What difference does it make?

What difference does it make?

Recently, Pope Francis, was “pained to hear… a sarcastic comment about a pious [indigenous] man with feathers on his head who brought an offering” during Mass. In humble solidarity with the “pious man,” His Holiness asked: “Tell me: what’s the difference between having feathers on your head and the three-peaked hat worn by certain officials in our dicasteries?” The Supreme Pontiff was referring to the Catholic biretta. Apparently, to the Apostolic Lord of Rome, these types of things make no difference whatsoever.

But we ask ourselves, how come His Supreme Humbleness was “pained to hear” such comment, but did not feel the same pain when His Holiness Himself made some disparaging remarks about young “rigid” priests who wear Cassocks and the Roman hat (“saturno”)? How quickly His Holiness’ pain disappears when those who don’t agree with all that comes out of His Merciful Mouth are the ones who are viciously offended, vindictively attacked, and savagely persecuted by His Holiness Himself or His Holiness’ protégés!

How far is the reigning Pontiff from the example of Pope St. Gregory I when writing to Eulogius of Alexandria: “My honor is the honour of the Universal Church. My honor is the firm position of my brothers. I am really honoured when due honor is not denied to each of them.” Instead, Pope Francis has a preference for attacking, ridiculing, and disparaging whatever may bring visibility to anything that used to bring honor and respect to the Church of God, Her faithful ministers, and Her immemorial practices.

Our “Catholic sensibilities” are not supposed to be hurt by such things, the reasoning goes, or by horrible pagan-like/shamanic ceremonies at the Vatican in the presence of the Pope Himself! According to this logic, what difference does it make to see practices and ceremonies that predate the advent of Christianity performed with the consent and approval of the visible Head of the Catholic Church? It would seem that to His Holiness they are the same as the ceremonies of the Mass – the New Mass, that is, because WE KNOW how His Holiness feels about the Old Mass! WE KNOW that those old immemorial rites, practices, and ceremonies of the Roman Church do make a difference to His Humble Person! So much so, that His Holiness and His Holiness’ friends are willing to lie, persecute, slander, and stamp out anything reminiscent of the old Catholic days… Such “rigidly neopelagian promethean observances that cause deeply-rooted psychological problems” should have no place in the Church of God! Or so is their humble wish.

We could get the impression that, according to His Holiness, the way we feel about Holy Mass is the same way we should feel about ritualistic services to Pachamama (mother earth) with representations of Yacy, Ruda, and Guaracy – all pure and unadulterated pagan idolatry and immodesty ....  this should make no difference at all, they say. Just as it would make no difference to His Holiness and minions if what had taken place had been the burning of incense –or, better yet, the killing of babies!– in honor of the ancient golden calf idolized by the Hebrews after the God of Israel freed them from the hands of Pharaoh.

At the (“fertility ritual”) ceremony that took place in the Vatican gardens on October 4th in honor of Pachamana, the Holy Father was given a black ring (tucum ring – anel de tucum), which has become very closely associated with the principles of Liberation Theology, which in the Pontificate of Pope Francis has reached levels of biblical importance. With regards to the ceremony, Cardinal Baldisseri said: “the purpose is to focus on this garden [the Amazon region] of immense wealth and natural resources… and a territory that’s threatened by the runaway ambitions of human beings rather than being taken care of.”

Honestly, that whole thing reminded us of another Garden (spoken of in the first book of the Sacred Scriptures) where those involved had the ambition to be like gods, and we all know that that led to negative consequences of unparalleled proportions. And here we are in 2019 with high ranking members of the Catholic Church (the Bishop in white included) tempting the same God with a similar ambition and behaving as if the Incarnation of the Son of God had never happened. How horrible is that! And then today we hear that the Holy Father’s friend, the “journalist” Eugenio Scalfari (a Leftist atheist), reports that the Holy Father told him that Christ was not God. We’re not sure about you, but that’s flirting directly with Sabellianism, Arianism, Modalism, Patripassianism, Subordinationism, Nestorianism, and a few other officially certified heresies… nothing new about the heresy, except that the One Who might possibly be dishing it out is none other than the Supreme Pontiff Himself!

In the old days of Faith, the Popes would have been the ones to clarify the correct teaching the faithful were to hold, but that does not seem to be the case these days. Pope Julius, in the times of St. Athanasius, during the Arian heresy, would have said: “Do you not know that this is the custom, that you should write first to Us and that what is right should be settled here?” Pope St. Agatho would have said: “The Apostolic [Roman] Church of Christ, by the grace of Almighty God will never be shown to have wandered from the path of Apostolic tradition, nor has it ever fallen into heretical novelties; but it was founded spotless at the time of the beginning of the Christian faith.” It might be safe to say, and I think you will agree, that Francis the Merciful would cut His Humble tongue out before saying anything like that! Instead, His Holiness would yell at us and at the top of His Apostolic lungs –oops, we forgot His Holiness only has one, though that does not prevent His Holiness from yelling at us anyway!– what’s the difference?

Well, to us, faithful Catholics, it does make a big difference... just as one “iota” made an essential difference in the 4th century with the Arian heresy. As Fr. Adrian Fortescue aptly said: “What, it is asked, can the difference between Homoüsios and Homoiüsios matter? Was it worth while to rend the whole Church for the sake of an iota? Undoubtedly to a person who cares nothing for any dogmatic belief, to whom the Christian faith means either nothing at all or a vague humanitarianism, the discussion will seem absurd… But to people who take historic Christianity seriously one may point out that the question at issue was the vital one of all. It was that of the Divinity of Christ.”

And Fr. Fortescue goes on to say that in combat, soldiers from two different sides whose nations have very similar flags “or [coats of] arms” would not waver in their allegiance to their nation because of such similarity or very slight differences. So, while for the Servant of the Servants of God an indigenous feathered hat might be the same as a biretta, to an actual faithful Catholic, there is a real difference between the two. Just as an actual Catholic will detect a clear difference between real inculturation and neo-paganization!

The Supreme Pontiff may go on and on with all this silly stuff about “pockets of rigidity” and “semi-schismatic ways” that lead to a bad end and to an “unhealthy view of the Gospel,” but the thing is that we somehow still have something called the Ten Commandments. And the first of these commandments still reads: “I am the Lord thy God, Who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.” Actual faithful Catholics, despite the criticisms and condemnations coming from Bishops, Cardinals, and the Holy Father Himself these days, still want to continue the ancient Catholic practice of worshiping the True God alone by preserving the purity and integrity of the Catholic Faith through absolute loyalty to the Church of Old Rome in Her unchanging dogmas and living traditions, particularly in the true Roman Mass.

The Holy Father also thinks that these rigid neo-palagians want “to change the Pope” by expressing open criticisms that create, according to His Holiness, “confusion” and “division” and “schism.” As Archbishop Lefebvre once said: “I don’t want to disobey the Pope, but he must not ask me to become Protestant,” except that now that would have to be changed to: “I don’t want to disobey the Pope, but he must not ask me to become Pagan.” That seems to be the difference between Paul VI and Pope Francis; the former wanted to protestantize things, but the latter is hellbent on paganizing everything! In response, we could say what Princess Pallavicini said in the 1970s when Paul VI’s Vatican tried to pressure her into not helping Archbishop Lefebvre: “I am a more than convinced Apostolic Roman Catholic … I owe nothing to anybody, I have no honours nor prebends to defend, and I thank God for everything. Within the limits that the Church allows, I may dissent, I may talk, I may act: I have to talk and I have to act: it would be cowardice not to. And allow me say, that in our home, also in this generation, there is no room for the cowardly.”

Long gone are the days when Popes, like St. Leo the Great, would write to world leaders: “… the same Faith must be that of the people, of bishops, and also of kings, oh most glorious son and most clement Augustus!” Or Popes like Leo IX, writing to the heretic Michael Cerularius on the preservation of Church unity: “… Woe to those who break it! Woe to those who ‘with high-sounding and false words and with impious and sacrilegious hands cruelly try to rend the glorious robe of Christ, that has no stain nor spot.’” And, as the same Pope Leo IX wrote to the then ambitious Patriarch of Constantinople: “Let heresies and schisms cease. Let every one who glories in the Christian name cease from cursing and wounding the holy Apostolic Roman Church.” And this was, as it should always be, the case because it is the constant Catholic principle that there MUST NOT BE ANY COMPROMISE in matters of Faith and Morals. Unfortunately, and with utmost sadness and shame, it must be admitted that even faithful Catholics these days fall short of this essential Catholic principle… 

Nevertheless, we’ll continue to pray for our Beloved Pope Francis, despite His Holiness’ love of deception, schism, division, confusion, heresy, scandal, perversion, etc., which will be to His Holiness’ eternal disgrace if no change takes place in His Humble and Merciful Heart before His Holiness meets the Supreme Judge of all. And we, faithful Catholics, must continue with our daily living as Catholics did in the old Catholic days, when Rome was unequivocally “the center and organ of unity,” when Rome’s guidance was “known, respected, and universally accepted.” This current trend of exchanging the teachings of Christ for communist ideas, corruption of morals, and pagan practices does not sit well with us … given that we keep in mind constantly what Galatians 6:7 tells us: “Be not deceived, God is not mocked.”

What an interesting Pontificate this is!

Pope Paul VI & Pope Francis

Magnum damnum factum est

†

          
          It is with great sadness of heart and deep mourning of spirit that we read the news that Pope Paul VI will be added to the catalogue of Saints on Sunday, October 14, 2018 by Pope Francis, the humblest of the Supreme Pontiffs in the Church of the God of Surprises.

          How can this act not be seen by God’s children as a great betrayal of all the Catholic Church has always held sacred and dear for the edification of Her members? To offer as a good example a man who betrayed almost every aspect of Catholic life as known up to his Pontificate is a tremendous scandal to faithful and unfaithful Catholics, as well as to non-Christians. One might even say that it could be a scandal to the fallen angels and their leader, but even belief in such beings has become a thing of the past, in no small part due to the horrible Pontificate of Paul VI.

          What will Paul VI be venerated for? For his unwillingness to clearly teach, correct, and guide the flock of Christ? For his openness to freemasonry and communism? Will we have to burn incense before the statue of that Vicar of Christ who refused to behave as such, and instead shamefully betrayed Cardinal Mindszenty in his (and the Church’s) fight against the communist regime in Hungary? Will he be venerated for the irresistible need he had to eliminate everything and anything Roman in the life of the Church, especially in Her liturgy? For his Calvinistic inclinations? For putting the materialistic needs of man before his observance of God’s commandments? For trying to reinvent a Christianity “unpinned from the Cross” that emphasized human rather than supernatural means and dimensions, which caused many to lose their faith?

          Will Paul VI’s Protestant desire to dismantle the Holy Sanctuary of God be held as an example to follow? Will we be encouraged to embrace his “revisions,” which deformed Catholic worship with a “pertinacious anti-Roman spirit” causing deep consternation among the sheep of Christ? Would we be enthusiastically animated to praise and exult Paul VI’s iconoclastic fury for reforming everything through destruction and mutilation of anything (Roman) that was deemed "offensive" to Protestants, Heretics, and Schismatics, in particular the Latin language, the Sacred Roman Canon, and immemorial rites and ceremonies?
          Will we be expected to continue implementing innovations that he forcefully promulgated, which gave way to numberless dogmatic, religious, moral, and liturgical aberrations that gave the world the impression that the Catholic Church is simply a religion among many, that it was not founded by God Himself for the salvation of souls? How can we, with a truly Catholic spirit, celebrate and extol a pontificate that brought ruin upon the unity, concord, faith, and devotion of God’s little ones?

REVIEW: The Dictator Pope

For those who may want to know what people have to say about "The Dictator Pope" -- A Review by Mr. Stuart Chessman (http://sthughofcluny.org/2018/01/the-dictator-pope.html).

 

************

 

 

The Dictator Pope
By “Marcantonio Colonna”

The Dictator Pope hit our Kindles (it’s not yet in hard copy) just in time for Christmas. I can tell you, after a quick read, that it’s the best Vatican expose since 1999’s Gone with the Wind in the Vatican by “I Millenari” (indeed, some of the targets in the curia seem to be the same in both these works). But the focus of the Dictator Pope greatly differs from that work. It concentrates not so much on inside “revelations” but on the career, background and circumstances on one individual – namely, Pope Francis. It seeks to deepen our understanding of what is already known, to provide background and to “connect the dots” among people and policies.

The Dictator Pope is streamlined, succinct and well written. Here and there (such as in his discussion of the situation of the Knights of Malta) our author – “Marcantonio Colonna” – does seem to display specific knowledge beyond what has been published previously. Yet, as I noted, this book does not emphasize journalistic “leaks.” We indeed are told Pope Francis directed the contribution of funds to the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. But does that supposed fact have any significance given what we already know about the media support, both direct and indirect, given to the Democratic Party by Francis – surely of incomparably greater value to Hillary than any money Francis could put on the table?

For several reasons the Dictator Pope strikes me as reliable. For one thing, Colonna’s description of Jorge Bergoglio’s style and modus operandi agrees very well with what I have been told by those with more direct knowledge than I possess of his doings in both Rome and Argentina. It also corresponds to certain reports that have appeared now and then in the European – never the English language – mainstream press. Curiously, some of these unflattering accounts are found in sources – like the German media – otherwise entirely aligned with Bergoglio.

Marcantonio Colonna shows the stuff of a true historian in creating a narrative of the Bergoglio years and offering his judgment on what he describes. Instead of nonsense about “God’s choice,” the colorful account of the Dictator Pope has the ring of truth: the relentless rise to the top of an ambitious and manipulative man, the making of strategic alliances and political concessions leading to the acquisition of the papacy and the imposition of the Pope’s personal agenda, the ruthless elimination of real or imaginary enemies, the advancement of unworthy and corrupt favorites. The Vatican as described in this work reminds us of the stories of the Renaissance papacy told in the great histories of Leopold von Ranke and Ludwig von Pastor. Indeed, Marcantonio Colonna himself draws comparisons between Pope Francis and certain ruthlessly ambitious, often megalomaniac and, in one or two cases, perhaps even insane popes of the 14th – 17th centuries, as so well described by his illustrious predecessors.

This portrait of Pope Francis outlined in the Dictator Pope, though, requires some qualification. For one thing, the popes of the past to whom Colonna compares Francis may have been lacking in one or more – or many – of the Christian virtues ( and often in sound judgment as well ) but they were strong characters who battled against and among other powerful rival families and factions within the Church and with the great secular kingdoms and principalities of their day. Francis only has to contend with the bureaucratic ninnies of the post – Vatican II Catholic hierarchy. Regarding today’s secular powers – like the news media – Francis pursues a policy of obsequious and abject submission. For, without exception, the policies of Francis are those of the Western secular establishment from whose support Francis derives all his power.

 

Furthermore, these notorious popes of the past showed rare taste in art and culture. I don’t know what the reign of Francis has to offer in comparison – a homoerotic nativity scene or one of Cardinal Ravasi’s exhibits? And whatever else they were doing, the popes of the Renaissance also devoted great personal attention to the liturgy – the celebration of the papal ceremonial was a major attraction of that period. Pope Francis either disregards the liturgy altogether or “repurposes” it for political statements.

I also must take issue with Colonna’s unduly restrictive characterization of significance of the papacy of Francis. For if Francis were simply one more unscrupulous, ambitious and opportunistic prelate – like Alexander VI – we could consider him simply a regrettable but ultimately remediable failure of the papal election process. But the added dimension of Francis’s papacy is his clear ideological commitment to Catholic progressivism. Whether that is simply a cynical means to the acquisition of power (as Colonna implies) or is a matter of personal conviction is irrelevant  – it is by now an unalterable aspect of his character.  Whatever the origin of his beliefs may be,  Pope Francis is a man with a mission to “unleash” and “make irreversible” the Vatican II – to make permanent what has been done since 1962-65  and to implement further radical changes in Catholic liturgy, morality and theology.  And the policies of Pope Francis are not a bolt from the blue, but the logical culmination of the disastrous trends in theology, morality, liturgy and government in the Catholic Church that have been allowed to develop and fester since 1962-65. 

 Pope Francis’s progressive agenda involves not just the completion of a revolution within the Church but the final, absolute subjection of the Church to the dominant secular powers of 21st century.

Marcantonio Colonna’s narrative helps us to see the current situation in the Church more clearly. And a clear view of what’s going on is always a major first step forward towards reform. The response of the Vatican to this book, we hear, is a search for the author’s identity. For the rest of us, Dictator Pope is a challenge: to reflect, to pray and to take action.

Another day, another dubium, another petition, another correction, another letter!

Good Lord! The reigning Supreme Pontiff does seem to have a lot of reading (and explaining) to do! But His Holiness certainly should not do it as part of those weird, unnecessary, and untraditional "interviews" that simply make things worse!

************

Faithful to true doctrine, not to erring pastors

• Pledge of fidelity
• Signatories
• Contact
• English
• Italiano

Scroll down to content

Pledge of fidelity

FAITHFUL TO TRUE DOCTRINE, NOT TO ERRING PASTORS

Pledge of fidelity to the authentic teaching of the Church by pro-life and pro-family leaders

The number of innocent children killed by abortion during the last century is greater than that of all the human beings who have died in all the wars in recorded history. The last fifty years have witnessed a continual escalation in attacks on the structure of the family as designed and willed by God, which provides the best environment for human flourishing, and, especially, for the education and formation of children. Divorce, contraception, acceptance of homosexual acts and unions, and the spread of “gender ideology” have all done immeasurable damage to the family, and its most vulnerable members.

 

Over the last fifty years the pro-life and pro-family movement has grown in both size and scope in order to confront these grave evils, which threaten both the temporal and eternal good of mankind. Our movement comprises men and women of good will from a wide variety of religious backgrounds. We are brought together in our defence of the family, and of the most vulnerable of our brothers and sisters, through obedience to the natural law, which is written on all our hearts (cf. Rm 2:15). However, throughout this last half century the pro-life and pro-family movement has relied in a particular way on the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church, which affirms the moral law with the greatest clarity.

 

It is therefore with great sorrow that during recent years we have witnessed doctrinal and moral clarity, on issues relating to the protection of human life and the family, increasingly being replaced by ambiguity, and even by doctrines directly contrary to the teaching of Christ and the precepts of the natural law.

 

A Filial Appeal, delivered to Pope Francis in September 2015, was signed by around 900,000 people from all over the world and a “Declaration of fidelity to the unchangeable teaching of the Church on matrimony” was presented in 2016. On 19 September 2016 four cardinals submitted five dubia to Pope Francis, and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, asking for the clarification of certain points of doctrine in the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. In June 2017, the cardinals made public their request for an audience, which had been presented to the Pope by Cardinal Carlo Caffarra on 25 April 2017, but which, like the dubia, had received no response. On 23 September 2017 a Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis was issued by 62 Catholic theologians and academics “on account of the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia and by other words, deeds and omissions” of Pope Francis. By 4 November 2017, 250 theologians, priests, professors and scholars of all nationalities had pledged their support to the Correctio. The disorder within the Church is increasing, as witnessed by a letter recently sent to Pope Francis by a prominent theologian, which, the author stated, was prompted by “turmoil within the Church today, a chaos and an uncertainty that I felt Pope Francis had himself caused.” ¹

 

As Catholic pro-life and pro-family leaders, we are obliged to highlight numerous additional statements and actions, which have had a particularly damaging impact on our work for the protection of unborn children and the family in recent years. Representative examples include:

• statements and actions which contradict the Church’s teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraceptive acts ²;
• statements and actions which contradict the Church’s teaching on the nature of marriage and the intrinsic evil of sexual acts outside the union of marriage ³;
• the approval of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, which effectively call for member states to achieve universal access to abortion, contraception and sex education by 2030 ⁴;
• the approach adopted towards sex education, particularly in chapter 7 of Amoris Laetitia and in The Meeting Point programme produced by the Pontifical Council for the Family ⁵.

As leaders within the pro-life and pro-family movement, or leaders of lay movements concerned with the defence and diffusion of Catholic moral and social teaching, we have witnessed first-hand the harm and confusion caused by such teaching and actions. In order to fulfil our responsibilities to those whom we have pledged to protect, in particular unborn children and those made especially vulnerable by the breakdown of the family, we must provide clarity on our position on these issues. We must also provide leadership to those within our movement who look to us for guidance and advice.

 

For this reason, we wish to make clear our unchanging adherence to the fundamental moral positions outlined below:

• there exist certain acts which are intrinsically evil and which it is always forbidden to commit ⁶;
• the direct killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral; consequently, abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are intrinsically evil acts ⁷;
• marriage is the exclusive and indissoluble union of one man and one woman; all sexual acts outside of marriage, including in all forms of non-marital union, are intrinsically evil and gravely injurious to individuals and to society ⁸;
• adultery is a grave sin, and those who live in adultery cannot be admitted to the sacraments of Penance and Holy Communion, until such time as they repent and amend their lives ⁹;
• parents are the primary educators of their children, and the provision of sex education must be undertaken by parents or, in certain circumstances, “in educational centres chosen and controlled by them”¹⁰;
• the separation of the procreative and unitive ends of the sexual act by contraceptive methods is intrinsically evil and has devastating consequences for the family, for society and for the Church ¹¹;
• methods of artificial reproduction are gravely immoral as they separate procreation from the sexual act and, in the great majority of cases, lead directly to the destruction of human life in its earliest stages ¹²;
• there are only two sexes, male and female, each of which possesses the complementary characteristics and differences that are proper to them ¹³;
• homosexual acts are intrinsically evil, and no form of union between persons of the same sex can be approved in any way ¹⁴.

As Catholic pro-life and pro-family leaders we must remain faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has entrusted the deposit of faith to his Church. We “are obliged to yield to God the revealer full submission of intellect and will by faith.”¹⁵ We fully assent to all those things “which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.”¹⁶

 

We pledge our full obedience to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in the legitimate exercise of its authority. However, nothing will ever persuade us, or compel us, to abandon or contradict any article of the Catholic faith or any truth definitively established. If there is any conflict between the words and acts of any member of the hierarchy, even the pope, and the doctrine that the Church has always taught, we will remain faithful to the perennial teaching of the Church. If we were to depart from the Catholic faith, we would depart from Jesus Christ, to Whom we wish to be united for all eternity.

We, the undersigned, pledge that we will continue to teach and propagate the above moral principles, and every other authentic teaching of the Catholic Church, and will never, for any reason, depart from them.

 

12th December, 2017
Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe

1. “Fr. Thomas G. Weinandy explains his critical letter to Pope Francis”, Catholic World Report, 1 November 2017, http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/11/01/fr-thomas-g-weinandy-explains-his-critical-letter-to-pope-francis/.
2. “On the ‘lesser evil,’ avoiding pregnancy, we are speaking in terms of the conflict between the fifth and sixth commandment. Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape. Don’t confuse the evil of avoiding pregnancy by itself, with abortion. Abortion is not a theological problem, it is a human problem, it is a medical problem. You kill one person to save another, in the best case scenario. Or to live comfortably, no?  It’s against the Hippocratic oaths doctors must take. It is an evil in and of itself, but it is not a religious evil in the beginning, no, it’s a human evil. Then obviously, as with every human evil, each killing is condemned. On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, or in the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear.” “Full text of Pope Francis’ in-flight interview from Mexico to Rome”, Catholic News Agency, 18 February 2016, https://www.catholicnewsag ency.com/news/full-text-of-pope-francis-in-flight-interview-from-mexico-to-rome-85821. Fr Federic Lombardi, the Holy See’s spokesman, Fr Lombardi, confirmed the meaning of the pope’s words the following day: “Allora il contraccettivo o il preservativo, in casi di particolare emergenza e gravità, possono anche essere oggetto di un discernimento di coscienza serio. Questo dice il Papa.” “P. Lombardi commenta i temi affrontati dal Papa con i giornalisti”, Radio Vaticana, 19 February 2016, https://goo.gl/88XpWd. Translation: “The contraceptive or condom, in particular cases of emergency or gravity, could be the object of discernment in a serious case of conscience. This is what the Pope said.”
3. “In the Argentine countryside, in the Northeastern region, there is a superstition: that couples have a child, they live together. In the countryside this happens. Then, when the child must go to school, they have a civil marriage. And then, as grandparents, they have a religious marriage. It is a superstition, because they say that having a religious wedding straight away scares the husband! We must also fight against these superstitions. Yet really, I say that I have seen a great deal of fidelity in these cohabiting couples, a great deal of fidelity; and I am certain that this is a true marriage, they have the grace of matrimony, precisely because of the fidelity that they have. But there are local superstitions.” “Address of His Holiness Pope Francis at the opening of the pastoral congress of the Diocese of Rome”, 16 June 2016, https://goo.gl/cLLo2q. During this congress Pope Francis also claimed that “a great majority” of Catholic marriages are invalid. The transcript was later altered, at the request of the pope, to read “a part”. Fr Lombardi commented: “When it’s a matter of topics of a certain importance, the revised text is always submitted to the pope himself. This is what happened in this case, thus the published text was expressly approved by the pope.” “Updated: Most Marriages Today Are Invalid, Pope Francis Suggests”, National Catholic Register, 17 June 2016. 
4. “I am gratified that in September 2015 the nations of the world adopted the Sustainable Development Goals, and that, in December 2015, they approved the Paris Agreement on climate change.” “Message of His Holiness Pope Francis for the celebration of the world day of prayer for the care of creation”, 1 September 2016, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/pont-messages/2016/documents/papa-francesco_20160901_messaggio-giornata-cura-creato.html. Further details about the Holy See’s support for the SDGS, and the manner in which the SDGs call for abortion, contraception and sex education see: “The impact of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals on children and the family, and their endorsement by the Holy See”, Voice of the Family, http://voiceofthefamily.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Impact-of-the-United-Nations-Sustainable-Development-Goals22-2-17.pdf.
5. “The Meeting Point: project for affective and sexual formation”, Pontifical Council for the Family, http://www.educazioneaffettiva.org/?lang=en
6. Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, 6 August 1993, No. 52. Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 25 March 1995, No. 67.
7. Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, No. 57
8. Canons and Decrees of the Twenty Fourth Session of the Council of Trent, Promulgated 11 November 1563; Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum Divinae, 10 February 1880; Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 31 December 1930.
9. Pope John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, 22 November 1981, No. 84; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the Admission to Holy Communion of the Faithful who are Divorced and Remarried, 4 September 1994; Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration concerning the Admission to Holy Communion of the Faithful who are Divorced and Remarried, 24 June 2000.
10. Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, 31 December 1929; Pope John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio; Pontifical Council for the Family, The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, 8 December 1995.
11. Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii; Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 25 July 1968.
12. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae, 22 February 1987; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitatis Personae, 8 September 2008
13. Pope Benedict XVI, Christmas Address to the Roman Curia, 21 December 2012
14. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, 1 October 1986; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 3 June 2003.
15. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Ch. 3.1.
16. Ibid, Ch. 3.8.

Fidelitypledge.com | © 2017

New Institute on Marriage & Family

The Germans --always those Germans-- are trying to change unchangeable Church Doctrine ... and we can be sure that they feel that their new "Martin Luther" opportunity will do the trick ... but it didn't work 500 years ago, and it will not work now.

For someone who claims to dislike authoritarianism and who wants to "decentralize" authority in the Church, the Holy Father's actions do not seem to comply with that "dislike" -- and this twenty-second (22nd) motu proprio (in only 4 years!) is good proof that His Holiness has not been as sincere in that as His Holiness would have us believe!

And now, these Germans, with the full support and consent of His Holiness, will go after Humanae Vitae -- arguably the only good and redeeming thing that Pope Paul VI achieved in his horrible pontificate! (In everything else --liturgical chaos, unending confusion, embarrassing ecumenical disasters, shameful scandals, etc., and, particularly, the appalling manner in which he dealt with the great Cardinal Mindszenty's heroic opposition to Communism--, Paul VI's pontificate was a complete disaster).

It's just as well; the faster things move, the better it will be in the end because this type of scandalous betrayal of Catholic Doctrine and Tradition can only go so far.

"... [W]ithin the sphere of the Truth of God, within the sphere of the unity and discipline of God’s Kingdom, there is no choice for the Catholic Church but mastery or martyrdom."

 

 

***

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-francis-sets-up-new-john-paul-ii-institute-on-marriage-and-family

***

 

(L’Osservatore Romano)

Blogs  |  Sep. 19, 2017

 

Pope Francis Sets Up New John Paul II Institute on Marriage and Family

 

The new entity, issued by papal decree, replaces the previous institute founded by John Paul II in 1981. Its aim is to carry forward the teaching of Amoris Laetitia and make it irreversible.

Edward Pentin 

 

The Vatican announced today that Pope Francis has established a new Pontifical John Paul II institute for “Marriage and Family Sciences” to replace the previous academic institution founded by John Paul in 1981.

 

In an apostolic letter Summa Familiae Cura issued motu proprio and published Sept. 19, the Vatican said the new entity — whose name will be the Pontifical John Paul II Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences — is being established to carry forward the work of the two recent Synods of Bishops and the apostolic exhortation that came from those meetings, Amoris Laetitia.

 

The Pope notes the important work carried out by the original institute, called the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family, which was founded in the wake of the 1980 Synod on the Family.

 

Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, who died Sept. 6, was the founding president of that Institute. As a signatory to the dubia given to Pope Francis exactly a year ago today, he had serious concerns about Amoris Laetitia, interpretations of which he found incompatible with John Paul II's teachings and the magisterium of the Church. 

 

But Pope Francis, who signed Summa Familiae Cura in Colombia just two days after Cardinal Caffarra’s passing, writes that the family synods of 2014 and 2015 have brought a renewed awareness of “the new pastoral challenges to which the Christian community is called to respond.”

Contemporary anthropological and cultural changes, the Pope continues, require “a diversified and analytical approach” which cannot be “limited to pastoral and missionary practices” of the past. Instead, he says, we must be able to interpret our faith in a context in which individuals are less supported than before as they deal with the complex realities of family life. Faithful to the teachings of Christ, the Pope continues, it is important to explore these “lights and shadows of family life” with realism, wisdom and love.

Like its predecessor, the new institute will continue to work as part of the Pontifical Lateran University. It will also be closely connected to the Holy See through the Congregation for Catholic Education, the Pontifical Academy for Life and the new Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life.

The institute, which comes into effect immediately, will offer students courses leading to a diploma, a license and a doctorate in marriage and family sciences.

In an interview with Vatican Radio’s Italian edition, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the institute’s grand chancellor, said the “great insight” of John Paul II “asks to be enlarged and enriched,” adding that it “finds its realization” in the text of Amoris Laetitia.

“Pope Francis asks that the reality of families in their concreteness… can be protagonists of a renewal in the Church and in society,” Archbishop Paglia added.

He said he wished to “underline” this “anthropological aspect” which “has been instituted through a new Chair called Gaudium et Spes whose task is to investigate, propose, dialogue with all the human sciences, because the family today rediscovers its vocation not in the abstract.”

 

He said a “new reflection” is needed and that the new institute will study better and in a more robust fashion areas such as family history and family law. And he added it will be “essential” to enlarge the library and to “revisit” the other John Paul II institutes on marriage and the family on five continents, “because the two celebrated synods [on the family] do not remain a written text without the responsibility to deepen it theologically, scientifically and pastorally.”

 

Archbishop Paglia insists it will strengthen the theological aspects of the Institute by better underlining the biblical and dogmatic pastoral dimension. He also said the word "science" is used to denote a "much broader dialogue with the great challenges of the contemporary world, and a deepening of the anthropological perspective."

 

Informed sources say the emphasis on human sciences effectively means a greater focus on psychology, sociology, pedagogy, using the scientific method, medicine, and bioethics — in other words, putting more weight on what is quantifiable regarding the human person. The institute has always had a scientific approach and the juridical statutes of the Institute state that three goals of the method are: didactic, scientific and pastoral, but the concern is that greater emphasis on human sciences will come at the expense of theology and philosophy.

 

Undermining St. John Paul’s Teaching?

Today’s announcement comes after significant changes at the Institute, including the appointments last year of Archbishop Paglia as grand chancellor, and Msgr. Pierangelo Sequeri, as dean.

 

Both are known to support a much criticized interpretation of Amoris Laetitia which would allow some remarried divorcees to receive Holy Communion, as well as being supportive of a softening of the teaching of Paul VI’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae, which reaffirmed the Church’s ban on artificial contraception.

 

Scholars also within the John Paul II Institute itself have criticized both stances as diametrically opposed to the teachings of St. John Paul II.

 

Not surprisingly, the John Paul II Institute became a thorn in the side of those pushing for such changes, as became clear throughout the synods of the family when some of the Institute’s professors wrote numerous books resisting attempts by synod participants to allow remarried divorcees or those living in other irregular unions to receive Holy Communion (although the professors argued, in a book published earlier this year, that Amoris Laetitia could be read in continuity with the traditional teaching of the Church). 

 

These were in contrast to such attempts to weaken the Church’s teaching, such as the “shadow synod” of May 2015, partly organized by Msgr. Sequeri and attended by recently appointed members of the Pontifical Academy for Life headed by Archbishop Paglia.

 

The Institute’s publications, on the other hand, were widely seen as faithful interpretations of John Paul II’s teachings, drawing largely on his 1981 apostolic exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, and his 1993 encyclical on the Church’s moral teaching, Veritatis Splendor.

 

The dubia, five questions Cardinal Caffarra and three other cardinals sent to the Pope last year to clarify ambiguous passages of Amoris Laetitia, have also yet to be answered, pointing to unresolved problems with the apostolic exhortation.

 

This latest significant development is therefore being viewed in Rome as a further step to removing the obstacles presented by the teachings of St. John Paul II, paving the way for more changes. One of those may involve a reinterpretation of Humanae Vitae, timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the document next year.  St. John Paul II’s magisterium has long been seen as the main bulwark against moves by dissenting theologians to weaken the teaching of the encyclical.

 

Concerns about today’s announcement are further heightened by reasons used to set up the new Institute: to interpret the faith in a context that takes into account “complex realities” and not “limited to pastoral and missionary practices” of the past. Such reasons closely resemble the controversial approaches used in interpreting Amoris Laetitia and which also are likely to be employed in any re-interpretation of Humanae Vitae.

 

But until the new statutes are published, it won’t be clear if there is a rupture with John Paul II’s teaching and the institute that preceded it, or if there is in fact continuity.

 

However, the signs of a break are there. The institute’s new leadership has already been trying to strengthen it by making the faculties grow and helping the institution to become more prestigious. That way it attracts professors and students of different perspectives, but it’s an approach which, while welcomed, is seen by some in the Institute as a further subtle attempt to undermine John Paul’s teaching by introducing disparate views, out of sync with his magisterium.

 

Meanwhile, the Register has learned via reliable sources that members of the German episcopate have recently grown frustrated with the pace of Francis’ reform and have been exerting pressure on the Pope to step up the pace — hence today’s motu proprio, and Magnum Principium, issued last week on liturgical translations. More importantly, they are said to be anxious that the reforms won’t be reversed by a future pope and so want them, as far as possible, set in stone, possibly by means of an Apostolic Constitution.

 

Pope Francis himself has said privately that he wants to be sure his reforms are irreversible, a view shared by one of his closest confidants. 

 

This article has been updated to include information on the previous institute's scientific approach.

Mastery or Martyrdom

Here is an article from Crisis Magazine that may be of interest to some: Metaphysical Mischief:The Bergoglio Gloss by James Patrick.

We always keep in mind the following truth that history has confirmed time and time again:

“In dealing with the world, the Church says: ‘All things of the world are yours, in all things pertaining to you, in all that is temporal, we are submissive; we are your subjects, we love to obey. But within the sphere of the Truth of God, within the sphere of the unity and discipline of God’s Kingdom, there is no choice for the Catholic Church but mastery or martyrdom.’”

~The Glories of the Catholic Church (Volume II).

************

Metaphysical Mischief: The Bergoglio Gloss

James Patrick

   

Every theology necessarily incorporates a philosophy, for there will always be a natural way of thinking that under-girds the exposition of revelation. Like everyman, popes have philosophies, and although it is not the business of a pope to advocate any philosophy, the philosophy every pope presupposes will influence his representation of the Catholic faith and his government of the Church. John Paul II is often cited as an exponent of Thomism as interpreted through the lens of the phenomenology of Husserl. Benedict XVI is steeped in the Augustinian tradition, which carries with it certain themes borrowed from Plato, but which in the end was not too different from the Thomism of John Paul II, both teaching that human intellect could grasp transcendent ideas. Like his mentor Saint Augustine, Benedict has spent much effort explaining the relation between faith and reason. Famously, Benedict cited the rejection of reason as the great defect of Islamic thought.

Philosophy is common sense raised to the level of reflection, and nothing in the thought of John Paul II or Benedict challenges reason, rather the opposite, for reason itself is elevated in their teaching of the faith. But then comes Pope Francis who offers what seems to be yet another gloss on the Catholic faith. The pope does not deny the divinity of Christ or the necessity of the sacraments; his reiteration of the Divine Mercy and exhortation to solidarity in matters political and economic have won broad approval. But something that seems alien is at work in his teaching, and that is because he accepts, perhaps deliberately, perhaps unwittingly, the intellectual backwash of the Enlightenment as the philosophical basis of his teaching and particularly of his moral theology. He is at heart a romantic, and sympathy will always trump thought.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was an eighteenth-century French critic and philosopher whose thought has permeated the West. It was a theme of his philosophy that man although naturally innocent had been corrupted by the intrusion of law and tradition, which, rather than informing and elevating, always restricted and deformed. Pope Francis has not been known to advance a doctrine of original innocence, but his persistent theme that the mission of the Church is misrepresented by defenders of the tradition, whom he unfailingly associates with the Christ-denying Pharisees, who are soul-damaging rigorists, is an idea that, while it may have other immediate sources, can certainly be traced, by however circuitous a route, to Rousseau.

It is probably unlikely that Francis has read the turgid philosophy of the famous Prussian G. W. F. Hegel who lived a generation after Rousseau, but he is arguably a disciple. Hegel’s Lectures on the Philosophy of History were among the most popular philosophical sources of the nineteenth century, and if few had read the book there were many who knew the Hegelian slogan: “Whatever is, is right.” For Hegel, history was a process through which reason exhausts itself in events and world-historical persons. The truth of things is not known by the light of intellect or by the application of reason in its transcendent character but by what happens in history. In Evangelii Gaudium, Francis notes that there is always a tension between reality and ideas. But then he writes: “Reality is greater than ideas. This calls for rejecting the various means of masking reality: angelic forms of purity, dictatorships of relativism, empty rhetoric, objectives more ideal than real, brands of ahistorical fundamentalism, ethical systems bereft of kindness, intellectual discourse bereft of wisdom” (231).

 

At first sight this list seems unexceptionable, but at the same time one may see in it the shadow of the Hegelian triumph of whatever is over thought. One of its terms is a nod to Benedict’s condemnation of the tyranny of relativism. The reference to angelic purity is puzzling. Does it refer to a dedicated pursuit of holiness or to a destructive scrupulosity? There are commonplaces: the unexceptionable rejection of empty rhetoric and unwise intellectual discourse. But then what is “ahistorical fundamentalism”? In this context fundamentalism is a highly charged word. Ahistorical fundamentalism must be a system of rigorist moral precept that does not take into account what actually happens. However, it is the work of moral precepts not to take into account what may be done at any one time or place but instead to lift up, guide, and form.

In his introduction to his translation of Plato’s Dialogues Benjamin Jowett, the fabled president of Balliol College, Oxford, wrote: “The universal is prior to the particular; the law conditions the event, the ideal regulates the actual. Knowledge consists in the discernment of a general pattern which the particular thing embodies, virtue consists of regulation of impulse according to eternal standards.” Jowett was writing of Plato, but, broadly. Every Christian philosopher, including the modern popes, would subscribe to Jowett’s summary as the presupposition of thought and morality.

When Saint Thomas asks where truth resides, he answers that it resides in the mind and only secondarily in things. A historical or scientific account may derive truth from what happens in the world by explaining events under a generalization, but reality remains unintelligible without ideas, and in that sense ideas are always more important than reality. And also with theological truth and moral precepts. And so also with the exercise of authority. The attempt to rule without reference to tradition or any other transcendent rational ground, or even the regulative claims of the past, however benign the results may or may not accidentally be, will result in a government that rests upon unmoderated will, difficult in principle to distinguish from a vernacular Marxism.

The attempt to derive moral guidance from reality, from how mankind behaves, from the sorry story of our aspirations and failures, will make every teaching of the Church uncertain, as has Amoris Laetitia in the opinion of many. An editorial writer in the Guardian has said that Francis has changed the Church forever from a rule-bound institution to an instinctive Church. Good luck with your instincts. The world is full of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics who think it would be good to receive the body and blood of Christ. If their instincts say they are at peace with God, why not? The vast majority of Catholics don’t follow Humanae Vitae anyhow so, as Francis has written, Humanae Vitae must be revisited. The teaching of the Church should be accommodated to what is actually happening. Rigorists, says Francis, do not go with the flow of life. Ah, Hegel.

Sed contra. Historically, it has been the role of the teaching Church, in the name of Christ, never to accommodate itself to the ways of the world, but to ask of mankind the impossible, proposing the heroic and offering unstinting forgiveness for failure. It has been unsympathetic to claims that human nature must be treated gently. “In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted unto blood” (Heb. 12:4). It has viewed with horror the deliberate defection of one will from obedience to God. Cardinal Newman wrote that it would be better for millions to die in pain and poverty than for one soul knowingly to commit a venial sin, that, he said, was merely a preamble to the Gospel just as “Whereas” might be to an act of Parliament. To this has been appended the fact of the sacrifice of Christ, the aid of the sacraments and the offer of forgiveness. The requirement that we love God most is ideal, and it will be realized in his elect. Without this high calling, mercy is the answer to a question that has not been asked.