Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Cardinal Schönborn: “All the [Dubia] Questions Can Be Answered ‘Yes'”

On Thursday, July 13, Cardinal Cristoph Schönborn — the pope’s chosen interpreter and advocate for his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia addressed an audience at the “Let’s Talk Family: Let’s Be Family” conference in Ireland in anticipation of the World Meeting of Families in Dublin next year. According to Greg Daly of The Irish Catholic, Schönborn opened his talk by assuring those in attendance that both the exhortation and the pope responsible for it are Catholic:

Later, Daly tweeted that Schönborn said that all of the dubia questions can be answered with a “yes”:

If you don’t recall what the answers are supposed to be, let me remind you why this is such a problematic statement:

The Roman Pontiff, whom St. Catherine of Siena famously referred to as “Our Sweet Christ on Earth”, also has the power to calm the raging storm now buffeting the Barque of Peter. It is not the battering of wind and waves that endangers the vessel, but confusion, error, and doubt — and worse, a rapidly metastasizing schism, spreading like a deadly poison throughout the Mystical Body of Christ.

When it comes to the self-made crisis in the Church — the mounting battle over marriage, divorce, remarriage, sacraments for those in objective grave sin, and the question of the existence of objective sin itself — our Holy Father, like the very Christ he is duty-bound to serve, has at his disposal five simple words that would pacify the tempest:

“No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.”

These are, of course, the only answers that a Catholic could ever give to the dubia. There are no other options. No exceptions. No pastoral discernment. No need for verbosity or for yet more nuance.

Distilled down to a crudely simple form, the dubia are essentially as follows:

  1. Can the divorced and remarried who are still engaged in a sexual relationship receive absolution and communion without a change of life?  
  2. Do absolute moral norms still exist?
  3. Does objective grave sin still exist?  
  4. Is the teaching still valid that however much circumstances may lessen an individual’s guilt, those circumstances cannot change an intrinsically evil act into a subjectively good act?
  5. Does the Church’s teaching that an appeal to conscience cannot overcome absolute moral norms still hold true?

These five questions are so simple, their answers so obvious, they require no more than 30 seconds of Francis’ time. (If it would make things easier, the five words could be spoken from the pressurized cabin of an airplane, an environment that seems to stimulate papal loquacity.)

So let’s examine that one “no” in a list of “yeses”. The full question as presented by the dubia cardinals was as follows:

It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?

My distilled and simplified summary is, again:

“Can the divorced and remarried who are still engaged in a sexual relationship receive absolution and communion without a change of life?”

And Cardinal Schönborn — chosen for the job of explaining the exhortation by the pope himself — says that the answer to this question is yes.

The Austrian cardinal also had this to say about same-sex couples:

“Favouring the family does not mean disfavouring other forms of life – even those living in a same-sex partnership need their families”.

This is not the first time he has spoken favorably of unions that involve one of the sins that “cries out to heaven for vengeance”. In 2015, the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna made shocking statements about such unions:

On the issue of how the Church talks about gays and lesbians, Schönborn also has been a champion of more inclusive approach.

“The Church should not look in the bedroom first, but in the dining room!” he said in a September 2015 interview with Civiltà Cattolica, a Jesuit-run journal in Rome.

“We can and we must respect the decision to form a union with a person of the same sex, [and] to seek means under civil law to protect their living together with laws to ensure such protection,” he said in that interview.

Schönborn spoke of a gay friend who, after multiple temporary relationships, now has a stable partner.

“They share a life, they share their joys and sufferings, they help one another,” he said. “It must be recognized that this person took an important step for his own good and the good of others, even though it certainly is not a situation the Church can consider ‘regular’.”

During the 2014 synod, Schönborn also argued that the Church can find positive moral elements in other non-traditional relationships, such as cohabitation outside marriage.

In 2016, Schönborn’s Vienna Cathedral bulletin positively depicted a homosexual couple with an adopted son. Schönborn has also stated publicly that if his divorced mother had remarried, he and his siblings would have understood it.

During his talk Schönbornn also took aim at the dubia Cardinals:

Asked about the reception of Amoris Laetitia within the Church and the “dubia” – a series of questions raised by four cardinals to clear up confusion – Cardinal Schönborn said the “process of reception is a long process” and needs negotiation and discussion.

But he also criticised the cardinals over the manner in which they raised their concerns. “That cardinals, who should be the closest collaborators of the pope, try to force him and put pressure on him to give a public response to their publicised letter is absolutely inconvenient behaviour,” he said.

He told journalists: “I fear those who have rapid, clear answers in politics and economy and also in religion. Rigorists and laxists have clear and rapid answers, but they fail to look at life. The rigorist avoids the effort of discernment, of looking closely at reality. The laxist lets everything possible go, and there is no discernment. They are the same but opposite.”

“St Gregory the Great said the art of the pastoral accompaniment is the art of discernment. It is an art and it needs training,” he added.

No reference was given as to where in his body of teachings Catholics could find St. Gregory’s admonition on “the art of pastoral accompaniment”.

279 thoughts on “Cardinal Schönborn: “All the [Dubia] Questions Can Be Answered ‘Yes'””

  1. Lord, please forgive our leaders. Even though they know what they are doing, please have mercy on them.

    And if it’s not too much trouble, can Francis and his leftist gang have an early retirement so we can get a true Catholic Shepherd on the seat of Peter once again?

    • With nearly 40 percent of the papabile cardinals made by pope Francis, hardly without the Devine Intervention!

    • Not forgiveness without conversion.

      The 5th decade of my daily rosary I devote to upholding the Deposit of Faith by Church members, and that if their hearts cannot accept the Truth, then they be removed, in one way or another: 1)pope (s), 2)cardinals, 3)bishops, 4)priests, 5)nuns, 6)deacons/monks/brothers, 7)Catholic education, 8)Catholic media, 9)the laity, 10)all Catholics stand firm so that the world can see the Truth to enter the Church and thereby save their souls

  2. I remember the day when Schonborne was Catholic. Now he has been overcome with society and the Pope’s errors. Sad. He once was a great and reliable cardinal.

      • A friend of mine who is a DRE (or DEC as they call them now I guess; Director of Evangelization and Catechesis) at a very troubled parish run by an order asked me last year to teach a class for 10th-12th graders on the Youcat. He wanted to do the catechism but the pastor thought that would be too hard so they settled on the Youcat. It was… interesting. From a very high level view it’s alright… but get into the specific “answers” and you start getting problems. I mostly just looked at what the section was supposed to be on (prayer, sacraments, moral life, etc.) and just taught that. I coulda said no but my friend (who is orthodox though no traditionalist sadly) really needed the help and, frankly, so did those kids.

        • Our (otherwise quite solid) parish uses YouCat for it’s Religious Education and I had the same impression. I used it intermittently when I wanted a direct quote on a teaching but more or less winged it. I don’t know how much my students actually learned but I was able to get them to all go to Confession one night so that’s a win. (Some had not been since their first confession)

          If I do it again, I’m probably just gonna use the Baltimore Catechism and supplement as needed.

          • The thing that really through me was the Protestant Our Father was included, with the strange doxology at the end. I had the kids open their books (the parish bought them each one) to that portion so they could all see it but I got a little befuddled and had to somehow explain that, but had a rough time without completely scandalizing all those poor kids.

            I wish I really had any say in what the “textbook” was… Technically, I’m just a volunteer (though I did work at this parish in a similar position for a year.) My DRE friend wanted to teach the standard regular catechism but the modernist priests thought that too complicated so they settled on the Youcat. I’d like to teach the Baltimore catechism but… gotta work with what you have, right?

            It is NOT an otherwise good parish. Liturgical abuse and modernism abound. The pastor is a relatively orthodox priest, but his associates are not, and the pastor doesn’t have much of a backbone.

          • We only have the pastor and he is quite orthodox. He offers the Extraordinary Form once a month in the Cathedral, and I’ve seen seeing him serve as deacon and subdeacon in others. Back at the parish, he also uses the Roman Canon for Sundays and Solemnities and he offered Mass ad orientem a couple of times. Last Sunday, he wore fiddleback vestments. He is a solid homilist.

            The parish unfortunately is not a fan of this. It’s a college chapel and the young people, of course, love him. But most of the older members of the parish DO NOT and I’ve heard some strong words from people whom I otherwise like. Preparing for a Sunday Mass, after one of the Masses he offered ad orientem (it was a weeknight), one of the altar servers asked me to help move the low altar back to it’s place. (The low altar is movable so for ad orientem, we just move it out of the way and Father offers Mass on the high altar.) I (half) jokingly told him we should just leave it and the altar server (who I knew sympathized with me) said, “Are you kidding? We’d have a riot on our hands!”

          • It’s actually every week. The priests who offer it do so on a rotating monthly basis. Yes, our bishop is very good. For the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul (the anniversary of his ordination), he offered a Pontifical High Mass.

            Our previous bishop was NOT good. I’m told he tried to remove the high altar from our cathedral. I’m praying that our current bishop makes it through Francis’ pontificate so we don’t get sent some idiot.

    • I really really am tired of the “liberal” and “conservative” labels too. Let’s get back to the pre Vatican II authentic Catholic terms. A time when there were only two distinctions: a person was either Catholic or a heretic. But alas I know I’m just a wretched, rigid, neo palagian, sophistic Pharisee that only see’s things in black and white because I’m compensating from some psychological defect/ personality disorder. Thus My imperfections lead me to the Latin Mass. I must appear as Michael Myers to the modernists.

      • Wasn’t it GKC who said that the business of progressives is to make mistakes and the business of conservatives is to conserve the mistakes? (Obviously, he was writing re secular politics.)

          • Ditto. However, the msm characterizes them as “liberal”, “conservative” or anywhere in between, whereas the Catholic Church used terms like “de proxima fide”, “de proxima haeretica” etc. Eric Blair (nom de plume George Orwell) in his magnum opus 1984 showed the power of words.

      • The “status quo”

        Move along, nothing to see here. These aren’t the droids you are looking for.

    • Off-topic, but – what’s up with I get the message “Page not found”, and “404 It looks like nothing was found at this location.”

  3. Interesting. I wonder what Cardinal Ejik’s response to this will be. It’s time for the Cardinals to speak out clearly. No matter if it turns out to be Cardinals against Cardinals.

    • I really hate to say this because Cardinal Erik is opposed to giving Holy Communion to unrepentant adulterers but his piece was filled with references to Pope JII’s Theology of the Body and neglected any reference to the Natural Law.
      Also when VatII referred to the Eucharistic liturgy as the “source and summit…” it
      was referring to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass yet most people think it refers to Holy Communion.

  4. Is the Pope Catholic? No, he is not! Is Cardinal Schonborne Catholic? No, he is not! Five “yes” answers to the five dubai questions means that both of these men have abandoned the Catholic faith.

    Next question: How do the remaining Cardinals and Bishops answer? I want to know who in the Catholic Church remains Catholic and who does not. Who is faithful and who is not? Who will be a part of the remnant clergy and who will not.

    • Yes, the faithful laity have a right to know the answers to these questions.
      How to know?

      For those who remain silent, this will tell us just how faithful to the Church they are.
      How any prelate could sit and not speak is beyond the pale.
      The hair on the back of their necks should be rising right about now.
      The righteous anger comes from love of Christ, love of people and wanting what is good for them.

      The only answer I can come up with, as to why the silence, is that the holy and faithful cardinals are waiting a little longer, as the snake shakes his rattle, so more can hear and see the evil that comes from Rome.
      In charity, that is the only explanation i can think of. Otherwise, I would think them all a bunch
      of men without “you know what”.

  5. I am absolutely certain that St. Gregory never used the phrase ‘pastoral accompaniment.’ The Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna is just another heretic awaiting judgement. If the first question can be answered with a Yes then questions 4 & 5 must be answered no. This isn’t intellectual rigidity it is Logic and Logic is not contra reality, illogic is. The Cardinal is employing illogic which is why he is speaking like an idiot, I guess Fr. Spadaro is teaching advanced spiritual mathematics to Pope Francis pals.

    • It is sincerely comforting to know that you are orthodox Father. I said a prayer that The Lord grants you the graces to live out your priestly vocation in a Holy manner, pleasing in God’s sight. Please pray for us. We all need to pray for each other, especially in this present time of darkness and tribulation.

    • “The Cardinal is employing illogic which is why he is speaking like an idiot.”
      perhaps year ago I sent email and then I said to my PP Fr Ian, about resistance to pope Francis, I think about dubia, he answered, dont sent me this rubbish,.. card. Burke is an idiot. Obviously I did not agree with him.

      • Exactly, Cardinal Burke is no idiot and he is very logical in his thought and speech. Send Fr. Ian a link to this sight and tell him I would love to speak with him about idiots.

        • Thanks Father, Fr Ian shunts me off since then. Keep up good work, I am proud of such priests, as not many do these days. Even my brother bp, praised much on credit Francis h after his election. Years ago I sent him, sometimes is better to be silent, and do not even pretend not to know which direction p. Francis is heading.

          • I gave up on my PP a long time ago. I sent him several articles that were ‘orthodox’ and not necessarily pointing fingers at anyone in particular and he just doesn’t even give me the time of day. No reply ever. Not a ‘thanks’ for the article….nothing. But if I send him questions about certain functions at the Parish, or something a lot of parishioners are asking about, he always replies. Funny how that works eh?

          • I’m not trying to tell you what to do – we don’t even know each other – but you should leave your parish now and get to the nearest SSPX chapel. Consider last weekend your last at the parish.

            Next weekend, start practicing Catholicism. Cut the other thing loose. Catholics have been robbed for too long.

            The crisis wont end with us just going along with the program.

            The situation is radically diabolical, and a proportionate response is required from each one of us.

          • I live in Fairbanks, Alaska. It is the only remaining Catholic missionary diocese in the United States. We have some 14 faithful priests serving 46 parishes stretched out across a territory of nearly 410,000 square miles, roughly two and a half times the size of Texas. The parishioners they serve include Yu’pik and Inupiat Eskimos, Athatbascan Indians, Filipinos and Latinos.

            Some of these parishes are on the road system; many can only be accessed by air taxis (bush plane). A good number of these people are lucky if they see a priest and receive the sacraments once every two or three months.

            Even if I were satisfied that the SSPX was in satisfactory union with Rome, there is not a single one of their parishes anywhere in our diocese. In fact there is only a single SSPX church in all of Alaska, St. Therese parish in Anchorage.

            I would certainly prefer the Tridentine Latin Mass. St. John Paul argued that it should have “pride of place.” [My own parish, Immaculate Conception, is lucky enough to be having a Dominican Rite Latin Mass celebrated, this coming Saturday, by a visiting priest.]

            But however much I may believe that the Norvus Ordo is a wounded Mass, it is still the Mass. Our priests are all validly ordained Catholic priests and whatever else one may say about it:

            the Eucharist is the Eucharist is the Eucharist. I am blessed to have access to it, even daily if I choose here in Fairbanks itself.

            There is certainly radically diabolical activity going on—Sr. Lucy dos Santos spoke of a coming “diabolical disorientation” throughout her life. But the solution is to pray—and pray hard—and suffer with the wounded, including the wounded Mass. Don’t abandon Her.

          • That’s fair enough. It’s a confusing time.

            As far as I’m concerned, the current “Rome” is the very establishment which is driving the great apostasy and remainder of the faithful away from the Catholic Church – just like what you have in your parish. They are the ones who are fully on board with the destruction of the faith, chiefly via the novus ordo. They need to be called out.

            That the SSPX are not in union with these people is a good thing. The Society are, however, in union with the Catholic Church, and that’s also a good thing.

          • I agree that Rome is at the very apex of a demonic destruction of the Church. But I recall a saying so old I don’t remember who first uttered it (Louis Boyer?):

            “When Peter baptizes, it is Christ baptizing; when Judas baptizes, it is Christ baptizing.”

            Unlike Mormons who believe that a person’s stature in the hierarchy is a reflection of his personal holiness, Catholic have never had that understanding.

            However sinful a priest, a bishop or a pope may be—so long as he is validly ordained—-when he is in the act of dispensing or conferring a Sacrament of the Church it is Our Lord who is acting through him.

            The Church continues to be the Church, no matter how wicked her leaders may be. I believe Francis is causing great confusion, great damage and destruction to the Church I love. And he may be just the awful face of a massive cabal.

            Maybe the “three day Warning” that Father Philip Bebie wrote of is true and is about to descend on us.

            I don’t think SSPX, however well-intentioned they may be, is the answer, though.

            When Henry VIII broke away from the Pope, all the bishops of England who switched their allegiance to the King, remained validly ordained bishops; and the priests they continued to ordain have continued to be valid priests.

            But they’re not Catholic. And, as errant as our current Pope may be, unless SSPX accepts his full authority—however ill-used it may be—I could no more go to one of their Masses than I could go to an Anglican Mass and feel I was now a “better Catholic.”

            Yes, hold fast to tradition—in your heart; and be ready at every opportunity to do your small part to move the Church back in the direction of holiness—just as the cardinals are trying to do in presenting the dubia. Be a source of healing for the Church we love.

          • Yes, the Anglicans left the Church because of schism and heresy. Either one of these sins is enough to sever one from the Church. Henry proclaimed himself the head of the Church. Then they went and tinkered with the both the ceremonial rites and the very forms of sacraments. The pattern of change that the Anglicans made caused many of their sacraments to become invalid.

            The innovators after Vatican II tinkered with the mass and the rites of orders in almost an identical manner in many regards to the Anglicans. I don’t trust them. They also adopted new doctrines at Vatican II, which directly contradict established magisterium. The SSPX have not changed one thing – neither the Sacraments, nor doctrine. And for this they are charged with leaving the Church?

            When I first started to dig away at the crisis, I had the habit of giving the men who caused it the benefit of the doubt. Nowadays, I am suspicious of them and do not trust them. i don’t trust their teaching, and I don’t trust some of their new sacraments.

            I hold fast to tradition by tracing the line back to where the crisis became publicly and visibly manifest, and just do and believe what Catholics at that moment in history did. This is why I cannot think of anywhere else to go, nor recommend to anyone else, but the Society.

            Anyway, I think we will disagree with many issues. I was reading through your post and thought about picking out various things, but I won’t. I’ve been around the block probably at least as many times as you to know when and when not to press. We both are trying to make our way through this dark time as best as we can.

            All the best, and may God bless you and yours. Mike.

          • Thanks and the same to you and yours.

            I confess, the subtleties of the current relationship between SSPX and
            Rome are lost on me. But I have no reason to doubt you’re receiving
            valid Sacraments. I trust we’ll all find out in Heaven one day.

            In the meantime, I suppose I’m more concerned with moral deception,
            destruction and degradation—and it concomitant assault on the life and innocence of children, especially—than with liturgical disorder.

            I believe that I truly receive Jesus Christ—Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity—in Communion at the Masses I attend. Aesthetically it may sometimes look a paltry minimal by comparison with the Mass as I remember it back in the 50s. But in truth it’s everything and, for now, I’ll take it.

          • Now THAT’S the Catholic faith. Amen. Let’s fight the devil where we can. I’ll start throwing stones at liturgical nuances when I can stay faithful to my daily spiritual exercises and make it through the day as a flawless spiritual leader of my little family flock.

            Let’s stay in the Church and fight clear doctrinal error vs. longing for bells and smells. Better to recieve our Lord reverently on knees from the hands of a N.O. priest and suffer the banjos than cooperate with schism and accept our Lors from a heterodox high “mass” priest who consecrated our Lord in opposition to the authority of the Church.

          • They have forced you to adopt novelty and abandon tradition, contrary to Divine Law. Your fathers in the Faith would not recognise the theology of the new mass. The Novus Ordos have done an outstanding job!

          • Depends on the Fathers, the era, and the traditional Rite in question. I’ve attended Ukranian, Melkite, and Indian(india) masses which are much more ancient than the SSPX’s liturgy.

            Do I claim the TLM as the most beautiful form which resonates with my own soul? Indeed.

            Do I think there are other forms which please God? Indeed.

            Do i think the NO mass, in PRACTICE and on the aggregate, stripped away many aspects which are pleasing and glorifying to God and severe, severe abuses occurred which ofcend Our Lord? Indeed.

            Do I think the NO mass is valid and there are NO masses which if said properly, sans the modern abuses, are pleasing to God? Indeed.

            Are sacred NO masses rare? Indeed. Are they increasing and are younger NO priests coming around to reincorporate many sacred elements which were never intended to be disregarded? Base on subjective observation, yes.

            Do i think the same Church which declares the NO as valid has the authority to declare SSPX in schism? Yes.

            Would I attend a banjo-plucking N.O. mass approved and in union with Rome before ever jeopardizing my soul by attending the most beautiful high mass at an unapproved SSPX church with a priest that has no faculties? Yes.

            The SSPX does realize FSSP is a valid alternative, right? Or are they not traditional enough, either?

          • SSPX accept the Pope’s authority, but they don’t accept that which conflicts Catholic Doctrine…no one should. VII has elements containing radical departure from the Faith, as handed down from the Fathers.

          • Unless you are willing to accept that the entirety of the Church resides with SSPX, you are mistaken. You can’t pick and choose the Catholic faith.

          • I am not claiming to understand this crisis in every way. I don’t think the SSPX is the Catholic Church, but just a part.

            What I do know for sure is that the SSPX has kept the Catholic faith and all the Sacraments intact.

            What I also know is that the contradictory doctrines of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo are incompatible with Catholicism. Some of the changes to the rites and essential forms of the Sacraments have raised some serious doubts.

          • To accept SSPX is to claim there is no valid Church outside SSPX.

            There can’t be a Church that says the N.O. and V2 are valid while similutaneously being in error. Either Rome has the ability to call the shots on V2 and N.O. or it is in heresy, and only SSPX is the keeper of the light.

            I will stick with the Vatican and the visible Magisterium and let God sort out those who twisted V2 and doctine before I say the chair or Peter is empty or SSPX is the one true Church.

            But I will not run away and abandon Holy Mother precisely at the moment she needs the faithful most.

            Bishop L. was good up until he DISOBEYED “Saint” JPII and went ahead with ordinations. Pride got to him and he was able to rationalize that he was doing it for the Church. Had he waited as requested, SSPX might have been integrated by the 1990s and we might have stepped back from the he’ll we now find ourselves in.

            Obedience. All he had to do was wait. But he knew better than the pope, and now look at us. Divided, with a huge amount of the faithful trads in mortal peril. EXACTLY what the devil wanted. The good guys are on the outside and the wolves are left to pluck at the dumb sheep (I include myself in the dumb sheep crowd).

            We cannot win while divided. In this case, I’m am outcast among NO and trads alike.

            Oh well. It’s good to be hated for staying the course.

          • You can play the victim; make some very serious and erroneous statements regarding the nature of the Church, and when someone comes back with equal strength to refute you, you get to be the hated martyr. I’m sorry, that is not how it is.

            I don’t hate you. Not a bit. Im a layman, a sheep, like you. Sheep are being slaughtered, not by the dozen or the hundred, but by the countless millions. The longer we adhere and defend the very men who, by the implementation of their new mass and their new doctrine cause the current apostasy, the longer we endanger ourselves to the same fate that those countless millions of lay apostates fell into.

            I have to say that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You make these absolute statements on someone else’s behalf on their understanding of the nature of the Church. The information you are touting seems to come from Michael Voris, or Fr Paul Nicholson or someone like that. You make these absolute statements on someone else’s behalf on their understanding of the nature of the Church.

            How are you able to judge the interior motives of Archbishop Lefebvre? Pride? How do you know? I mean it. Answer me. What’s your secret insight? I don’t have that skill.

            What I do know is that he handed on what he received. He swore an oath when be became a Bishop to do just that. So, he received the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and handed it on in the received and approved rite of the Church.

            Who caused the division? Who? It came from the very top. The top of the hierarchy imposed a new religion and mass upon the faithful. The faithful didn’t ask for a new religion or mass. The fruits have been disastrous. People got to safety by simply “holding fast to tradition”, which is Divine Law. No one can order or bind you to abandon tradition.

            I will stay with the SSPX. I don’t have the answers to the crisis, but I’m not going along with the official program of heresy and apostasy. I will “hold fast to tradition” as St Paul commands.

          • I make absolute statements based on actions, prudential judgement, and objective observations of real life.

            I’m no victim. Indeed, I’m part of the cadre of citizens who allow you and other Americans to sleep securely at night while the meanies around the world plot your destruction. I’m a culpable sinner, but I don’t play the victim card very well in words or in practice. Too bad you interpret an impassioned plea for deserters to join the frontline as a cry for sympathy. I’m part of the Church militant. It’s SSPX who is part of the Church Milktoast. Hide in your enclaves and let the others carry the water. I know the type. I dont get my marching orderd from Michael Vorris. I get them from my spiritual diRector, pastor, bisbop, pope and Rome. I respect the chain of command.

            Bishop L. didn’t. He disobeyed the Pope. And acted on his own conscience. Bad idea.

            Where he is now is between him and God, same as for you and I. I trust a faithfully directed soul like his is given the mercy to reach heaven and repent of any mortal sins prior to death. I’m sure my ledger of sins and penance is far greater than his. But he openly disobeyed a lawful directive from his superior. Period. And we see the results. I work at the highest levelsof DoD. We call that an Article 92; failure to obey a lawful order and dereliction of duty. His intent and conscience has no bearing on the result of his disobedience. Schism.

            Glad to know you don’t hate me. Hate’s a nasty thing.

            I havent really seen the strength of your comments since youve never really addressed the doctrinal issue of the SSPX being in schism and how the Church could still exist if Rome doesnt have the legitimacy to declare the NO as valid. Why would SSPX supporters even care about what the post V2 church says? Indeed, why would you all even care about the dubia, the Cardinals, etc. since they themsleves support the legitimcy of V2 and the NO mass. Why would you be seeking reconciliation with a church authority and ignoring that the same authority has declared you are in schism? Either they are the legit authority, or they aren’t.

            Any how, hope it all works out for the SSPX and its adherents. I’ll stick with Rome.

            Out of idle curiosity, who and where does the SSPX take marching orders from? Do you all have like your own top bishop or something and what is their standing with Rome? I suppose I will google it.

            No sense in really continuing, since Im sure we have both reached these impasses a thousand times.

            I think my takeaway is rooted in the anger I have for the SSPX’s (not the people, the attitude) dismissal of Jesus in the Eucharist at N.O. masses. If someone wants to talk about abuses that have occurred which have offended our Lord, Im right there with them. But when they start going down the path of claiming an invalid mass, and declaring it is impossible to attend a holy and sacred N.O. mass or that the mass is invalid, I just shut down.

          • Ok. That’s fair enough. The crisis came from the top down, not from rebellious laity and clergy. The shepherds have fled, and as far as I can see, the only place to take refuge is by holding fast to tradition. I don’t know the answers to the mysteries of our time. I could ask you some hard questions about the state of the hierarchy also and you would be unable to answer from a Catholic perspective. No one is holding all the cards. Do we hold fast to all of tradition and thereby disobey the apparent authority? Or do we abandon the faith and Sacraments as they have been handed on since apostolic times by submitting to them? It’s one or the other. As I understand things, the Faith is the foundational visible bond, and Social Charity/Government is built upon it. If the unity of Faith is not present and visible among a body of men, then the bond of Social Charity/Government cannot exist independently from it. The Church teaches us so we can apply it. Otherwise she would not teach.
            Anyway, God has allowed these mysteries and put us here to work out our salvation. You’ve got one take on it, I have another.
            I thank you for your service to the country too you the way.

          • The N.O. Mass is one of those diabolical disorientations. The Mass was designed with significant input from Freemasons / Protestants. N.O. is a radical departure from Catholic Tradition.

          • I must say that I agree with HookLineAndMillstone. I was 10 years old when the Second Vatican Council ended, fifteen when the NO was introduced. I lived in Canada at the time. I was shocked by the changed that were wrought by the modernist interpretations of the Second Vatican Council. I gravitated to the Anglican High Church, the Anglican Änglo-Catholic” tradition which Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman brought into the Anglican Church before he became a Roman Catholic. It was beautiful; it was what I remembered from my childhood as an altar boy assisting at vetus ordo High Masses.
            However, as I matured — and with the guidance of a very holy priest — I came to realise that whilst the Anglo-Catholic tradition had the form, the Roman Catholic Church had the substance. Even the novus ordo Mass celebrated in the very defective original translation of the liturgy, was beautiful when celebrated by Fr JR, thanks to whom I returned to “the fold”.

          • Do I prefer the Mass, which I knew as a child and a youth, which was celebrated when I was confirmed and when I received my First Holy Communion? Yes! Do I consider the Novus Ordo invalid? NO, most emphatically, no. It is a form of the Mass, which when celebrated reverently, is beautiful in its own right. Even if it is celebrated in such a way that the beauty does not shine through, it is valid. Thank God for His presence amongst us.

          • You do not seem have the proper understanding of the nature of the Church, and the visible bonds of Faith and Social Charity/Government. Once you learn these, you will see that the SSPX are not in schism with the Catholic Church.

            You seem to misunderstand what “visible” means in regards to the Church. It doesn’t just mean when you can see a guy wearing purple or red, there’s the visible Church. In ordinary times it does, but in case you haven’t noticed, this current post Vatican II period is completely unprecedented. Visibility firstly comes from the outward, i.e. visible profession of Faith by her members. This is why public heresy severs one from the Church, because heresy breaks the visible bond of Faith. If you deny this, then you have an invisible, i.e. non-Catholic Church on your hands, and we don’t want that!

            We have to rely on what the Church taught before the crisis started and apply it to today.

        • When I noticed that Fr Ian consecutive time turned the crucifix of the cross on the altar away from him toward congregation, I said:
          . you do not like BXVI?
          . no, he is not a pope anyway, my salvation is p. Francis,
          . I did prefer BXVI and do not accept many things in Francis and my salvation is Jesus Christ.

          • The rubrics in the NO require a crucifix visible to the congregation. They do not require a crucifix visible to the priest.

          • That is false. A crucifix must be visible to a priest AT THE TIME OF CONSECRATION. There are no stipulations or rubrics for the congregation, since they are not confecting the mass. Try again.☹

          • Our salvation rests not with a Pope Benedict XVI or Pope Francis, but with the risen Christ. I love and respect Benedict and loathe Francis but Jesus is our Saviour.

          • Wow –

            The creeping sensation given is actually true – team Francis are actually idolaters of the Supreme Pontiff Francis.

            What an utterly impoverished and darkened substitute for the Catholic faith.

          • I am another “Chris from Maryland” literally and it is very creepy to see how these francis supporters idolize this nut. Jesus Christ is our salvation! And He alone!

          • I first started thinking he was doing the SunYung Moon routine when I saw the push-marketed photos of couples doing group weddings with him at St. Peter’s.

            This man is kidding himself if he thinks men who would follow Christ to Calvary would follow him – who promotes people with contempt for the teaching of every pope before 2013.

          • Can’t agree more. He’s an embarrassment and a stumbling block to potential converts to the faith. God, help us!

    • He threw a lot of smoke bombs so the evil clown and his minions could escapes. Another heretical modernist. Ignore him.

    • 4 & 5 are in relation to 1 simply logically differently ordered Father, as Spadaro says – NOT!!!!!!!! May Our Lady be our Refuge and Help!

    • IF St. Gregory DID use the term “pastoral accompaniment”, I am sure he did so in the sense of collaboration in the sin of another.

      The cardinal”s statement creates a contradiction which is not possible or permissable in objective Truth. If question one is answered yes, then questions two and three MUST be answered no. You cannot have it both ways. Nor can or does objective Truth ever change.

      The cardinal has only deepened both the confusion and sense of error and, implicitly, confirmed them.

      The barque of Peter is rudderless. No wonder people are abandoning ship! Man the lifeboats!!

    • “Modernists vent all their bitterness and hatred on Catholics who zealously fight the battles of the church. There is no species of insult which they do not heap upon them, but their usual course is to charge them with ignorance or obstinacy. When an adversary rises up against them with an erudition and force that renders them redoubtable, they seek to make a conspiracy of silence around him to nullify the effects of his attack.” Encyclical Letter Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907 – Pope St. Pius X (1835-1914)

    • When one follows the father of lies, one loses rationality.

      And this is where the wolves are heading.

      As for rigid, thank the Lord for that.

      You cannot be more rigid than: if your eyes cause you to sin pluck it out.

      • Her contract was not renewed. She was then employed by another seminary so that she could continue to spread the errors of modernism.

  6. “The art of pastoral accompaniment”, “the art of discernment”, in other words… the art of modernism and newspeak. The Thought Police are working overtime. We have always been at war with EastAsia and to disagree is a thought crime. Wouldn’t be surprised at this point if they create a pontifical academy called “The ministry of mercy.”

  7. He seems to be saying he believes truth exists, but it is too hard for some so just pretend it does not bind. Bury it and ignore it. How comforting he is a Cardinal and an intellectual. lol.

  8. Interesting the date is too! To a day 100 years since the Fatima Secret has been given to the little shepherds and boy does it sure speak of these ill times. If that’s the route you are going to take cardinal, so be it. Schism is looming over the horizon.

    “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” 2 Thess 2, 14

    And those poor heretics..”Woe to you blind guides!”

  9. The Pope has not spoken. Schonborn has spoken. He has declared himself a pervert.

    I’ll still wait for the Pope himself to declare yes to 1. He will have to do this before God and man.

  10. “St Gregory the Great said the art of the pastoral accompaniment is the
    art of discernment. It is an art and it needs training,” he added.

    I’m using my “art of pastoral discernment” now, your Eminence. Following a long period of “reflection” and “accompaniment” and after much prayer, I discern that both you and your handler are faithless, lying heretics.

    The respective dioceses of Bergoglio and Schoenborn have two things in common; empty seminaries and empty pews. They have eviscerated the Church in their respective homelands. Why would anyone give a hoot about anything these worthless deconstructionists say?

    Francis’ henchmen have twisted themselves into pretzels over the dubia which are 5 simple questions. At various times I’ve heard the following contradictory statements:

    1) The dubia will never be answered (Spadaro)

    2) The dubia have already been answered.

    3) There is no need to answer the dubia since the answers are obvious.

    4) The dubia are malicious and an insult to the pope.

    5) The cardinals who presented the dubia have deep psychological problems (Maradiaga).

    6) The answers are 5 “yesses”. (Schoenborn)

    The list goes on. All that blather rather than answer clearly and unambiguously 5 simple questions. It’s got to the point now that they’re laughing at us. Francis and the rest of the lavender mafia clown possee think they can come out with any old shtick and the dumbed down hoi polloi will swallow it. What a joke this pontificate is. What a sick, never ending joke!

  11. Given on July 13, the 100th anniversary of the third apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima, 100 years to the day of the children being shown the vision of Hell.

    • That’s where Cardinal Schonborn and his ilk will be going if they don’t repent of this heresy.

  12. This gentleman is unworthy of serious consideration of any kind.
    Long ago he revealed himself to be the – why work around it – the biggest brown nose on the
    planet. A chameleon. A sycophant. A narcissist. A joke.
    I proclaim myself at fault that – even up to 2013 – I held him to be a suitable candidate for the Chair of St. Peter. That notion was revealed to be pathologically naïve immediately after March 13, 2013.
    Color me humiliated and more than corrected.
    Once fooled, twice taught.
    Honestly frightening.

  13. I get Jesuits being obtuse, but the average Dominican is usually Thomist, even if just by default, and right of center, at least. So how’d this guy go so left???

    • The heresies of Modernism and Americanism have permeated all areas of society and The Church to a greater or lesser extent.

    • He’s a politician. Under JP2 and BXVI he was known for being solidly orthodox. Now he’s firmly in Bergoglio’s good graces. I suspect he hopes to be elected pope… it’s the only place left for him to go really.

  14. I have no problem with two guys living together as friends and helping each other in their lives. Civil society isn’t going to go in to their private sphere and break them up with force. That’s not the issue. The issue is the imposed belief upon all society that all sexual acts are morally equivalent as long as the intentions are good and there is consent. THAT is the issue. I would tolerate a gay couple and be friendly with them, but they would know I don’t morally approve of the sexual aspect of their relationship any more than I’d approve of a fornicating couple.

    • Is there a gradation in severity of sin? Is sodomy equal in severity to natural sexual relations of fornicators? Is bringing a child/children into sodomite/lesbian arrangements not higher in severity than sodomy itself?

    • I respectfully disagree. “Guys” rooming and sharing space is obviously not the issue. It is one of perversion and rebellion against the natural order whether a sex act occurs or not.

      The “spiritual union”; desire; intent; the perversion of God’s order in treating a man as a wife in a marriatal inversion is itself the sin, before any sexy act occurs.

      Subsequent sexual perversity is just the fetid fruit of the damned.

      • I agree with you. I’m against same sex civil marriage. I’m just talking about same sex couples who live together and keep the sex to themselves. Don’t ask don’t tell. That’s they way homosexuality used to be handeled in America. I don’t think the government should be forcing them or punishing them.

        • I care far more what the Church says than the current manifestation of government; (likely passing away).

          I only care that Pope Francis affirms Tradition in strong, clear, correct answers to the Dubia; and if not that the Church rise up in defense of Tradition against usurpers.

          Man cannot live with another man as wife (sex is irrelevant), nor commit adultery with man, woman or sheep and expect Eucharistic life in Christ.

          Christ demands purity; perfection. That means repent of all sin and do all that is good, not evil, through the Sacraments properly administered and received.

  15. How can anyone be expected to respect a man who slings bs the way this mitered clown does? The fellow has a future at the DNC if Francis ever tires of his circumlocution and fires him (unlikely).

  16. Good can come about from unions grounded in rebellion against God. It does not follow that any such good is proof of God’s approval. God had already answered us, when we asked, why it is that the unrighteous prosper. Why should those ho reject God’s will for them receive Holy Communion? How can they be in communion with God while rejecting Him?

    The sick praise for two sodomites, who brought a child into their nest of disgusting unnatural activity crying for vengeance to heaven is worthy of a monster. Those sodomites are conditioning the child to love sodomy, and this cardinal blesses them.

  17. “I fear those who have rapid, clear answers in politics and economy and also in religion. Rigorists and laxists have clear and rapid answers, but they fail to look at life.”

    See how the serpent tries to make himself appear sooooooo reasonable and moderate by falsely placing himself in the midst of what he depicts as 2 extremes??? How can you nasty people have “rapid, clear answers” to questions which have only been taught consistently by the Church for 2,000 years???

    There is, of course, nothing rigorist about asserting that public, permanent adulterers (the CCC definition of the divorced and remarried) cannot receive Holy Communion. It is simply a fact – a fact which has been consistently taught since the day Our Lord said: “Any man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” But the devil is so clever at shifting the ground – just as he was in the garden of Eden – that he can make you think you are the unreasonable one just for believing the facts as they have always been taught.

    This is what I find so pernicious about Frank and his mob of toadies – they stink like Satan, they sometimes look like Satan, but they nearly always sound like Satan….”Did God really say that you could not eat the fruit of any of the trees in the garden…shouldn’t we sit down and discern His words together?”

    • Ah! But Deacon Augustine, we are not gifted with the vast intellect and penetrating insights with which Christoph Schonborn is so abundantly blessed. His ways are not our ways; his thoughts far above our thoughts. And the primeval serpent; this unhappy creature was lacking in self-esteem and desperately in need of pastoral accompaniment.

    • Actually,my favorite now is the commentary around how Chirst would have delivered a different message today: now that women and men are equals, Christ would be preach mercy toward divorcees, homosexuals and transgenders.

      How blasphemous! Christ came once and the second time around will not be to preach mercy….but there are “Church”men”” (yes, both the term Churchmen and men needed quotation marks) who now claim that Christ, God, didn’t deliver a timeless message? Does not the Old Testmant condemn murder, adultrey and homosexuality! Did Christ at any point reject or otherwise modify the Old Testament? No! He added love and forgivness but both of those acts are kinglets without the Ten Commandments and moral teachings of the OT!!!

    • “But take heart…and don’t be afraid, no matter what has happened or may yet happen. God is doing it to make the Church perfect once again, so that lambs may feed in this garden instead of the wolves who are devouring the honor that belongs to God by stealing it for themselves. Take heart in Christ gentle Jesus, for I trust that His help, the fullness of divine grace, will come soon to your support and aid. If you do as I’ve told you, you will emerge from war into the greatest peace, from persecution to complete unity — not by human power but by holy virtue — and you will defeat the devils we can see (evil people) as well as those we cannot see — though they never take their eyes off us.”

      Saint Catherine of Siena

      • Winslow…I read that in the Magnificat prayer book this week and it gave me great comfort. Thanks for printing it! Cardinal Schonborn conveniently forgets that priests have been “discerning” for two thousand years every time a penitent enters the confessional. This latest deception makes some think that for all these years, priests have been so rigid. They say this in order to create their new gradualist theology.

        • Great message! I copied St. Catherine’s words the Magnificat prayer book. Along with Cardinal Schonborn’s tone deafness is that of Bergoglio, who thinks he is the one who invented Catholic charity.

  18. The Pope and his Cabal are SO dangerous with their Jesuitical twitterings which make wrong right and evil good. So many people will be “reassured” by their sheepdip and follow this band of heretical Apostates straight to Hell. What I really dislike them for is that they TRULY think we are all stupid – when many of us see straight through their lies, decadence and satanic subterfuge! It’s time to find GOOD priests in preparation for when what’s left of our Church goes underground.

  19. Schonborn, a real horse’s hind quarters.
    Pope Benedict wouldn’t correct him they said because Schonborn is of noble blood.
    I’ve got an apostrophe in my last name too good cardinal (not my nom de plume) but the difference is I DON’T attack the faith.

  20. Just wondering: did the Cardinal say, all the dubia questions can be answered – yes (meaning yes, they can be answered – implying that they have not been answered yet)…or did he say that all the dubia questions can be answered WITH a ‘yes’.

    It would make a difference in interpretation. That does not however allay my now full blown distrust of Pope Francis,and his sycophants. …I hate this game playing. Whatever happened to let your yes be yes and your no be no? And why not just answer the dubia!?

    • Yes, all the questions of the dubia can be answered.
      No, Francis has not given an official answer — his answer as Vicar of Christ — to the dubia
      Cardinal Schonborn gave an answer WITH five “yes” answers to the five dubia questions .

  21. Does anyone know to what extent Cardinal Schönborn was involved in the formulation of the 1992 Catechism’s disappointing and unconvincing section on homosexualism (2357-2359), which shifts the emphasis of this grave sexual depravity out of the realm of moral evil and sin, and into the shadowy realm of that scientific materialism of the soul — i.e. modernist psychology — as being merely “objectively disordered”, though “its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained”?

    The answer to my question above could be quite telling. Just consider some of the quotes from Cardinal Schönborn taken from this article:

    “We can and we must respect the decision to form a union with a person of the same sex, [and] to seek means under civil law to protect their living together with laws to ensure such protection,” he said in that interview.

    Schönborn spoke of a gay friend who, after multiple temporary relationships, now has a stable partner.

    “They share a life, they share their joys and sufferings, they help one another,” he said. “It must be recognized that this person took an important step for his own good and the good of others, even though it certainly is not a situation the Church can consider ‘regular’.”

    We can and we must respect moral evil and social pathology? On what basis is this assertion made, especially coming from a Catholic Cardinal?! How can he — how dare he — affirm sexual perversion and deadly sin, when his very vocation is to urge people to repent of such soul-destroying behaviour? Indeed, homosexualism (sodomy) is a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance, and yet this Cardinal insists that this sexual wickedness can actually be for a person’s “own good and the good of others”? How can a grave sin against nature that definitely leads to Hell be “good” for anybody?

    May the Lord deliver us from wolves in sheep’s clothing, who are brazen enough to promote deadly sin openly to the whole world — a grave scandal! Please pray with me, in all sincerity, for the deliverance of these benighted clergymen who “cover sin with smooth names”. And pray that our Lord Jesus Christ will sustain us in the evil day.

    • Well put. He is enshrining the depravity of putting children in homes where men regularly sodomize each other. Many gay men have “open relationships”, even if “married”, lives filled with promiscuity and venereal disease.

      Tiny infants are regularly taken from their mothers at birth and placed with these deviants–deprived, by design, with parents as God intended. That a cardinal of the Church is promoting this injustice, this evil is staggering.

      I’m tired of waiting for Cardinal Burke et al. to act. This is a state of emergency. The SSPX is the only refuge. Vatican II must be condemned.

      • Bergoglio and Schoenborn are modernists whose goal is to destroy the Church. By allowing secular decadence to overrule the doctrines of the Church they are serving their goal and their master, with whom they will spend eternity. (I know I’m not supposed to say that, but I did anyway.)

        No one can overcome the world’s Creator. No one.

        • Dear Winslow,

          Very true observation about secular decadence swamping the Church. It is dismal to watch, yet we have to acknowledge that it is happening.

          As to the highly-placed clergymen who have lost their reason and are leading others into the path of destruction, please do continue to pray for them — we can’t abandon even false teachers to an inevitable fate. Their lives have not come to an end, therefore, they can repent. And if they do repent, then not only will it benefit them, but millions of Catholics who are listening to their falsehoods and heresies will be disabused of the lies at last. Innumerable Catholics would benefit from the repentance and conversion of these false teachers! Let us definitely pray for this!

          I think of people like Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who was one of the chief architects of abortion in America in the 1960s, who, by the grace of God, eventually converted to the pro-life position, became a Catholic, and was a tremendous voice for the rights of children in the womb for the rest of his life thereafter.

          As you rightly point out in your comment: “No one can overcome the world’s Creator. No one.” Amen to that! And also, “With God, all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26), even the conversion of the most hardened hearts. So:

          “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.” – Luke 6:27-28

          Your brother in Christ and the Holy Family,


  22. Cardinal Schonborn is an apostate cardinal supporting an apostate Pope. And why can’t the Pope answer the Dubia himself and allows someone else to answer on his behalf? I will tell u why. Because if he, being the Vicar of Christ on Earth, answers the first question in the Dubia with a ‘Yes’, he would have spoken untruth in Jesus’ name authoritatively and he would just fall down dead for teaching heresy from the Chair of Peter. That is why he will not do it and will depend on stooges like Cardinal Schonborn to speak on his behalf. Shame! Shame! And if the Pope has not clearly said ‘Yes’ to the first question in the dubia, we can safely assume a ‘No’ in line with perennial Magesterial teaching. What Cardinals like Schonborn say in opposition to Church teaching is of no consequence and should be ignored.

  23. This is a man who witnessed his mother endure hardships after his father left (in some manner). It has obviously skewed his perceptions and understanding of why the Church teaches what she teaches and why. Pray that he can find truth in God and not what he desires to be truth.
    There appears to be a lot of “sick” people in the clerical hierarchy.

  24. The Church seems to have exchanged the language of metaphysical precision for the language of psychological mush.

  25. I am hoping all who hold to strict Catholic teaching will be excommunicated. This would really help clear things up. But this will never happen as it would be too costly and take courage. So….we should go on the offensive big time and comment beyond these friendly Traditional blogs. Try the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.

      • I’m taking a little poetic license here to make a point. The point being that Pope Francis is so upset with orthodox Catholics not buying his nu-Catholicism b.s. that he excommunicates us.

  26. And where are the Dubia Cardinals now, except His Eminence Cardinal Meisner who we pray is admitted to eternal Light? They have been nothing but a let-down and a false hope. No masculine or Christian fortitude whatsoever; meanwhile the Church languishes. If all this happened just a few hundred years ago, Pope Francis would’ve been forcibly drug out of the Vatican long ago, flailing about sans the white cassock.

    • They have to act and they have to act now.

      Well done, Joseph Ratzinger. You put your cats and the the tinkling of your piano keys above the needs of the suffering Church.

      • They (the three remaining Cardinals) don’t have to do anything. We might want them to take action, but they may well choose to do nothing further. Benedict XVI opened the gate to the sheep pen and invited the wolves to come in and dine.

  27. Cardinal Schonborn, another princely disappointment who has taken what he can from the church and enjoys the lap of luxury, then betrays her in a blink. What a fake many in this Curia are, following this heretic pope like he’s the Messiah. The Pope by his material heresy has excommunicated himself and is no longer the pope — if he was legitimate to begin with….still a question. We need to clean house from the top, including all their so-called “Humble” apartments surrounding St. Peter’s Square. Many are whited sepulchres and sickening to the core. They are not pure thinkers, and think that their positions in the church entitle them to change her teaching to suit their personal depravity. Rome has become the new Sodom. The True Judge is awaiting His meeting with each of them … they’d better enjoy their last sumptuous meal. Let us cook it for them.

  28. I would like to address my comments to any reader who thinks or is tempted to think that Bergoglio, Schönborn and the rest are simply being reasonable, enlightened, even; because in this day and age, it has become self-evident that human reality is what it is and no power can change it. Both the civilly remarried divorcee and the homosexual must be granted their happiness and families – life is just like that, after all, and now the Catholic Church is merely catching up with this reality.

    I assume that these readers do actually believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, Who was crucified and rose from the dead but are unsure or confused by everything that is happening.

    1. You must understand one fundamental thing: the Bergoglian members of the Hierarchy (and tragically, many others) do not believe in God. After all, they show absolutely no fear of Him whatsoever. Why should they, if He does not exist? But as a useful concept, to express the spiritual urge in all of us, He must still be spoken of, but certainly not in the old way: rather, He must be reinterpreted to make Him useful as a rallying point to those Men of today who feel the need for some sort of virtue. The job of the Hierarchy is to act as the vehicle of interpretation so that the re-casting of God in the service of Man runs smoothly and into the channels that are deemed healthy. (See the recent Spadaro article for what they deem unhealthy. The article is crystal clear as to their beliefs for those who can read). This task of re-casting and reinterpretation is for these men a solemn service to Man which they perform with quasi-religious zeal, but the object of their work is not at all religious in the sense a Catholic means it: rather, they are the Adepts guiding rough, untutored Man to a new reality, a gnostic reality of Brotherhood and Peace with which nothing, but nothing must be allowed to interfere. That most definitely includes Catholicism.

    2. These Adepts have their own “mystical” levels and rites, which they practice often. Some are Masons, some are demoniacs, some are Rationalists. I am quite sure in my own mind that homosexuality plays a key role in these rites. Remember Bergoglio made the strange claim that immediately upon being elected he had some sort of mystical experience? One cannot imagine that this was from God. Either it was a bout of ‘mystical’ indigestion after a prolonged fart or he was visited by AN Other or he was lying. The second alternative sounds to me very possible.

    3. Of course then, these people are rank heretics and apostates; pernicious vipers who hate the Catholic Church. That’s where we are: Holy Mother Church on earth is in the hands of the enemy, wholly, definitively and totally. I strongly believe that any other interpretation will involve you, dear Reader, in your time, nervous system, mind and energy being completely wasted in cul de sacs and wholly useless debate. You may even be tempted to go along with them.

    4. Once you understand this, you have the key to all of their strange pronouncements, scandalous behaviour, obsession with sex – particularly with its perverted forms – and you will know how to interpret Bergoglio and all of them.

    This is the Great Apostasy.
    This is the time of the False Prophet, the herald of the Antichrist.
    This is the time of the Whore of Babylon, which is Rome fallen and corrupted.

    You must have nothing whatsoever to do with these men or with any who support them, inside or outside the Church. You cannot treat with God and with the devil at the same time.

    Catholics live by Grace. Do whatever you have to do to place yourself and your children near the Sacraments.

    The real Sacraments.

    • The traitors violate the principle of non contradiction every time they speak. It seems not to bother them.

      I agree homosexuality is the source of this confusion and attack.

      Homofascism rules the Vatican.

    • I wish there was a way to upvote this brilliance in a more dramatic way. You lift the fog. All I can say is thank you, comrade, and may our Lord bless you and our Lady protect you.

    • “You must have nothing whatsoever to do with these men or with any who support them, inside or outside the Church. You cannot treat with God and with the devil at the same time.
      Catholics live by Grace. Do whatever you have to do to place yourself and your children near the Sacraments.
      The real Sacraments.”

      I do not know if we are living in prophecy times. We could be?
      But, what you have written, here, I believe is grace filled counsel for faithful Catholics and our families.
      Until, the good Lord provides the Church with a holy and courageous leader; we wait and do whatever it takes to remain faithful! And when that time comes, when the Lord sees fit, we shall be fully
      ready, by the graces of God, to do what He asks to restore our Church.

      Thank you for this post Great Stalin.

    • Can’t say that as of yet I am willing to agree with all your particulars, but the essence of your determination appears to be frightening correct.

    • Well said Comrade. I am at the end of my patience giving Jorge the benifit of the doubt any longer. He gives every indication that he is the apostate “pope” prophesied by so many saints and blessed mystics. I have no scruple asserting with Fr Paul Kramer that he is at the very least a ursurper if not the False Prophet of the Apocalypse. Sister Lucy pointed out that Chapters 8 to 13 of the Apocalypse is part of the 3rd secret, and as Frere Michel points out in his Volume 3 on Fatima, the “false lamb” and “false prophet” will betray the Church to the profit of the Antichrist, who clearly already walks this earth. He only deceives those who have already submitted themselves to the big lie, which as St Paul calls the “Operation of Error” which has been infecting nominal Catholics since 1960. 50 years of modernism have produced a body of people as the late Fr Malachi Martin pointed out are practical apostates, even if they call themselves Catholic. All that remains is for this apostasy to be formalized by one “at the top” I am sick and tired of the sycophantic defences put forward for this disgrace of a man, even by some learnerd and holy traditional priests. Given the contradictory statements of Benedict XVI before and after his so-called resignation, coupled with the revalations of St Gallen’s mafia, and the scandalous comments of that man, Catholics of good standing have every right to be outraged at this rape of the mystical Body of Christ and are fully entitled to resist this man and ignore him as well.

      For those who are new to this work I highly recommend the following:

      “The Book of Destiny” by Herman Kramer
      “The Apocalypse of St John” by E S Berry
      “Catholic Prophecy” by Yves Dupont
      “The Whole Truth about Fatima vol 3” by Frere Michel
      The articles of Father Paul Kramer in Fatima Crusader found in
      The interviews of Fr Malachi Martin with Bernard Janzen – see Triumph Communications
      The interviews of Fr Malachi Martin on the Art Bell Show

    • Thoroughly sobering thoughts. But. does it help advance your efforts, at all, to honor Josef Stalin in your moniker? Seems disconcerting to me.

    • Hi Great Stalin. We must give God His due. Have nothing to do with Novus Ordo parishes, even if that is all that is available? Pope Francis looms large in those places. What about SSPX parishes–even they have Francis’ picture in their vestibule. Please be specific. All of Catholicism has something “to do” with Francis. Surely you are not telling us to become sedevacantists!

      • No, I am not. I simply suggest that we take the Bible seriously.

        For me, there is only one avenue available and that is the SSPX. It is not the Catholic Church, but it is where the fullness of Catholicism currently resides. I know its priests and I trust them. More to the point, they have the Sacraments. Their Priories do not close, as occasionally do some of the small outlying chapels. If one has to move to be near a Priory, then move.

        • Perhaps it is my service in the profession of arms, but my instinct is not to cut and run to SSPX or anything else. Napoleon had a standing order to his army which stated, (going by memory) “March to the sound of the guns.”

          For Christ and His Church I fight on to Christ’s victory. No retreat. Here I stand. No heterodox priest, bishop, cardinal, or pope will deter me in my baptismal duty, for I am Catholic, fully enlisted in the Church Militant. “Scripture and Tradition” is my battle cry. On this Catholic Church I plant my flag and I will defend her to my last breath, in accordance with my baptismal promises. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. I pray God gives me sufficient grace and strength to endure to the end.

          John the Mad, Major (Ret’d)

          • We are not fighting gooks here but thrones and dominions. These “powers of the air” can’t be beaten with drone strikes.

            As it happens, my own time in the military gives me the same instinct. To stand with whatever healthy force remains is not to cut and run but to give oneself a chance of victory.

    • Does Vatican II contain teaching that is in error/ heresy? Because that is where all of this is seemingly being traced back to. How do I know if I am receiving real Sacraments? Should I go into the confessional and ask the priest the questions of the dubia before I would begin confession? Seriously. Because if the answer to the first question is “Yes” then can I trust anything else that he says or does? Or is “absolution” valid even if the priest fails the “heresy quiz”? I am not tempted to go along with them; I am not sure what I am tempted to do, but I find all of this increasingly distressing.

      • Yes it does teach error. For example the so-called teaching of collegiality is actually a re-hash of an old error called gallicanism. The objective of this error was to “strangle” the papacy as it has been known traditionally. Another error is the definition of the purpose of marriage. I could go on and on. The only value of this council is where it reaffirms a previously defined doctrine or dogma. Otherwise it is not binding at all since it admits that it make no solemn definitions (unlike just about every other council). See “Iota Unam” and “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber” if you want to get a start into it’s history.

          • The issue lies in the raising of the secondary end of marriage “mutual help and the allaying of concupiscence” with the primary “procreation and education of children”. The quotes I have above are from the 1917 Code of Canon law. The change is subtle but significant – look at Gadium et Spes:

            “As a mutual gift of two persons, this intimate union as well as the good of the children imposes total fidelity on the spouses and argues for an unbreakable oneness between them.”

            Now on a practical level few Catholic laymen would trouble themselves to look for these passages. But think of the clerical mentality that embraces this distortion and then imposes it upon their flock. It is this spirit of distortion and minimization for the last 50 years that gas eventually produced a bunch of people who think they are Catholic but are not. Just look at the demographics and surveys and tell me that most “catholic” couples are not using contraception? How many have lost the sacramental sense of marriage? How many believe and practice the traditional Catholic roles of Husband and Wife as St Paul teaches in Ephesians? The concilliar “church” is nothing less than the building block of the “false church of darkness” as Blessed Catherine Emmerich called it, with it’s false doctrines, false liturgy and now most likely false pope. He is custom made for these blinded sheep which will be led to the slaughter by him, since they have allowed themselves to be blinded by the “Operation of Error” due to their infidelity. Our Lady of Fatima ora pro nobis.

          • “…a bunch of people who think they are Catholic but are not.”

            According to St. Thomas, because all truth is interconnected or is one, if a person knew all that there is to know about the wing of a fly, he would know all that there is to know about everything—sunlight, nutrition, photosynthesis, etc.

            Yet not one of us knows all there is to know about anything—least of all the truths of our Faith. Not a single one of us holds the entirety of Catholic truth, pure and unsullied. We all hold ideas in our heads which, if taken to their logical conclusion, might very well end up being heretical.

            I once wrote a newspaper letter-to-the-editor, back in the 80s, in which I had worked up an argument against abortion that, it turned out, embraced a heresy called Traducianism: a belief “…that individual human souls originate by derivation from the souls of their parents, in way analogous to the generation of individual bodies.”

            As soon as I stumbled across the definition of it in Father Stravinskas’s “Catholic Dictionary”—quite by accident—I recognized my error and I abandoned that line of thinking.

            Holding a false or faulty understanding of a Catholic teaching does not make one less a Catholic than his neighbor who, no doubt, has his own yet-to-be-discovered erroneous notions.

            To be a real heretic one has to obstinately persist in teaching a false doctrine after being formally commanded by the Church to stop.

          • I unwittingly embraced Apollinarianism (the heretical belief that Jesus did not have a human soul but that the Logos was His soul) for a while

          • The number of Christological heresies is astounding to me—even taking into account duplicates under different names.

          • It’s hard to wrap one’s head around just what it means for God to become man. I often feel like the early centuries of the Church are the following exchange happening repeatedly:

            Person: “Jesus was the Son of God made man. That means…”
            Church: “No, it doesn’t.”

          • What about those who call themselves Catholic and knowingly dissent from Catholic teaching on contraception both in theory and and practice? Ditto for the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and abortion? We know from countless surveys in the last 30 years that a sizeable proportion of so-called Catholics in the pews hold to these heterodox positions. At what point are you going to stop granting them the title of Catholic? These are the ones I am talking about – not those who are in genuine invincible ignorance. The proof that the wrath of God is upon this world is the faithless priests and bishops that confirm these people in their errors. (cf St John Eudes)

          • I agree; but your initial statement—as I quoted it above—refers to “…a bunch of people who think they are Catholic but are not.”

            I suggest that those who “…knowingly dissent from Catholic teaching on contraception…” as well as “…the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and abortion” also know that they’re not really Catholic.

            They are fifth columnists who are consciously and deliberately trying to destroy the faith and to destroy the Church from within.

            Wolves in sheep’s’ clothing, though, are not heretics; they’re something far more insidious.

      • Susan, I am not qualified to comment on the Nu-Church Sacraments per se. I do know, however, that the Saints of the Church were nourished on the pre-Vatican II Sacraments which we know to be valid, licit and represented in its fullness the untainted Catholic religion. It’s an easy logical step to see that to hold to the fullness of our religion – which the Athanasian Creed tells us explicitly we need to do in order to be saved – one needs to be nourished by the same Sacraments about which there is no question.

    • Thank you, Great Stalin, for your courageous, incisive and honest post. Your interpretation is greatly needed in our confused times. I want to add just a few points, which I hope will bring more clarity to this subject.
      The Church teaches (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Article VII, “Signs of the General Judgement”) that three significant signs will precede the end of time. They are 1) the worldwide proclamation of the Gospel; 2) a great falling away from the Faith, i.e., the great apostasy; and 3) ever-increasing persecution of the Church, culminating in the Antichrist phenomenon.

      I don’t feel the need to comment here on the first two signs; I think readers of 1P5 understand what we’re now witnessing, especially in light of the Third Secret of Fatima, which most of us know was never fully revealed in 2000. We do know however that it deals with gross pastoral negligence, apostasy (and perhaps even Satanism) that begins at the highest levels of the Church.

      But as for the third phenomenon, I’m afraid it is necessary to bring up the 9-11 event and all that has transpired since then because it is directly related to the globalist efforts aimed at achieving world hegemony under their cultic (antichristian) regime. Briefly, we now know that the 9-11 event was a “false flag” attack. Recently, the U.S. government, through its agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, after years of stonewalling, and after relentless pressure was applied by heroic truth-seekers, finally conceded that WTC Tower 7 was falling at “free fall” rate for about a third of its descent (“The 9/11 Truth Movement 15 Years Later” Unz Review, September 11, 2016; “15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses” Europhysics News). Simply put, this means that all three towers came down by controlled demolition (“Israel did 9/11 – Dr. Alan Sobrosky – U.S. Army War College – YouTube” 24:12). In addition, no commercial airliner vanished into the Pentagon, nor sank into a bottomless lake of quicksand in western Pennsylvania, taking their black boxes with them. This act of terrorism was carried out by the U.S.-Israeli deep state, though other actors, such as MI-6 and the Saudis probably had small roles to play.

      Being brief, we should now understand that the globalist elites will most likely strike again in the not-to-distant-future, to consolidate their many gains since 9-11. (See the infamous 1871 letter of Albert Pike to Mazzini.) We in the Church must battle these evil forces with prayer and penance – and evangelization. We should also prepare prudently for what’s coming.

      Those who wish to know more about the Church’s teaching on the End Times can see my book, “As We Await the Blessed Hope”, with imprimatur.

      • Mark, I hadn’t heard of your book. The reviews on Amazon, which I read this morning, are certainly positive. As far as 9/11 is concerned, I’d rather not get into that (except to state that a great friend of mine, an American, told me his sister was driving past the Pentagon at the time of the attack and saw the plane hit it with her own eyes).

        What I would be interested to know is your take on the current situation in the Church and in the world from the perspective of the work you have done on Catholic prophecy and eschatology.

        • Thank you, comrade. The essence of my thesis is simply that the end of the Old Covenant age is a type of the temporal close of the New Covenant age. So, for example, Nero is a type of Antichrist (Rev 13; CCC 675). Because the New Testament was largely written before the close of the Old Covenant in AD 70, (666 years after the last legitimate Davidic king was overthrown – see the image of the man in Dn 2), the End Times prophecies of the NT are almost entirely pointing to the close of the Mosaic age in their immediate historical sense. At the close of this age all things that were written in the OT were fulfilled (Lk 21; Dn 9). However, the Church’s teachings on the end of time are drawn from the NT passages concerning the “end of the age” (e.g., the Olivet Discourse). So, the close of the Old Covenant age is a type of the temporal close of the New. This is the hermeneutical key that unlocks the Christian understanding of eschatology. Much more to be said about all of this, of course; but then, there’s my book.

          Because of this interpretive approach, I’m not at all surprised by what we’re seeing unfold in our Church and in our world – Did the Beast from the Sea (ancient Rome) and the Beast from the Land (apostate Judaism) embrace Christ and His renewed Israel? It’s only to be expected that today corrupted religious authority will be “fornicating” with the powers that be in the world (Rev 17). And just as God is working through His Kingdom-people, so the evil spirit is working through his agents, largely organized through the semi-furtive, cultic sects, especially Freemasonry. And the end of this drama is not a very happy one – unless one looks beyond time, just as our Lord looked beyond the cross.

          I’m almost sorry that I felt the need to bring up 9-11, but we simply cannot make sense of our world today without understanding this pivotal event, which has brought us to where we are now. If any honest soul scratches just a bit (please see the sources I gave), he’ll soon discover that the official story is a gossamer veil of lies. And the implications of this reality, of course, are almost too terrible to contemplate without the comfort of Christ.

          In His peace.

      • And so we leave the planet earth and dive headlong into the realm of lunatic conspiracies. Not me. As horrified as I am by Francis’s papacy I am not about to lose my reason. The real world is problematical enough.

  29. Please God, purge your Church by any means necessary, and remove these termites of heresy forever. And please, as for the one who currently is dressed in white, “let his bishopric another take”.

  30. This man is being tipped as our next Pope. I suspect Francis will retire to clear the way for him or some other purveyor of falsehood. The preternatural forces of Satan are always operating against the Church and within the Church ranks. I suggest for every message we post on social media that we also pray a rosary for courageous Catholics to reject these heresies, that the immaculate heart of Mary will triumph and souls will turn to her Son, they will see with their eyes, understand with their hearts, return and be healed. I fear that we are in this situation because we have ceased to pray sufficiently for the sanctification of the Church.

    • I do not believe the word of a man who says: “We can and we must respect the decision to form a union with a person of the same sex, [and] to seek means under civil law to protect their living together.” Or: “The ‘Rigorist’ and the ‘laxist’ are the same but opposite.”

      He has no credibility. Every word is false news.

      My experience with people like this is not that they try really hard to get it right; and succeed from time to time. Rather, they have embraced the big Lie and they are.always.wrong. Now that he may speak freely, Cardinal Schonborn is always wrong.

      • It appears his theological studies were accomplished at the Antonio Spadaro School of Mathematics with a minor in logic.
        Advanced brain decay.

    • Given his proclaimed infirmity, his “housing situation,” can his voice any longer be heard with confidence?
      Diptych indeed.
      Rather two-faced.

  31. The fallout over Amoris Laetitia is causing me to question and I am not finding easy answers: How did we get here? (modernism and Freemasonary and ambiguities of Vatican II) AND are there other teachings that contradict the historic teaching of the Catholic Church? (i.e., ecumenism, there is no salvation outside of the Church, Protestants as separated brethren, evangelize but do not make converts, religious indifference, etc.).

    How can baptism unite all Christians under one umbrella as Christ’s church and body of believers when many of the Protestant denominations deny the regenerative nature of baptism? If the Early Church Fathers believed that to deny baptismal regeneration was to deny the entirety of the Christian faith, then why/how has this changed to reflect something different? Or is this a matter of: it is because the Church tells us it is so now and it matters not what the Church taught us before?

    If AL is obviously wrong, then what else is wrong that I just don’t know yet. For example, I thought the new mass was simply a matter of changing the words from Latin to English. I had no idea the magnitude of the changes. I was stunned to learn that there were Protestants as advisors at Vatican II. Why would the Catholic Church and its leadership do such a thing and invite non-Catholics into the council process? Do the Baptists invite the Catholics to their doctrinal conventions? I think not.

    These men are literally undermining and destroying the Catholic faith. So if adultery is now acceptable …. with a little pastoral direction, accompaniment, discernment and mercy …. then why not apply this standard to the 4th Commandment or the 8th Commandment (and all of the other “Commandments”)? Yes, I know we are watching prophesy being fulfilled before our very eyes. What I want to know is how far back do I have to go before I am on solid doctrinal ground?

    • I struggle with these questions too. Whilst maintaining humility we should recognize our importance as the soldiers of Christ of our generation.

      But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.

      Lk 12:48 Douay-Rheims Bible

    • Susan, I too wrote to a good theologian with that question. He said Pius xii, howver I remain uneasy because of the changes to Holy Week ceremonies in his time which appear to have signaled possibilities of ‘change’ to liturgy. Perhaps this happened because of persecution of jews by nazis or maybe it was at last the excuse deemed acceptable. Alteady in the 1800’s, the plan to destroy the Church was building. I wonder how much is a result of that plan?

    • Excellent, thoughtful questions.
      Not to lay all the blame on the ecumenical masquerade at all — but it has served their purpose well in the last century. It is merely a wedge to relativize all the “components” of the Christian enterprise, homogenizing it and essentially robbing it of its Divine origin. This in turn makes way for “inter-religious dialogue” which is the final step before a romanticized atheism with a nostalgia for the transcendent.
      Whose at the head of the line?
      Our well supported clergy class with meaningless degrees posing as wisdom figures.
      The problem on our hands is truly beyond the scope of comprehension.
      Its roots in the clergy inexplicable.
      Where is Peter?

        • Yes, exactly, like homoerotic murals on Cathedral walls. Like books on Building Bridges with the LGBT community (dialogue and accompaniment but never calls to repentance and conversion). Like light shows of apes and tigers and all sorts of wild animals on the facade of the St. Peter’s Basilica (downright creepy and chilling). Like wild cocaine fueled sodomy orgies in a Vatican apartment (complete with police raid). Like attacks and insults on faithful and devout Catholics (while embracing atheists, Muslims, Jews, population control advocates, transgenders, abortionists, same sex “married” couples.)

          Yes, anything is possible.

      • Yes, indeed, where is Peter? Yes, I seem to be able to ask “excellent, thoughtful questions” …. the problem is that finding “excellent, thoughtful answers” is not such an easy endeavor.

        Thus far …. go back before Vatican II for solid doctrinal ground. The Council of Trent Catechism can be trusted. If I want an idea of where the 1994 Catechism went wrong, look at Fr. John Hardon’s commentary and recommendations. There are two books, Iota Utam and The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber, that can give me an idea of what went wrong with Vatican II and how we got to this place. And finally, don’t trust anything Francis.

        • “Iota Unum” is excellent. That given, you would devour “The Second Vatican Council: an Unwritten Story” bu Roberto de Mattei, as well as “Phoenix from the Ashes” by H.J.A. Sire and “The Great Façade” by Christopher Ferarara & Thomas Woods.

    • … are there other teachings that contradict the historic teaching of the Catholic Church?

      Usury got the Amoris treatment in the 1830’s, and now few people even understand what it actually is (and isn’t). Unrepentant usurers receive absolution and Holy Communion all the time, mostly in complete ignorance of the historic teaching.

  32. Here’s a question I have about the divorced/remarried, gay, lgbtxyz, etc etc issue: why do these people want to be in the Catholic Church in the first place? They say they want to follow Jesus Christ, but there are plenty of ‘religions’ who claim to follow Him that will accompany them in their lifestyle. To be Catholic one has to put Jesus before oneself and that means following and living by His rules. But rather than change to a different religion these people are fighting to change the one true religion to suit themselves. We should be telling them to bugger off, but the Catholic Church is kowtowing to them. This world is upside down and inside out.

    • Many times I’ve had this same thought.
      I believe their only attachment to Roman Catholicism is of a sentimental nature – now that is at best.
      The alphabet soup crowd, this Pope, his legion of bishops, priests and sisters who hold the content of the faith and its corollary practice as inconsequential yet are attached the
      memory of their Catholic granny and the security of their childhood – smells, bells, habits, holy pictures and the like. Having moved beyond those things, indeed, having moved beyond Holy Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition – they can’t quite bring themselves into leave and become whatever. Conformity to the faith being impossible – solution: bring the faith into conformity to their individual perversions of the faith.
      Then there is the other crew. A real and motivating hatred for the faith, and the drive to
      deconstruct it. Surely more common than we would care to believe. Once they get it all in pieces use what they can (authority) for their purpose, and junk the rest.
      Motivation — who belongs in either camp is often difficult to determine.
      There is a three pronged effort to eviscerate Western culture. Secular materialists have control of the academy, political institutions and darn close to all the facets of Christianity. Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism are on the razor’s edge of collapse.

      • They wish to be in the Catholic Church because it is the one true thing.

        Satan doesn’t care about reprobate sinners; they are his. He cares about the pure, undefiled Bride of Christ. She is his doom. He challenged God that he could destroy Her. Knowing he could not destroy Her from outside, he aimed for infiltration, (Fatima, Akita, Pope Leo XIII).

        Nothing else matters to the enemies of God than the Bride of Christ. They know God reigns; but His treasure, His Bride, that is the battlefield.

  33. Even if a person were to support allowing the divorced and remarried to receive communion, it is impossible to answer “yes” to all the dubia. If you answer “yes” to the first, you must answer “no” to the rest. If you answer “no” to the first, which is the correct answer, you must answer “yes” to the rest. These questions were written carefully. The answer of one requires specific answers of the others.

  34. Once he’s answered “yes” to the first question, his answers to the next four must be “no”. Those last four “yes” answers are lies meant to “keep up the appearance” of their fake Catholicism. At least with the first yes, he was honest about the heresy of this pontificate. The last four are just the usual dishonesty and manipulation we keep hearing from this pope and his gang of slippery thugs.

      • Oh yes, for Schonborn and Francis and their oh-so-clever comrades, 2 + 2 may very well, at times, of course, equal 5. Other times it is possibly going to come to 6, or 8, or who knows, even 93. Because you know, they are open to the surprises of the spirit. And no, most of us aren’t in tune with that “spirit”. Though we certainly are surprised when actual leaders in the Church tell us that 2+2=5.

        It’s a handy kind of “spirit” to have around, so full of “surprises”, when you want to do things your way and not so much the way of Holy Mother Church. Surprise! You thought 2+2 was always 4!

    • This is not actually true. To answer yes to the first dubia, he does need to deny some truth of the faith, but there are other options besides the universal moral truths which the other four dubia reinforce, for instance, matters of sacramentology. This doesn’t necessarily improve affairs, since a truth of the faith is still being denied, but the possible material heresy is not necessarily being compounded with lies.

        • You could do that. I do not believe I did. Drawing proper distinctions should only add to truth, not distract from it. I stand to my point: it is not logically incoherent to answer yes to all five dubia. A thing can be logically coherent without being true.

  35. Then why all the *wink wink nudge nudge* from Francis when dissident bishops and cardinals do things contrary to the Faith? Why doesn’t he discipline these men, the ones in his own inner circle? It’s all double-talk.

  36. “The rigorist avoids the effort of discernment, of looking closely at reality.” Nice to have a new name. I am a rigorist, because I am avoiding reality and everyone who avoids reality is a rigorist. Whatever. The Pope should have met with the four Cardinals and discussed the five dubia immediately and privately. Sadly, the Pope rejected both options and declared war against his fictional enemies, the Rigorists. Thankfully, Bergoglio and his buddies are losers who are trying the impossible: to replace the principal agent of the Church.

    • I look at this atrocity and all the verbal violence flung at the Cardinals and others that are actually Catholic and wonder indeed if Bergoglio is actually trying to cause a split in the Church! Seems to me that may be what’s going on. For what reason? I haven’t figured that one out yet. No clue as to the ‘why’ part of it.

    • “Be ye therefor perfect as your a Father in heaven is perfect.” (Matt 5:48)

      We are called to rigor. There is no question of that. We are called to take up our Cross and follow Jesus to Calvary. Rigor. I have no use for anyone who tells me otherwise. This, I know.

  37. What is coming out of the Vatican since Jorge was supposedly elected Vicar of Christ, is sad for the Roman Catholic’s who love the church but find it very difficult to like what is going on with this heretical Pope! What he has done and continues to do is dismantle the Barque of Peter by his actions. He’s gotten rid of the solid Orthodox Prelates and put his ‘St. Gallen group and Liberation Theology followers in their place. Yes, we know the end of the story but what’s been going on in our church for almost a century is finally coming to fruition…..

  38. Oh yeah……one other thing. Concerning “accompaniment”……it’s non-Scriptural. The parable which Jesus uses to describe his ministry is that of the Good Shepherd [John 10:11]. The priest, being an alter Christus is likewise called to be a good shepherd. A good shepherd does not “accompany” sheep as they wander where they will; into the path of wolves, over a ravine or onto stony ground where there is no food. No, a good shepherd guides the sheep, he leads them and directs them. He protects them and keeps them out of harm’s way.

    “Accompaniment” is for lazy shepherds, for shepherds who don’t care, like the homo-rabble which has taken over the Church. Ergo, “accompaniment” is garbage. Another meaningless buzz word invented by Jesuits on a head trip.

    Be a shepherd, a good shepherd, not a passive accompanier; an onlooker who simply tags along as the lost sheep stagger blindly towards their ruin.

    • Great analogy.

      The shepherd’s crook is used to guide sheep who are lost, defend sheep who are threatened, rescue sheep who have fallen.

      It is more than just a walking stick for a walking buddy going who knows where. It is essential shepherding equipment for a shepherd with a plan.

  39. “Inconvenient.”

    There we have it – the mortal sin against the “new-Kirk” of the Supreme Pontiff Francis, who with his fellow members of the “Mafia” believes this:

    “The God who sits enthroned over the world and history as a changeless being is an offense to man.” (Walter Kasper, God in History, 1967)

    A theology of arrogance…for Jez-Kirk…a dead-fish church floating downstream with the zeitgeist.

  40. No, not the so called dubia-cardinals are offending the pope! They do their duty to the good of the church! But Cardinal Schönborn is not fullfilling his duty like so many cardinals and bishops! Instead of helping the pope to correct his way they promote another way of the church leading into error!
    I understand very well that some pastoral questions should be asked and I support to reflect how to deal better with people far away from the truth and the church! But this can never mean to give up clear and true convictions and teachings of the church or to deal with Relativismus! So Cardinal Schönborn are saying dangerous things and we always have to take care waht he is saying and doing! Sorry to say: those prelates who are trying to change the moral of our church are – without knowing – cooperators of the spirit of the Antichrist!

  41. I’d just like to point out that given the five dubia, and only the five dubia, there is no logical contradiction in answering yes to all of them. This is because dubia 2-5 do not form a logical argument for an answer to dubia 1.
    That is, the argument:
    “Given that 1) Absolute Moral Norms exist, and that 2) Objective Grave Sin exists, and that 3)Circumstances cannot change an objectively evil act into a subjectively good act, and that 4)An appeal to conscience cannot overcome moral norms, therefore the divorced and remarried who are still engaged in a sexual relationship can/cannot receive absolution and communion without amendment of life” can not be considered valid by any system of logic.

    Some additional premises are necessary for that argument to be valid, and I suspect that it is in those premises that the confusion results.

    From what I see, four hidden premises are needed to make the above argument valid. They are as follows:
    1)Having sex with another person, regardless of any state of cohabitation and civil legal permission, while validly married to someone besides your sexual partner, is adultery.
    2)Adultery is grave matter, which if performed with full knowledge and deliberate consent results in mortal sin.
    3a)Marriage is indissoluble, 3b)such that even with a divorce, the divorced parties are presumed to remain validly married, 3c)unless a tribunal, and only a tribunal, should declare that no marriage ever existed.
    4)You may not receive communion while in a state of mortal sin.

    From those four premises, you can draw the conclusion:
    Therefore, the divorced and remarried who are still engaged in a sexual relationship cannot receive communion without amendment of life. (Expanding the conclusion to cover absolution would require other premises, which I will not do here.)

    I suspect that giving a yes answer to all of the dubia does not result from any illogic, but simply from a disagreement about veracity of the four hidden premises. The two most likely possibilities are denying some part of 3), most likely 3c) since our Supreme Pontiff has expressed the opinion that most marriages are invalid, or denying 4) due to the faulty sacramentology which is encouraged by the Novus Ordo, at least as it is usually celebrated. Either way, there is a problem, but it is not necessarily malicious. They presume malice of us. Let us take a higher path and not presume malice of them.

    • Do any other readers have any comments on Kaphas’ propositions above? I’m afraid I couldn’t quite follow it, and just wrote it off to myself as being a bit too “nuanced”.

      • The blunt version: one can agree with the moral framework of the last four dubia while still not thinking that it applies to the moral situation of the first dubia.

  42. “They are the same but opposite.” How incoherent is that? I think that that sentence sums up exactly what is wrong in the Church.

  43. Schonborn :“The Church should not look in the bedroom first, but in the dining room!”

    What he fails to see is that in the context of Mass and Matrimony the bedroom is the dining room.

    The covenantal marraige is consumated by marital intercourse. The spiritual covenant with the Lord is consumated at communion.

    The problem with these people is they see communion as nothing more than eating bread.

    • And, dare I say, marriage as nothing more than the “bedroom”, based on the comments regarding cohabitation as being capable of the same sacramental qualities as marriage.

  44. “The rigorist avoids the effort of discernment, of looking closely at reality. The laxist lets everything possible go, and there is no discernment. They are the same but opposite.”

    Whatever happened to “say ‘yes’ when you mean ‘yes’, and ‘no’ when you mean ‘no’ – everything else is from the evil one.” ? Why is there suddenly so much gray area?

  45. “That cardinals, who should be the closest collaborators of the pope, try to force him and put pressure on him to give a public response to their publicised letter is absolutely inconvenient behaviour,”

    Yes, we know it’s inconvenient. And yes we know the cardinals should be the closest collaborators of the pope, which is WHY THEY WROTE THE DUBIA IN THE FIRST PLACE. The only reason they went public is because the Pope refused to even grant an audience to his “closest collaborators.”

    With all the respect due his office, the Cardinal is a nincompoop.

  46. Until the late 20th cent. the dubia questions can be PRESUMED TO BE TRUE.
    But in post Vat II, this can not be assumed in the US.
    Why? obviously because 54% of all births are now outside of marriage! The contraceptive life style is assured, the educational system and media, entertainment industry CONTRARY TO NATURAL LAW. This is true even for those who attend Catholic High Schools, where students are not at all sure of a life long commitment, nor that same sex unions are a moral problem. (thankfully, the pro-life issue is headed towards rejection of abortion and the young see that).
    This means that bearing children only after marriage is not self evident to those seeking marriage. In fact most believe that living together to see if they are sexually compatible is the STRONGEST ATTITUDE BEFORE GETTING MARRIED (and tragically the greatest factor for divorce.).
    So when presented with a civilly married couple AFTER DIVORCE, one must FIRST QUESTION THE FIRST MARRIAGE AND NOT PRESUME THEY AGREED FREELY WITH SUFFICIENT AWARENESS THAT CHURCH MARRIAGE IS FOR LIFE. (most Catholics think that a civil divorce means the marriage is over and they are free NOT ONLY TO SEEK ANOTHER UNION BUT EVEN THINK THAT SEXUAL UNION IS OK BEFORE GETTING MARRIED A SECOND TIME OUTSIDE OF CHURCH! just look at family members, friends, neighbors co-workers and seniors in retirement!
    Of Course, this is NOT uniform across the nation but is very prevalent.
    Eg. Pres. Reagan was not electorlally punished by voters by his divorce and second marriage. NOR HAS TRUMP BEEN. One of the reasons is that people think many make mistakes when they’re young and on the second or third try a marriage actually works out fine. It’s a non issue in our overall secular culture.
    Thus it is necessary to have a Church review of this. There should be no confusion about this.
    BUT the two halves of Apostolic Churches came to review this differently in the latter part of the first millennium.
    The East took the more practical way of allowing for three tries ( which requires confession, repentance and a simpler rite of second vows. while the West is a decree of nullity if there was something at the time of the first marriage that was preventing a real bond from occurring.
    This Eastern way is what is perhaps suggested by the refusal of the Pope to answer directly those dubia.
    AND a decentralized process at the local diocesan level SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THIS.

    • I think if something is right we should fight for it, regardless how much it is ignored. Otherwise everything goes to… The world need to see the standard.

      Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house.
      So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

      – Jesus Christ

      (Mathew 5:15-16, Douay-Rheims Bible)

      • I don’t disagree with you. My point is WHY the Pope does not clearly answer these 5 dubia

        (Is he wanting to adopt the Eastern way of dealing with broken marriages and remarriage?)

        Secondly, when one deals with Catholics in remarriage, the Church must first probe the situation and not immediately label them such and such. then YOU ARE IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN WHAT MARRIAGE REALLY IS. iow, don’t go immediately to the abstract teaching; discover the facts first.

        I was thinking of a marriage of a cousin some 35yrs ago, when at the reception to the Church wedding I was told that the groom who was not Catholic nor religious, had decided to quit his job one month before the wedding and play golf ,and his future bride,my younger cousin from a broken family thought she might be an old maid if she didn’t get married by 25! His irresponsibility and fillandering led to divorce 8 yrs latert, devastating to the children, even today.
        Of course, the clergy must preach about marriage.

        • Preach about marriage, and only give the Sacraments to those worthy of them – at that stage in their lives. Obsene gangster funerals in my country an obvious example that springs to mind.

  47. In moments which at times I consider my more lucid, sometimes I think we are taking this more
    seriously than we should. In actuality what are we dealing with? A bunch of old fools with their heads stuck in the sixties, angst driven by the thought they have wasted their lives and with a ravenous desire to be considered relevant in a world that is solely occupied with self-gratification and not about God, and least of all about them..
    With few known exceptions this is the state of the episcopate, and sadly of far too many clerics, diocesan and religious.
    Bergoglio, Schoenborn, Marx, Kasper, Cupich and Dolan, right down to Jimmy Martin. Romper room drop outs hungering for a gold star.
    Soon these fossils will have blown away, and what is priceless will remain because our Lord said so. But not without the remnant that clings to the Cross.

  48. I do not accept “Daily tweeted that…” as acceptable documentation. Cardinal Schönborn would surely not accept “Yes” as the answer to the frist dubia. No way. But “change of life” means conversion, metanoia. Cardinal Schönborn would reject the reductivist, rigorist interpretation of the term. Therefore it is false to say that pastoral discernment is necessary.

  49. Reminder….SSPX is schismatic. Meaning, you are in danger of mortal din for attending or promoting. Good intentions and orthodox TLM liturgy don’t fix the heresy. Soooo sick of SSPX being thrown out as the solution. It’s the cowards way out. Like Luther or Calvin. Better to stand tall with Christ and fight within the ark than desert Holy Mother, even if it means persecution at the hands of Church prepares, like St Joan and St Patrick, Athanesius, and countless other faithful Catholics. Not downplaying the abuses that can and have occurred during NO masses, but they are valid masses, the priests are valid, and Christ allows himself to come down if it is valid matter and Church-approved liturgy. I take humbrage at anyone saying a host from the NO is not Jesus. That is sacrilegious and heterodox and I’m sick of that FILFTH. Deal with the abuses and heterodox teachings directly, but leave the Presence of Jesus alone.

    I’m a trad because I see the beauty of tradition as the highest form of honor to God, but I have attended very devout and holy NO masses. Let’s be real folks. I ain’t seeing the love after or before most trad masses. I repeat, this “retreat” to SSPX is cowardly and any husband/father will be held to account for it, for abandoning your post where God placed you. It takes more guts to stand strong on the frontlines. If you are blessed with FSSP nearby or TLM masses, have at it. Otherwise, work to reform your church/diocese where you can.

    Geesh, this SSPX lovefest in the comments makes me nauseous, if only for the illogical cognitive dissonance one needs in order to make it fly. Let’s deal with the issues, recognize the authority of the pope, keep our grace and humility when addressing Pope Francis and other prelates, and take some time to focus on our own shortcomings, as well. We won’t be abandoned by Christ; why abandon him? Our charge is to be true to doctrine and tend to our own salvation while fighting for Holy Mother. This desperation and tin foil tone among trads is not of Christ. We got the priests we deserved. I hardly think things were hunky dunky pre-1962 else how else did this creep In? I suspect it was a lack of love and humility.

    Going to a TLM doesn’t make us saints. We are being persecuted; we are being punished. The Middle East, China, and African Catholics…THEY are being persecuted. We in the West are being chastised and refined.

    I know I’m guilty. I suspect the majority of you on here are, too. God have mercy on us.

Comments are closed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...