifice his reason! Reason never enters into real contradiction with faith! The one God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – created our reason and gives us faith, proposing to our freedom that it be received as a precious gift. It is the worship of idols which diverts man from this perspective. Let us therefore ask God, who sees us and hears us, to help us purify ourselves from all idols, in order to arrive at the truth of our being, in order to arrive at the truth of his infinite being!

(Featured image for this post is from the Associated Press Report on this event, see here)

The Shameful Confession of Cardinal Burke: Those who doubt Bergoglio is the Pope hold an “extreme” position

Nov10by The Editor

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/11/10/the-shameful-confession-of-cardinal-burke-those-who-doubt-bergoglio-is-the-pope-hold-an-extreme-position/

U.S. Cardinal Raymond L. Burke, patron of the Knights and Dames of Malta, center left, and a group of priests pose with Pope Francis during his general audience in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican Sept. 2. (CNS photo/Paul Haring) See POPE-AUDIENCE-SMILE Sept. 2, 2015.

It has been six and a half years of blasphemies, insults against God and His Teaching, against His Son and His immaculate Mother, open attacks on the truth of Scripture, the Divinity of the Son, the Resurrection, the discipline of the Sacraments etc. etc., topped off by acts of open idolatry and apostasy in the Vatican and Saint Peters.

And now, Cardinal Burke chooses to speak on what he thinks of “Pope Francis”, In a November 9, 2019, Interview by Ross Douthat. Here is an excerpt (see the entire article here):

Douthat: I agree that the Catholic subculture you describes exists. But I also see, as this pontificate has advanced, a growing paranoia and alienation among conservative Catholics, a temptation toward conspiracy theories that shade into sedevacantism, the belief that the pope is not the pope. I’m curious whether you worry that criticism of the pope contributes to this.

Burke: It’s true that for all the good social media does, they also give a voice to these extreme positions. And in my criticism I’ve been deeply concerned not to call into question respect for the papal office.

Douthat: You believe Francis is a legitimate pope?

Burke: Yes, yes. I’ve had people present to me all kinds of arguments calling into question the election of Pope Francis. But I name him every time I offer the Holy Mass, I call him Pope Francis, it’s not an empty speech on my part. I believe that he is the pope. And I try to say that consistently to people, because you’re correct — according to my perception also, people are getting more and more extreme in their response to what’s going on in the church.

Draw your own conclusions. But to help you do that I will merely cite the Code of Canon Law of 1983 promulgated by John Paul II, Vicar of Christ, which code is binding on earth and heaven. From my article, “Bergoglio definitively leaves the Catholic Church“:

According to Canon 1364… which reads….

PART II : PENALTIES FOR PARTICULAR OFFENCES

TITLE I: OFFENCES AGAINST RELIGION AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 1364 – 1369)

Can. 1364 §1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 §1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in Can. 1336 §1, nn. 1, 2 and 3.

From my article, “The Monstrosity of Allegations against ‘Team Bergoglio‘”:

Canon 1329, § 2 reads, in the Latin:

Can. 1329 — §2. In poenam latae sententiae delicto adnexam incurrunt complices,qui in lege vel praecepto non nominantur, si sine eorum opera delictum patratum non esset, et poena sit talis naturae, ut ipsos afficere possit; secus poenis ferendae sententiae puniri possunt.

The official English translation of this, from the Vatican website is:

§2. Accomplices who are not named in a law or precept incur a latae sententiae penalty attached to a delict if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed, and the penalty is of such a nature that it can affect them; otherwise, they can be punished by ferendae sententiae penalties.

These canons apply both to those who perpetrate or participate in idolatrous worship but also those who are heretics or promote heresy, such as attacking the Teaching of the Christ against giving the Sacraments to public sinners.

As for the canons which demonstrate that the Renunciation of Benedict was invalid, see ppbxvi.org.

Just to make sure everyone recognizes the current context of events, according to my encounters with laypeople in Italy who do not work for the Church and speak freely to me in private, more than 60% of Catholics in Italy do not believe Bergoglio is currently the pope, either because he was never validly elected, or loss the office by heresy or apostasy. To Catholics, clergy included, to whom I present the contents of the Conference on the Renunciation of Pope  Benedict, there is 100% unanimity that Benedict is still the pope and that Bergoglio never was. So basically, Cardinal Burke’s comment needs to be seen as something impinging upon a majority of Catholics in Italy, at least. This makes his comments very newsworthy.

In Conclusion

The comment of Cardinal Burke clearly refers to Conservatives, not Sedevacantists, and therefore ostensibly to all Catholics who entertain or sustain the possibility that Bergoglio either never was validly elected or lost his office, on account of WHAT THE CHURCH HERSELF TEACHES about the nature of heresy, schism, apostasy, idolatry.

Therefore, there is no contextual way to explain this away, without recourse to the gratuitous assertion that the Cardinal did not mean what he said, and did not hear what Ross Douthat was saying. I find that incredible. Thus, I conclude:

Cardinal Burke has followed the lead of Cardinal Sarah and impaled his reputation* for the sake of supporting Bergoglio, jettisoning in the process not only the Code of Canon Law and any appeal to right reason in its understanding, but also the law of Charity enshrined in the Eighth Commandment of the Decalogue, and in the Greatest and First Precept of Jesus Christ: Love one another as I have loved you.

He has also jettisoned his reputation as a Canon Lawyer, because after the Academic Conference on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict, to which the Cardinal was invited but did not attend, I was told the argument presented was very sound by a Canonist who works in Rome.

In fidelity to both Christ Jesus and Moses, I ask all to pray for Cardinal Burke, who does not realize in how great an error he has fallen simply to please a man. Let us hope that he apologizes for saying such a nasty thing about faithful Catholics and explain why it is he has adopted such a non-think position, when by profession and duty he should be an advocate for applying Canon Law equally to all.

Finally, I have moderated my own emotions in writing this post, but I will not censor the comments of those who believe it necessary to speak more pointedly. That is because (1) I have written Cardinal Burke offering to speak with him about the Renunciation, and do not consider it proper to say anything more about this matter in public, but (2) recognize the right of all Catholics in virtue of Canon 212 to make their voices heard, even if times what God might consider respectful, those needing correction might not think is respectful.

My Public Question for Cardinal Burke:

Q. Do you really mean to say that an apostate, heretic, schismatic, usurper, theoretically can be a member of the Church or the Pope? Or are you saying that you feel your loyalty to the man whom you think is the Pope is greater than your loyalty to seek and defend the truth of history? — I ask this because I want to know where you stand.

_________

* Anomianism is the error of thinking that Christian Charity frees the person from the obligation of following laws or rules. Saint Paul condemned this in his Letters to the Corinthians. — The Catholic position has always been that inasmuch as written law, promulgated by the State or Church, enshrines principles of the Natural, Moral, Divine or Evangelical Law, it requires our observance and obedience, because it is directly or implicitly invoking the authority of God.  All Church Law does this as regards the authority of Christ, Her Founder. Thus, to adopt an anomian approach to any question or dispute, and call those who honestly seek answers in the laws or teaching of the Church, extremists, is to completely reject the Divine Authority as the rule by which all things must be judged.

kassiblog.com https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/FMfcgxwDsFkGLCvrrFFCpklHFdNkfDGb

---

URGENT Call to Action: TADA Is Now Being Used to Kill a Baby & YOU Can Help!Posted: 09 Nov 2019 09:29 PM PST Texans, we still have a problem. And, we need you to act very quickly right now! A child’s life is in imminent danger of being ended tomorrow through the use of the insidious euthanasia law (“TADA” or the “10-Day Rule” or “10-Day Law”) in Texas.  Please read on and contact the hospital immediately and ask them to spare her life!  Texas Right to Life, as usual, is leading the effort to save Baby Tinslee. TRTL describes her condition and provides the contact information that you need as follows: Baby Tinslee is a 9-month-old girl with congenital heart disease and is breathing with the assistance of a ventilator. She is sedated but conscious. Cook Children’s Fort Worth Hospital informed Tinslee’s mother, Trinity, on October 31 that they would pull the plug on her daughter against her directive in 10 days, scheduling her to die tomorrow, November 10, under the Texas 10-Day Rule.  The hospital committee cited no physical health reason for their decision to seize Tinslee’s ventilator against her mother’s will but instead cited their own “quality of life” judgments. Now, Baby Tinslee’s mother is in a race against the clock to save her daughter. Texas Right to Life provided a lawyer to defend the patient after the family contacted us for help, but the Texas 10-Day Rule legally allows this form of euthanasia.  The hospital needs to hear from you!  Call Cook Children’s now!  Ask to speak to administrator Stan Davis and tell him to save Baby Tinslee Lewis! 682-885-4000 or stan.davis@cookchildrens.org. (Emphasis added.) As you know, the Texas Advance Directives Act (“TADA”) is still law and it allows a hospital to withdraw life-sustaining care against your will with 10 days notice. There is no due process. No appeal. No review. It is very, very difficult to get more time from a court and very difficult – usually impossible – to get a transfer to another facility in this amount of time. I wish I could tell you this is unusual. It is not. Other babies have been killed by Texas hospitals using this law. This is euthanasia! These quality of life decisions belong to the family – and only the family.   As you will recall, there was an excellent bill, SB 2089, that would have made great strides into righting much of what is wrong with this now 20 year old law. As you will recall, it passed the Senate, but the House leadership killed it. As I see it, those who made the decisions to kill that bill as well as those who lobbied them to do so and who opposed SB 2089 – the ones I refer to as the Usual Suspects which includes the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops (all of whom flat out support euthanasia) – may soon have moreblood on their hands.  Because of these anti-life forces, right now in Fort Worth, nine month old Baby Tinslee is set to be killed tomorrow by having her life-sustaining treatment withdrawn by Cook Children’s Hospital. She has congenital heart disease but is not brain dead. In fact, as you can see above in video taken just this morning she responsive even while sedated. (Again, even if she were brain dead, I could not countenance the imposition of involuntary passive euthanasia.)  NOTE: Anticipating what TADA supporters always say in defense of these things, let me nip that in the bud. There are no assertions that anyone’s conscience is being pricked by continuing to care for this child. I have never heard that used in a hearing as a reason. That only ever comes up during legislative testimony by lobbyists for euthanasia and the occasional brief in court. Even were that the case, there are many, many doctors in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. Other doctors who are pro-life and understand who makes what decisions would continue care for her, I am certain. Anticipating another thing they might say – she’s suffering. Actually, that was not a given reason. Also, killing people because of suffering is the very definition of euthanasia. Yeah, it is. Mercy killing is also, ironically, prohibited by TADA. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Sec. 166.050.  Anticipating and responding to what others have said or asked about the role of money here, let me address that as well. Doctors and hospitals always vehemently deny that money plays any role in any decision they make. In one place on social media, one lady said she called and mentioned money and the receptionist defensively said money had nothing to do with their decisions. I’ve been in cases where the intended TADA victim had insurance or would qualify for Medicare or Medicaid soon if given enough time. To be honest, I actually don’t think money is the biggest motivator for these cases for the decision-makers.  And, let me just say this – I don’t care if money is the issue – you don’t kill people. And let me go one step further: If you think that just because someone may be poor that they deserve to die sooner, you need to check yourself. That’s a terribly elitist, eugenicist attitude to have. Only the well-to-do are deserving of life? Only the most healthy? The most educated? The most….? What other qualifications will you set? Will race or ethnicity play a role? Religion? Gender? Genetics? Where does it end? Read history. You’re literally in Nazi territory there. God help you. You’d better step back and re-evaluate things. Like right now. And, yes, I’ve been seeing things like this on social media, including by those who love to say, “I’m 100% pro-life but….” No, honey, you’re not.   In my opinion, people decided that this child does not deserve to live because she is ill. I think it likely is a “quality of life” decision, just as they said. It’s philosophical. It’s eugenics plain and simple. And it’s diabolical. I’ve heard doctors and hospital administrator-types say things like this myself in other cases. I’ve heard and read advocates of TADA and proponents of it say just that. And, their actions and advocacy scream it louder than any blog post or tweet could. This little baby who is ill should be put down like a dog according to them. No! No! No! Surely, you can see how wrong this is and the long-term consequences of it. I don’t care who supports it, if they were a cardinal’s hat, have a Ph.D. or an M.D. or whatever else. It’s just wrong. In Europe we see the next phase of this already – a duty to die. But more on that another day.  But wrong as it may be, this is now well-established law and medical practice in Texas and beyond. You think you’re safe? Think again. You’re one heart attack, car accident, brain aneurism, or God only knows what away from being in this situation yourself. Or your spouse. Or your children.   Our so-called “pro-life” Republican legislature and governor could have done something about this months ago and it would have been effective law by now. But they didn’t. What does that say about them? By their fruits…  Frankly, I think this last session made it pretty darn clear that the majority of those in the House who claim they are pro-life – and I’m being generous here – really have only a nodding acquaintance with the term. (It took quite a lot of effort to get the Senate to do the right thing, but they finally did.) By their actions and inaction, the House leadership and others deliberately killed not only SB 2089, but SB 1033, which would have stopped discriminatory abortion of the preborn (another form of eugenics). Very, very few who were not in leadership, as far as I can tell, were even working behind the scenes to try to get anything done. They’ve certainly been hiding from not just the pro-life organization, but other conservative orgs and the grassroots. It’s all quite telling.  And while I’m at it, I’ll just say this, too. While the Texas governorship is a weak position relative to the legislature and compared to how other state governments are structured, there is room for executive leadership here. Sadly, we’ve seen time and again that Governor Abbott is no Governor Perry when it comes to pro-life leadership. When pro-life legislation didn’t get passed in the regular session in 2012, Perry called a Special Session where it did. When a bill was moving in the session in 2012 that would have made TADA worse, he made sure that once it was dead, it was dead. Whatever other problems there may have been with Perry, he did the right thing on these life issues. I cannot say the same about his predecessor (who gave us TADA) and his successor (who won’t do anything to help get rid of it). As I mentioned in my last post, I never had much confidence in Abbott. I would love for him to prove me wrong.   But right now, Baby Tinslee and her family need your voice. Be a voice for those who cannot advocate for themselves or by themselves. Fill up the voicemail and email inbox of Stan Davis. Leave messages with the staff. Then, spend as much time in prayer tonight and tomorrow as you can for this family, the hospital staff, our “leaders”, those at Texas Right to Life and who are working to advocate for this family, and for the overall state of things. That ought to keep us all busy and out of trouble.   Follow Texas Right to Life on Facebook and Twitter to keep up to date and please spread the word!  Thanks for reading!

Fr. Rutler’s Weekly Column November 10, 2019

Life in New York City can be hard for anyone who has difficulty accommodating paradoxes. For instance, the same City Council that has just banned the sale of foie gras on the grounds that it involves cruelty to force-fed geese, previously made New York the first city to pay mothers from other states to come here for abortions. With all due respect to Mother Goose, it seems hyperbolic to treat the over-feeding of ducks and geese as more inhumane than the destruction of the most helpless humans. Babies are human, yet there are those who do not see anything inhumane about killing a human child right up to birth.    Another curiosity that becomes “curiouser and curiouser,” as Alice described Wonderland, was the recent decision of our mayor’s wife to include among proposed statues honoring women, two men who attained fame by pretending to be women. By sane logic, that would be like honoring the women of the Revolution with a statue of Benjamin Franklin dressed as Martha Washington.    Another proposed statue celebrates a woman notorious for her promotion of infanticide, the majority of infants killed being female. In a poll to decide who should deserve a statue, Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini won first place by a landslide. But in her 67 years of humanitarian work, she established 67 institutions, all of which promoted the dignity of life from womb to grave, with no aborting of babies or giving poison pills to the sick and elderly. The saint’s broken English would have been at a loss to describe men with husbands or women with wives.     Mother Cabrini’s labors were too exhausting for her to worry about foie gras, which she probably could not afford anyway. Yet the mayor’s wife defied voters and eliminated the saintly woman from the list of honorees. That is no problem, though, because the same Catholic Church that “social progressives” slander as sexist, has more statues of women  than the profligate City Council—with its hundreds of millions of dollars of unaccounted funds—couldever hope to match, and they include countless images of Mother Cabrini.    Saints are the greatest people who ever lived, but to acknowledge their existence means that you have to acknowledge God, who alone is the source of heroic grace that raises human nobility to the level of sanctity. This is why the saints are nervously ignored by cynics who hold holy innocence in contempt.    The newly canonized John Henry Newman preached: “What if wicked men took and crucified a young child? What if they deliberately seized its poor little frame, and stretched out its arms, nailed them to a cross bar of wood, drove a stake through its two feet, and fastened them to a beam, and so left it to die?”    Perhaps our mayor’s wife might explain why Christ, more innocent even than an infant, was crucified, or how his suffering for our sins compares with foie gras. Faithfully yours in Christ, Father George W. Rutler