Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Top Catholic Philosopher: Amoris Laetitia Will “Split the Church”

© Marijan Murat dpa/lsw
Professor Robert Spaemann | Photo © Marijan Murat dpa/lsw

Today, 28 April, an important exclusive interview with a well-known Catholic philosopher has been published in Germany. The important statements of Professor Robert Spaemann might well indicate that the wind is turning now against the “Francis Revolution”.

Spaemann – who is a personal friend of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI – says about Amoris Laetitia that there are some ways of interpreting the document against the continuous teaching of the Church. He then continues:

However, the article 305 – together with the footnote 351 where it is said that faithful “in the middle of an objective situation of sin” and “because of mitigating factors” may be admitted to the Sacraments – is in direct contradiction to the paragraph 84 of the document Familiaris Consortio by John Paul II.

Spaemann explains a little further this point:

He [John Paul II] formulates very clearly in paragraph 84 that remarried divorcees have to refrain from sexual relations if they want to go to Holy Communion. A change in practice of the dispensation of the Sacraments would therefore not be a “further development of Familiaris Consortio,” as Cardinal Kasper says, but a breach with its essential anthropological and theological teaching on human marriage and sexuality. The Church has no authority – without a previous conversion – to positively, sanction with the help of the Sacraments, disordered sexual relationships and thereby to get ahead of God’s Mercy. Independently of how these situations have to be assessed in human and moral terms – the door here is closed, just as in the case with female priests.

The Catholic philosopher also criticizes the idea of marriage as presented in Amoris Laetitia when he says that the Christian life is “not a pedagogical event where one slowly moves toward marriage as an ideal, as Amoris Laetitia seems to propose in several passages.” Any violation of God’s Laws in this field is, in his eyes, a “violation of God’s holiness” which requires “a conversion.” By admitting such habitual sinners to the Sacraments, one would “violate God’s Mercy.”

Robert Spaemann also stresses that it is “absolutely justified” that so many critics now concentrate on these most troubling parts of the document. He says:

One cannot expect, when dealing with a papal magisterial document, that people rejoice about a beautiful text and then ignore the decisive sentences which change the teaching of the Church. There is indeed only the clear yes-or-no decision. There is no third possibility between giving Holy Communion or not.”

Speamann also questions the pope’s claim that one should not judge people in these areas of moral conduct. Of course, says the German, do we not judge the personal consciences of people. “But when it comes to sexual relations,” he continues, “which are in objective contradiction to the Christian order of life, I would like to know from the pope after which time period and under which conditions such an objectively sinful behavior becomes a conduct which is pleasing to God.”

When asked as to whether there is to be found in Amoris Laetitia a breach with the Church’s traditional teaching, Spaemann responds: “It is clear to every thinking person who knows the texts that are important in this context that there is a breach.”

The German philosopher rejects the “situation ethics” that is to be found in Amoris Laetitia. He shows that the consequences of this document are “insecurity and confusion.” He knows of priests who say that there is the general impression that no one living in an “irregular situation” will now be any more excluded from the Sacraments – and this “without conversion.”

Spaemann indicates also that the pope is fostering now a schism within the Church:

The chaos has been turned into a principle – with one stroke of a pen. The pope should have known that he will split the Church with such a step and that he leads her into the direction of a schism – a schism that would be not at the periphery, but in the middle of the Church. May God help us to avoid this.

He forcefully ends his interview with the following consequential words:

Each individual cardinal, as well as each bishop and each priest is now called to preserve in his field of authority the Catholic Sacramental Order and to confess it publicly. If the pope is not willing to make a correction, it is up to another pontificate to officially put things back into order.

We might have reached the tipping point now in the Church. May many voices follow the courageous one of Professor Spaemann.

221 thoughts on “Top Catholic Philosopher: Amoris Laetitia Will “Split the Church””

  1. Professor Spaemann is absolutely correct in saying that there has to be a Yes or No to the admission to Holy Communion of couples in “irregular” unions. There is no middle way and PF knows that full well. We are at a turning point in the CC. Sufficient Cardinals & Bishops will have to come out & support the immediate Consecration of Russia to Our Lady in the way She requested it to be done. There will be no answer to our prayers for the restoration of Tradition until this is carried out properly.

  2. The only way forward is for all Catholics to stop receiving communion as was the case before Pius X. The exceptions would be for the sick, the dying and the handicapped. The modern papacy resembles a central bank which bails out the authors of failed investment vehicles. Quite how this Pope cannot see the parallel is beyond me? His own country regularly defaults on its debts in order to eek out an existence. We need a similar debt forgiveness project but the bailing out of the “too big to fail” Vatican II project has to stop now before it does anymore damage.

      • Hi Matt, infrequent (!) communion was the norm in centuries past. It would make life easier for the priests and end the discrimination against Catholics in irregular situations i.e. we would all be treated the same way. Communion would be reserved for the sick, dying, first communion and the handicapped.

        I sometimes sit behind a down syndrome woman at Mass. She would continue to receive and I would not. It would make being sat near her even more of a privilege.

        • Nothing about that option seems realistic or even desirable. Its interesting what you say, but hardly worthy of serious discussion, don’t you think?

          • It can be conscientiously changed back. If the great pope St Pius X were alive today he would not be afraid to make the change.

          • Pius X was a great pope, but in this I suspect he was too optimistic. While I’m not arguing Burt’s extreme position, I believe that even the solidly orthodox among us have mostly lost the healthy sense of holy fear that ought to apply in anyone’s approach to the altar.

          • Thank you for the muted support! What I am suggesting is not extreme but was normative for centuries. Under my proposal, the NO would have to be replaced by a liturgy more suited for this new theology. This would inevitably lead to the restoration of older liturgical forms more suited to the new thinking.

          • Why would you think that cutting off Catholics from the Source of all grace would help any problem in the Church? This is a very dangerous attitude and shows a clear misunderstanding of why the Church exists.

          • I disagree with Burt, but I see why he is saying it. I as a seminarian struggle to find a deeper reverence for the precious body/blood and my belief of the true presence when at my seminary, seminarians are barred from kneeling at the Agnus Dei or kneel to receive out or reverence and those who started to were sternly told not to and were ostracized by the formation staff for doing it.

            So I understand why Burt says that although I don’t think limiting communion is a good idea at all. For me, having those restrictions and the overall minimized reverence for the precious body/blood in the novus ordo makes it hard for me to get into a place where I feel that I am being reverent. In some ways I feel irreverent and I almost feel like not receiving as to avoid any irreverence and avoid being a party to it. If I was not at a seminary I would just go to a different parish or go to mass daily but not receive.

          • One might encourage people not to receive if they do not feel properly disposed to do so. That’s something that might do some good. Give people a reason to think, “Oh, you mean I don’t have to go up to Communion every Sunday and if I sit in the pew, people won’t look at me and judge me a sinner?”

            This is certainly a problem. But the solution is not to cut off communion for everyone. It’s to encourage discretion.

          • Exactly. The big problem is that in many cases the novus ordo Mass has made what should be a deeply reverent and awe-inspiring liturgy and made it so bland and devoid of deeper meaning that many Catholics end up dreading and dislike going to Mass. It makes it harder to get anything meaningful out of it. Then the sacraments most importantly the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ become less meaningful because it lost its specialness and importance.

          • I don’t think limiting communion is a good idea either! I see it as a temporary measure (it might take a century or two) and a way forward out of the chaos. It is in line with Catholic tradition. Not ideal but better than the present mess. What you have experienced in the seminary is a disgrace and is a typical example of the chaos and division to which I refer.

          • Your teachers at the seminary have absolutely no right to bar you from kneeling to receive Holy Communion. This is written into Canon Law, You should protest this canonically unlawful rule. What could be their motive for denying the seminarians the right to kneel? It can only be just one more of the Modernists’ evil ways to reduce reverence and devotion for the Most Blessed Sacrament. Resist it!

          • I know, the only problem is that they hold the power at the seminary and even though their barring me form kneeling to receive is unjust and breaking canon law, they also hold the power when it comes to recommending me to continue at seminary. If it was my pastor at a parish I would have no problem ignoring his order since it is unjust and unlawful and if he tried to bar me from communion because I dared to kneel and disobey then I would complain to the vicar general. But because I am being ordered under obedience to the seminary under threat of being labeled as “disobedient” I am in a catch 22.

            Is anyone looking/commenting on this a canon lawyer who can clarify the law on commanding a person to receive or not receive and/or give me advice on this?

          • SecretSeminarian, I am really sorry to hear of your difficult situation at the seminary, surely causing you a lot of suffering. In your vocation to the holy priesthood this cross likens you

          • Thank you. Many of us see terrible things happen at seminary but are afraid of retribution/retaliation by the seminary if we ever complained or made it public. We are held hostage by the seminaries if we want to be recommended to continue at the cost of our consciences and our faith even having to hide our adherence to the faith, morals and teachings for fear of being labeled as a “radical”.

            Pray for me and pray for all seminarians.

          • It is distressing to hear that holy awe and respect toward Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament is actively discouraged in some seminaries.

            I don’t know how much or at how many houses of priestly formation are still not conforming to proper preparation and priestly living as Pope St. John Paul II described in his writings on the priesthood. I urge you to immerse yourself in his story — his struggle toward ordination and during his priesthood during times of great persecution.

            Secret Seminarian, perhaps obedience is a “virtue” that you are wise to “cultivate,” so that you may accomplish your holy goal and someday use your orthodoxy and orthopedics for the greater good and for the glory of God.

            A number of first-year ordinands have shared with me and friends of mine that it was a trial to get through seminary. However, they’re thankful, and so are we, that they clung to the foot of the. cross and persevered.

            I’ve observed that the newer priests very strong in the Faith and supportive of their younger brothers. You will find great reward and solace when you are ordained and can seek like-minded fellow priests with whom to bond in service to Jesus Christ and His Church.

            You are certainly in my prayers!

          • Sorry, that went too soon!
            I was saying that you are following Our Blessed Saviour even more closely by having to obey these unjust rules of your seminary teachers.

            I always kneel to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, even when I am the only one doing so. I have never had a problem till earlier this year when I went to a church for Mass that I hadn’t been to before. The priest refused to give me Communion until I stood up! I wrote about it on our blog here:
            Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, Chapter IV, [91] states clearly:
            In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”.[177] Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

          • The link didn’t work! (Perhaps links are not allowed.) Anyway, the title of the article was “I was refused Communion when kneeling”, and our blog is called Catholicism Pure & Simple.


            Yes, I shall indeed pray for you – I promise – and I thank you for your generosity and humility in answering God’s call to the Holy Priesthood. May God bless you with abundant graces.

          • Secret Seminarian, draw very close to the Eucharistic Christ and make reparation to Him by your interior loyalty to Him. He will guide you in every sick situation in which you find yourself.

          • Depriving persons of the living Christ Who so wants union with each one of us is an abhorrent idea. It is to punish the living God and those who LOVE and believe in Him because of the rejection of many hostile to His grace and LOVE. Pius X under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and influenced by the teachings of the great Therese of Lisieux, who was then in Heaven, opened the doors to frequent Holy Communion. You do not solve the heresies promulgated by an apostate pope by depriving the Holy Eucharist to those hungry for Christ. Truly it is the stupidest idea I have ever heard. Get a grip.

          • It cannot be acceptable to describe the Holy Father as an apostate. He is a man of prayer and of service to the Church. Pius X changed what was normative for centuries. In other words, regular communion is an innovation and can be reversed.

          • In other words, regular communion is an innovation and can be reversed.

            Untrue statement.

            Frequent reception of Holy Communion was the norm in the early Church. It was in no way an innovation.

            Infrequent reception is the innovation.

          • Bergoglio is indeed an apostate. His instruction to Italian priests about the Sacrament of Confession are heretical. Amoris Laetitia is riddled with doctrinal errors and it even outright contradicts the perennial teaching of the Church on the Sacrament of Matrimony. Very accurately Bergoglio can be described as a heretic.

          • I like all of your comment except the “stupidest idea” at the end. Jesus had some harsh warning for those who call another person stupid. Let’s disagree as charitably as we can.

          • Heartlander, I did not say Burt Valence was stupid, I said the IDEA was the stupidest I have ever heard. It is also a very dangerous attitude and needed to be addressed firmly. About such a dangerous attitude I am not responding with words dipped in chocolate.

          • You don’t have to discuss it but I am simply addressing the divisions in the Church identified by the philosopher.

          • You are addressing them in a totally nonsensical way. Don’t like the direction that America is heading in the 2016 elections? Time to start a moon colony. Well come on, that’s not a helpful suggestion. Any rate, I doubt you’ll ever get another Catholic to agree with you on this so good luck with your squawking about it.

          • I am British and the American elections are happily not my concern. I am not squawking but attempting to be civil in my discourse.

          • I mean just imagine the announcement after Mass. No more communion ever again until you’re almost dead.

          • But at least the division is being addressed. What I am reading here is more division and disunity.

        • now is the time when we (in a state of grace) should be receiving Holy Communion more instead of less. We need the grace and the strength for what is coming

        • Hi Matt, infrequent (!) communion was the norm in centuries past.

          Not in the early Church.

          Quote from Catholic Encyclopedia:

          In the early Church at Jerusalem the faithful received every day (Acts 2:46). Later on, however, we read that St. Paul remained at Troas for seven days, and it was only “on the first day of the week” that the faithful “assembled to break bread” (Acts 20:6-11; cf. 1 Corinthians 16:2). According to the “Didache” the breaking of bread took place on “the Lord’s day” (kata kyriaken, c. xiv).

          Pliny says that the Christians assembled “on a fixed day” (Ep. x); and St. Justin, “on the day called Sunday” (te tou heliou legomene hemera, Apol., I, lxvii, 3, 7). It is in Tertullian that we first read of the Liturgy being celebrated on any other day besides Sunday (On Prayer 19; De Corona, c. iii).

          Daily reception is mentioned by St. Cyprian (De Orat. Domin., c. xviii in P.L., IV, 531); St. Jerome (Ep. ad Damasum); St. John Chrysostom (Hom., iii in Eph.); St. Ambrose (in Ps. cxviii, viii, 26, 28 in P.L., XV, 1461, 1462); and the author of the “De Sacramentis” (V, iv, 25; P.L., XVI, 452).

          It should be noted that in the early Church and in the patristic ages, the faithful communicated, or at any rate were expected to communicate, as often as the Holy Eucharist was celebrated (St. John Chrysostom loc. cit.; Apostolic canons, X; St. Gregory the Great, Dial. II, 23).

          They received even oftener, since it was the custom to carry away the Sacred Elements and communicate at home (St. Justin, loc. cit.; Tertullian, “Ad Uxorem”, II, v; Euseb., Church History VI.44). This was done especially by hermits, by dwellers in monasteries without priests, and by those who lived at a distance from any church.

          On the other hand, we find that practice fell far short of precept, and that the faithful were frequently rebuked for so seldom receiving the Holy Communion (see especially St. John Chrysostom, loc. cit., and St. Ambrose, loc. cit.).

          St. Augustine sums up the matter thus: “Some receive the Body and Blood of the Lord every day; others on certain days; in some places there is no day on which the Sacrifice is not offered; in others on Saturday and Sunday only; in others on Sunday alone” (Ep. liv in P.L., XXXIII, 200 sqq.).

          Whether it was advisable for the faithful, especially those living in matrimony, to receive daily, was a question on which the Fathers were not agreed. St. Jerome is aware of this custom at Rome, but he says: “Of this I neither approve nor disapprove; let each abound in his own sense” (Ep. xlviii in P.L., XXII, 505 — 6; Ep. lxxi in P.L., XXII, 672).

          St. Augustine discusses the question at length, and comes to the conclusion, that there is much to be said on both sides (Ep. liv in P.L., XXXIII, 200 sqq.).

          Good Christians still communicated once a week, down to the time of Charlemagne, but after the break-up of his empire this custom came to an end. St. Bede bears witness to the Roman practice of communicating on Sundays and on the feasts of the Apostles and Martyrs, and laments the rarity of reception in England (Ep. ad Egb. in P.L., XCIV, 665).

      • It is connected to the first Vatican Council, and the Lateran councils. There was a European split in the mid to late 1800s in the Catholic Church about papal infallibility, Communion and vernacular under Pius IX. That schism was called “Old Catholic”, or UU, and has remained primarily in Europe

      • I’ve attempted to explain above. The Church, according to the philosopher is “split”. His word and not mine. Let’s end the division!

        The Eucharist will become a source of unity again by us all being denied it. The sacred species is a gift and not a right so please, no scripture quotes. I’m well aware of what Our Lord says on the subject but we are abusing this amazing gift and this must stop now.

        • I am not abusing His gift. And I believe that the magisterium has taught that if in a state of grace, He desires to share Himself with me.

          What am I missing?

          • You are missing the headline at the top. This isn’t about you but about the divisions in the Church. What I am proposing is a way forward that has been used in centuries past. Many of our greatest saints had no access to the sacraments at all and I am not proposing that!

          • This is not a desirable option. Nor is it a workable one. Frequent communions, when possible (and when one is in a state of grace) are much to be desired, and a positive development in Church discipline.

            There’s really no way to change that without causing more harm than good.

          • Of course it is to be desired but the debate is crippling the Church. It is placing priests in an impossible situation. I do not want to dump this problem on to my parish priest.

          • I appreciate your patient indulgence to my ignorance, but I still don’t get it. Even the most obscene NO Maas, replete with sin and liturgical abuse, has the infinite merit of Christ’s sacrifice – made for me as much as for his bride. The extrinsic Grace is lessened but sacraments are still efficacious according to the receiver’s openness. Certainly we do not wish to add to sacrilege. In my own resistance efforts, when at weak masses, if I can receive, I have on a (very) few occasions mustered the courage to do so kneeling and on the tongue. My intent was to bear with Him some part of the slander but also to witness to Who it is that I receive.

            I’m still missing something.

          • Nobody denies the truths of the faith. What is being proposed is an end to crippling divisions. My sister was married outside the Church. Why should I be entitled to communion and not her? This reduces receipt of the Blessed Sacrament to a box ticking exercise.

          • The alternative is division and confusion but I take your point. It was for the reasons you cite that St Pius changed praxis but I fear that such is the state of the Church that we must reverse ecclesiology. There are plenty of ways to adore Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

          • No, I don’t believe you’ve taken my point at all. I’m trying to alert other readers that your wording “discrimination against Catholics in irregular situations” – and your question as to why a sister who has married outside the Church is unable to receive Holy Communion while you are “entitled” to do so (assuming you’re a Catholic in the state of grace)- mark you as someone who a) is clueless or b) has a malicious agenda.

          • Nor have you taken any point I have made and argued at face value. The issue is division in the Church as per the headline. I have addressed the philosopher’s point using my sister as an example. How can my agenda be malicious?

          • I think you’ve spoken enough on this personal matter of yours on this thread, taking it way off target. Enough already.

          • I concur. This is thread hijacking. I had to be away from my computer this evening, and this “no communion” thing seems to have taken on a life of its own.

            Let’s drop it, please.

          • In other words you are attacking me rather than addressing the issue of division. I have stayed on topic consistently.

          • If your sister had kept to the rules and married within the CC there would be no problem. As she wilfully didn’t, knowing the consequences, neither she (nor you) has the right to a grudge.

            The usurpers of Vatican II have forced upon us a totally different set of beliefs & ethos from those of Jesus Christ. Some members of the Hierarchy don’t believe in the Resurrection, the foundation stone of the Christian faith. They have been inculcated with Modernism and are determined to form a New World religion which Traditional Catholics will reject. Their agenda is Satanic and we have the assurance of Our Blessed Lady that she will triumph in the end. AL should be shredded along with Vatican II. After the Consecration of Russia this will most likely be the case.

          • We need a Mass that is focused on love but I read no love in your words. I have no problems with my sister being denied communion. My problem is that under the present rules I am allowed to receive. I see this as an abuse.

          • The Commandments & the Holy Mass were given us by Jesus Christ. I just try to keep them. It’s difficult for us all, but the Protestants tried to change the rules and now can hardly be called Christian. They have lost the real meaning of the Sacrifice of the Mass, don’t believe in Transubstantiation, Holy Communion is therefore not the Body & Blood of Christ but bread only, Confession not required, Divorce OK, Abortion up to a certain time scale OK, individual take on the Bible, no absolute Church Authority (Papal Infallibility denied), etc. There is no love in sending souls to Hell. Christ has instructed us to keep His Commandments – He never mentioned changing them to fit different circumstances or to accompany people in their sins.

            We see the present set-up in the Vatican as going in the same direction – downhill at speed. We do not intend to join them. I would much rather schism didn’t happen but if it is required to get this millstone off our backs then so be it. We hopefully would still have the SSPX other Traditional Orders to count on.

          • With all due respect the philosopher limits himself to the divisions of the Church, I suggest we all do as well. How can we end those divisions in a charitable way?

          • The only way this can be done is for all schismatics to come back voluntarily & humbly submit themselves to the Commandments that Christ gave us via the First Apostles. Otherwise, they contemptuously imply that Jesus is mean & hard-hearted, similar to PF when he calls Traditional Catholics by similar names which no other Pope has ever done because they know we are keeping to the Deposit of Faith & Tradition as best we can and as we are meant to. Schismatics think they know better than God and that bringing the CC into the 21st century as it were, they are doing what Christ would do if He lived to-day. That is not so, as the teachings of Christ handed down through the Gospels were intended for all time. People were more or less the same then as now, wanting an easy life and rejecting anything that got in the way. If you believe in the afterlife then you have no choice but to stick to the long & narrow road. Conforming ourselves to the fads of modern society will not do the job & countless souls will be lost as a result.

          • Christ came not to bring peace but the sword. You are thinking as man does, not God! You cannot be the one to solve divisions, using your own solutions, that God Himself allows/wills. Holy Communion is for those who are IN Communion WITH the Church. Our moral choices decide whether or not WE receive Holy Communion or not.

          • I don’t understand. She married outside of the Church. This is why she can’t receive the Holy Communion.
            It was her choice to reject the Church and her Sacraments. In this case the division is not IN the Church, because she willingly placed herself outside of the Church. If she became a Muslim, would your reasoning still apply, you think?

          • Re: you may receive but your sister may not — Any Catholic not in a state of grace, as is anyone living in an objective state of habitual mortal sin (by, for example, marrying outside the Church for *any* reason, a long-held canonical requirement), must abstain from receiving the Eucharist.

            This is not just “ticking a box.”

          • I agree with this but I am proposing that we are all banned unless we are sick, dying or handicapped. Of course young first communicants can receive and the very old.

          • You are proposing that we sacrifice the individual good for the greater good that is unity in the Church. No one would be able to forget the intense crisis, and all who care would have an incentive to work on improving the state of the Church? As a result – the sacrilege of unrepentant sinners receiving Holy communion would be stopped and not promulgated?

          • “You are proposing that we sacrifice the individual good for the greater good that is unity in the Church.”

            Yes and that would be our martyrdom.

        • Burt,
          You refer to the Blessed Eucharist as ” it” as though it is not the real Body , Blood ,Soul and Divinity of Christ Himself …. as someone said earlier , Christ longs to come into us even more than we long to receive Him ,,,, by cutting back on the times we can receive Him the only ones we are hurting are then surely God and our selves ….. how could this ever have any effect on the powers that be that would make them want to change the liturgy back to what it should be anyway ? This inestimable one on one time with our God is surely a time when we can make acts of reparation to Him and beg Him to helps get back to Sacred sanity in Holy Mother Church .

    • Jesus established His One true Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church for the purposes of Salvation and Sanctification and so how is anything improved by refusing to accept Sanctification through the Sacramental system, especially Holy Communion?

      • I only have to read the intemperate comments here to know that regular communion is not working. Communion is not a reward for the perfect but neither is it a weapon to be used to beat over the head of perceived opponents.

        • Why did David choose five smooth stones before going to fight Goliath? David: Be prepared!

          Our Five Stones:

          Monthly Holy Confession
          Frequent/Daily Holy Communion
          Daily Holy Rosary
          Daily Fasting/Works of Mercy
          Daily reading of Holy Scripture

          Ad Jesum per Mariam.

    • I don’t agree. If anything we need more Holy (double-meaning) Communions, say daily Mass for more people. And of course a lot more Rosaries.

      • Yes, Daily Prayer (The Most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary) & Sacrifice! And, yes, frequent reception of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in the Most Precious Holy Eucharist, indeed!
        Ad Jesum per Mariam.

    • Implicit in your view is the idea that immediately prior to the changes by Pope St. Pius X, that was always the norm in the Church, but that’s not true.

      In the early Church, the laity received Holy Communion when possible.

      Taken from Justin Martyr, Second Century:

      First Apology, chapter 65

      There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen.

      And when the president has given thanks and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

  3. Amoris Laetitia is like a malignant tumor. While although most of the body is healthy and viable, that one portion is like a cancer. It will spread and kill. It is a disease that must be cut out.

  4. Truth is gaining. The light from the Church is growing again. We have strengthening statements from bishops (Burke to Schneider) and an increasing groundswell from the laity.

    If it is a pruning (like a tumor debulking), is shism necessarily always bad? Certainly it would be preferable to not have so many heretics in the leadership, but something needs to happen to get rid of them – and unless it is Christ himself telling them, I don’t see the likes of Casper or most of the usccb for that matter, understanding any argument regarding the errors of modernism because relativism insulates them from argument.

  5. There’s no doubt that if pressed, Prof. Spaemann will declare stoutly that he speaks for himself alone. But one cannot help wondering whether he and Fr. Benedict have been in touch recently.

      • It’s not like being the retired chairman of Microsoft, or even a retired president. It would be very difficult and risky for Ratzinger to speak. His rule of silence is self-imposed, so that is not a problem. Furthermore his promise of obedience does not extend to unlawfulness, so that is not a problem. But it would be difficult for him to override a lifetime’s training in measured prudence and restraint. Nor is he unmindful of the ecclesiological stakes at this point: things are seldom so bad that with a little unconsidered action they can’t be made even worse. Finally, knowing that he did as much as anyone to make this train wreck, he must know that his own credibility isn’t in tip top shape just now. He has no good options.

        • “…that he (Benedict) did as much as anyone to make this train wreck…”? That’s a pretty strong accusation. Care to back it up? You might bring up some comment he make 30+ years ago when these questions were also an issue but he never gave them his blessing, as does Francis in AL regarding the remarried divorcees. And he did so because he could not get the synod to accept the “irregular marriages”. Benedict has always made it very clear in his writing when it is that he is speculating, not teaching. This summary is merely Francis’s own attempt to subvert the final vote of the bishops against admitting remarried divorcees to Holy Communion.

          Like someone else in power, Francis just issues these mini-directives (in AL) to get his way when the bishops have said “no”.

          • I love Ratzinger and rejoiced at his election, but have never accepted the necessity of his resignation. We are paying a terrible price. I feel a bit like the disciples at Emmaus getting schooled in the necessity Christ’s suffering so as to enter into his glory. Only now it is the Mystical Body.

          • Each one of us has to make these decisions in life, and I believe Benedict when he says that he made this one after much prayer and suffering. It was not made lightly, as he has said. Sometimes we have to “let go and let God”.

          • It wouldn’t have mattered if 100% of the Synod voted to allow communion. Prior teaching can’t be undone (unless it conflicted with something before it). That is a massive problem for the modernists, in fact, it’s a problem they can’t solve.

          • Very true, but my point was that even though the bishops (not all) affirmed the teaching, the Pope went around them with footnotes. I think that is a cheap move to make when he doesn’t get them to do what he wants.

            I wonder if there is a list of bishops who wanted to include Catholic bigamy in the final document.

          • I agree Rosemary, having to resort to footnotes for key text is pretty cheap. And it’s also a validation of the indefectibility of the magisterium.

            If there is such a list, they’re a-listers for career advancement.

      • I am thinking the same – when will Pope Benedict say something? I cannot bring myself to say “Fr. Benedict”.

  6. I would point out that we need not wait for another pontificate. The Faithful, from the laity up to the Bishops and Cardinals have the right by Baptism to remonstrate with the Pope over this document and ask that it be revoked and its errors forever condemned, and if the pope refuses 3x to more than kindly ask him to have the integrity to voluntarily resign, because obviously you cannot publish a document like this and maintain at the same time an honest intention to be in communion with Christ and His Church.

    • “May the seven years which separate us from the centenary of the apparitions hasten the fulfilment of the prophecy of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to the glory of the Most Holy Trinity.” Pope Benedict XVI, Homily, Fatima, May 13, 2010

      Pope Benedict XVI’s subsequent resignation allowed all of the putrefaction (‘the silent apostasy’) to come to light so that the faithful might prepare for what will come. I personally believe the resignation of Benedict XVI was made after careful discernment and to hasten the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

      Queen of the Holy Rosary pray for us!

      • I don’t think so… If he wanted to hasten it he could’ve done so easily by Consecrating Russia and ordering the Bishops of the World to join him. He did not.

          • Many of them wouldn’t. But that’s not the Pope’s problem. He just needs to exercise his Authority to command them. Anyone who doesn’t obey is excommunicated automatically and thus ceases to be bishop. The world will know right away which Bishops are the shepherds and which are the hirelings. But because our recent Popes haven’t the cajoles to exercise their power, much less discipline dissidents, then the only option left is for God Himself to kill them all (along with many faithful), as the Vision of the Bishop in White suggests, and as we’ve historically seen during such times as the French Revolution for which the same warnings were given to the Popes as towards the Kings of France.

  7. I was going through every mention of the word “faith” in the NT and came across this apropos verse:

    “As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these people, of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith, also oppose the truth. But they will not make much progress, because, as in the case of those two men, their folly will become plain to everyone'” ~ 2 Tim 3:8-9

    • When? How many (all those children indoctrinated with sex “education” in Catholic schools) will have to be subjected to errors, lies and deprivation prior to that triumph? I never see a sinful life of an ignoramus as worthy of envy, for sin separates us from God, from that which is good, wise, beautiful and true. How may families will be destroyed by these errors, how many children will be separated from their parent? How many children will be taught to be open-minded to sodomy, to support and celebrate it?

      If this Pope is so compassionate, he must disregard the Word of God to accompany those hurt by a society used to braking God’s perfect Law, why won’t he address the root of the problem, as not to add on countless new victims?

      The enormity of this scandal is horrifying.

    • Joshua and Caleb were the only adult Israelites in that first generation who went “into the fullness” of God’s calling. They alone went into the land. “Surely none of the men who came up from Egypt, from twenty years old and above, shall see the land… because they have not wholly followed Me, except Caleb…and Joshua.” Joshua would not only enter the land, he would lead Israel into God’s victory.

      Ad Jesum per Mariam.

  8. I agree that this will eventually cause an open Schism within the Church, though there has been a schism since Vatican II. I posted elsewhere when AL first came out that this document will pit Bishop against Bishop, Cardinal Against Cardinal, Priest against Priest and the Laity against all of the above depending on how they want things. It will cause good priests to be persecuted even more severely and even removed from ministry and perhaps even laicized (being psychologically disordered by a fundamentalist mindset.)

    Furthermore, it will lead to more people divorcing and more people living in adulterous states because they have been told that in some cases it’s ok, or even what God wants for them! And to prove it’s ok, they can come to Holy Communion without repenting and amending their lives, for their subjective conscience now triumph’s over the Word of God.

    • I am sure there will be faithful prelates who will incardinate any rejected faithful priests. I suspect Bishop Fellay will be busy in this regard.

      • Bishop Fellay cannot incardinate anyone. Incardination is a canonical process, and Bishop Fellay is head of a group with no canonical status.

    • My Friends, we are living in the Age of Mary: (She is the Solution!)

      1830: Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal (St. Catherine Labouré)

      1846: The Apparitions of our Lady of La Salette

      1854: The solemn definition of Mary’s Immaculate Conception

      1858: The Apparitions of our Lady of Lourdes (St. Bernadette)

      1871: The Apparitions of our Lady of Pontmain

      1879: The Apparitions of our Lady of Knock

      1917: The Apparitions of our Lady of Fatima to Bls. Jacinta, Francesco, (Lucia).

      1932: The Apparitions of our Lady of Beararing

      1933: The Apparitions of our Lady of Banneux

      1945: The Apparitions of our Lady of Holland

      1950: The solemn definition of Mary’s Assumption

      1973: The Apparitions of our Lady of Akita

      1981: The Apparitions of our Lady of Rwanda

      Ad Jesum per Mariam!



      • One more. Our Lady of Good Success in 1610 in Quito Ecuador. Very important for what is going on right now in The Church…

          • Hi el,

            Yes, and many more that are in the process of being authenticated. Which rightly so, is a laborious process!

            Anyhow, we know Jesus because of Mary’s Fiat.

            This was the Most Prefect Way that God Chose to Redeem us.

            If no Fiat, then no Incarnation.

            If no Incarnation, then no baby Jesus.

            If no Baby Jesus, then no Holy Eucharist!

            Ad Jesum per Mariam!



        • Hi Y,
          Yes, and many more that are in the process of being authenticated. Which rightly so, is a laborious process!
          Anyhow, we know Jesus because of Mary’s Fiat.
          This was the Most Prefect Way that God Chose to Redeem us.

          If no Fiat, then no Incarnation.
          If no Incarnation, then no baby Jesus.
          If no Baby Jesus, then no Holy Eucharist!

          Ad Jesum per Mariam!


    • And apparently, the pope’s own close adviser (Archbishop Fernandez) has said that “there is no chance of schism because the people love Pope Francis” and the numbers of those who disagree “are small”. Truth is determined by the cheering masses.
      Something must be done.

      • If Archbishop Fernadez said that then he is incorrect, the Whole Host of Heaven disagrees with Amoris Laetitia and so does God for it contradicts our Blessed Lord’s clear teaching on Marriage. All he is doing is showing brazen pride.

    • Annulments in the post Vatican 2 Council new religion are already being handed out like candy. View the statistics. It’s shocking. The breaking of the family has been on a slippery slope within the Vatican since the spurious council 1962-1965. Catholicism is used inappropriately and abused by the current occupiers who desire a one world order religion:

  9. “I would like to know from the pope after which time period and under which conditions such an objectively sinful behavior becomes a conduct which is pleasing to God.”
    Thank you Maike for another important contribution to the debate and God bless Professor Spaemann. GBU.

  10. One other thought. AL can also be considered test marketing. We see the silence of most and the defense of the blind. Since it worked so well, then the heat can be turned up and a faster run towards apostasy now with bolder attempts at error, such as telling Hans Kung that it’s ok to debate and discuss infallibility, even after the CDF censored him in 1975 and 1979.

    • DO have mercy on Francis! How can he, of all the popes, in good conscience defend the dogma of infallibility, when he rejects them all!? One could go insane!

      • Actually the primacy of conscience is the one and only dogma of a modernist, basically relativism = personal opinion rules = Protestantism. If Francis delegates pastoral practice to local bishops or their conferences, then this will become formalized.

        • Yes, and what I am going to say now could be useful to someone – this is why I am going to say it (in case some Bergoglian were reading this).
          I (a good Catholic girl) from a very young age rejected the idea of Church teaching supremacy over my individual conscience. This led me to leaving the Church in my university years. I couldn’t live a lie any more. To have to obey, when my conscience told me that it was I who was right, seemed like agreeing to rape of truth.
          Then I met many well-meaning people. I married one. I raised another. To my horror, it turned out that their conscience told them abortion, divorce, sodomy, euthanasia – were all good, and all fruit of love and kindness.

          I am back in the Church. I have lived in an irregular relationship (over 25 years now), and I dread the day the Church should announce that it is good, and that it is unmerciful to deprive me of Holy Sacraments.

          What is unmerciful is to teach the supremacy of an ill-formed conscience over Truth. Mine tells me what the Church teaches. I learned it the hard way that even just one error, THIS one (respect for a sincere “inner voice” when it is wrong and/or lies) in particular, when not rejected, will lead to great troubles. The doctrines of the Holy Church all fit together. One element removed – all will inevitably collapse.

  11. Steve, I wrote to Pope Francis after the Synods and expressed my serious concern. I would like to write to him again as Bishop Schneider suggested, and ask him to clarify or rescind the statements that the Bishop has pointed out. Do you know if there is a group of lay people putting a joint letter together to send the Pope? Would it be more effective to do something like that individually or collectively? Thanks.

  12. Vatican II was a disaster!!! The Enlightenment entered the Church!!! It was a rupture itself. These are just the after effects of the Revolution… Lord protect Your Bride from these wolves so we may once again have the faith of our fathers returned to us.

  13. I like the idea of a schism in the Church. We could have two Popes again at least until the Vatican II disaster is reconciled with historic doctrine. Note: AL just another unfortunate extension of V-2. A schism would help focus attention on the issues in the Church and lead to a much needed purification. Save for a direct intervention by God I see schism as the only means by which Christ’s Way, Truth and Life can be restored to the Catholic Church. A cleansing of the Church is sorely needed and it must be done even if the measures are draconian–such as the schism suggestion.

    Let us remember the words of Christ: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

  14. Apostasy has divided the Church for several decades now. How does one know someone has lost their faith? One sure way is if they defend, encourage, excuse or participate in the sins which offend God. That is the dividing line between those who love God and those who don’t. In the end this also forms the most consequential of dividing lines, the abyss which divides those damned to hell from those who are saved in heaven, for eternity,on the day of final judgment. Lest we forget the words spoken in our act of contrition – ” but most of all because they offend You my God, who are good and deserving of all my love.” Pope Francis does not fear offending the Lord, and that is exactly what an apostate church deserves. Jesus returns for a reason.

        • May God Bless his soul for providing such a prophetic role to the faithful who took note of his writings and especially the national interviews which took place shortly before his death, and are now prepared for the turmoil persecuting the Church these days. Very little surprises us – the exploits of Francis least of all.

          • Very good points -if one reads “Jesuits” by Fr. Malachi Martin S.J. the antics of PF are not puzzling in the least. JPII should have suppressed the disobedient heretics.

          • Agreed. JPII expected something that the actions you imply actually delayed. But the day in which the promises of Fatima are fulfilled approaches quickly. PF is the chastisement.

    • Hi PC – Resisting those who wish to undermine the sacraments, reject the teachings of the Church which are unchanging and inspired by the Holy Spirit, or contradicting the very Words of Jesus is an obligation which will always mark the true sheep of Jesus Christ. Do not underestimate the levels to which the followers of satan have infiltrated into the institutional church. Resolve everything first to the Words of Jesus, and that will reveal who His true enemies are.

        • Hi PC – By resisting I mean confronting the false teachings, being floated by faithless prelates, with the Truth. Not going silently into that evil night. Teach your loved ones the Truth, that is always the first and best line of defense. Don’t go along with the teachings of apostates nor heretics, call them out. And above all stay faithful to the deposit of the Faith and the Words of Jesus Christ. Discussing theses issues on forums like this is of great value as well. Time to bring the Tower of Psychobabel crashing down. And be very careful about where the money you give on Sunday is really going, make sure it is a holy cause, don’t just assume it is..

  15. I noticed that Church Militant finally posted Bishop Schneider’s document regarding AL on their site, but positioned it only as a mere asking for clarification. No surprise. They couldn’t ignore this bishop so they have to minimize what he really said.

      • Super pathetic. Especially the comments by their Mods and former mods. Especially since one of the Mods already threw Bishop Schneider under the bus two days before and said that he was giving scandal and serving the Church badly by criticizing the Pope Publically.

        • I just had a guest, a very orthodox Catholic convert from North Carolina stay a few days with me. The guest would only say that the AL is causing a lot of confusion, but would absolutely not criticize the Pope regarding the AL. It was all about not giving scandal . …and about not criticizing the Pope….and about “being serene and at peace”.
          I was totally frustrated by this mode of operating…to me it’s beyond pathetic, it’s extremely dangerous. If Pope Francis does not encounter strong resistance to his heretical ways, there’s no telling what he will do…and how far he will go.
          …just had to vent. …

          • I know what you mean, Mr. Skojec. However, the guest stays at my place in order to take important medical tests semi-annually and get the results. That is the main reason for the visit.

            While my first inclination is to withdraw from controversy among the people around me, I, on some reflection, will need to rethink that… if only to have a good discussion on what is happening with this papacy.

          • And after some reflection I now realize how lacking in charity my expectation toward my guest was. When one is dealing with medical tests and results, one would not want to debate /discuss the Pope’s exhortation and its lack of alignment with the Magisterium.
            There is a time and a place for that… and it was not during the visit. Mea Culpa.

          • I understand the frustration. As faithful Catholics we are called to be at peace, because we put our Trust in God; however this does not mean that we are at peace with the undermining of the Catholic Faith, no matter how well intentioned we may perceive the under-miners of the Faith to be. St. Athanasius was not at peace with Arius our his heretical followers or their unholy and most vile teachings, which lead him to be excommunicated, temporarily, by the Pope. Being at peace with division and those causing it to be fostered within the Church is exceedingly dangerous. Unfortunately, at this time it is the Pope and his chosen companions who are giving the scandal (which also became problem with Pope Liberius’ excommunication of St. Athanasius), pointing it out is not scandalous, rather it is fidelity to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and the Faith to which Her Lord commanded Her to uphold and disseminate to all of the Nations.

            If this is a new convert, then their extreme reluctance to say anything against the Pope is understandable: their new found Faith is still fragile and they may very well be resting it upon our Lord’s promise to the Church, made upon St. Peter. Be patient with them, but never tire of explaining to them the Truth of the Faith and that the Pope isn’t beyond reproach when he teaches fallibly, especially when that teaching is at best ambiguous and confusing to the faithful.

            May the Lord strengthen you for the Good Fight and grant grace to your speech so that you may help your friend.

          • Thank you for your reply, Father. Really appreciate it.
            My guest, whom I have known for over 20 years, is not a new convert – was converted to Catholicism about 1976. It is a fight for sure, and worse, it is causing divisions between orthodox Catholics on how this exhortation should be approached. I think my guest is following the example of the Cardinals – keep quiet, and ??? hope that this will be addressed in a future papacy????
            In the summer of last year, I had offered to host a presentation by a young devout man who had gone on a pilgrimage to Poland – visiting places such as St. Maximillian Kolbe’s order and Auschwitz. About 20 people wanted to see the presentation, and my home was big enough to handle the crowd. However, when he heard of my objections regarding the Synod of 2014, he cancelled the presentation at my house….because he was concerned about my objections to the shenanigans during the 2014 Synod and implied criticism of the Pope who he thinks is a very holy man. The 2015 Synod had not taken place at the time. We no longer speak about Catholic things when we now see each other – at Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament of all places. In fact we just nod and say hello and God bless. That’s it.
            It is not only Cardinals against Cardinals…(though that is not at all evident), it is now orthodox Catholics against orthodox Catholics. And we are all acting “in good conscience”…how can this be?.

      • Steve this has nothing to do with the subject, but their is a person below named Gresu that I had a conversation on a Brother Andre site that is a sedevacantist. Just to let you know because they already put a site on their comment.

        God help us!

  16. While I don’t agree outright with Burt Valance’s proposal that we return to the pre-Pius X practice of infrequent Communion, I must say that one potential fruit of such a return might be a restoration of proper and appropriate reverence and respect during reception which is horrendously lacking among most Novus Ordo Catholics.

    The casual body language conveyed by most Catholics when lining up to receive Communion suggests an atmosphere you might expect if they were queuing up for potato chips.

  17. Yes, may it happen. This is a dreadful papacy, and speaking for just ourselves, we have left the mainstream church and are attending the Latin Rite only now. It has been an oasis from these terrible goings on, and we thank God for it. I hope all who are suffering through this papacy and these times and are finding it very rough going consider attending the Holy Mass in the Extraordinary Form, even if once a month.

    • Be wary of their translations. They butchered the plane interview (“I can say yes. Period.”) which is why I had to go to a Roman translator to get it right.

      I’ve heard that their German division is better. Nonetheless…

  18. The church will not split …i am with you til the end of time …the church will continue …there maybe those who decide to go their separate ways as they did in England in Henrys days but THE CHURCH will survive

  19. Another split? O! please don’t do it! ? Splits never work out! I think there must be a way to reconclie the two sides! We should all be as little children, for Christ alone! Francis is our Pope and even thoough I am confused I am holding fast and praying hard to be holy myself. Trust in Jesus Christ our Head!

    The one thing I think we should be doing is instead of throwing fuel on the fire of temptation to fracture, lets put our minds and hearts together to think of ways to have sinners feel that they can go to Jesus trough His Church. We are not working hard enough on this because people are falling away and we just sit and bathe in our own perceived perfection! Jesus will hold us accountable. I know that allowing sin is not the answer but what about Mercy? What does it mean? and what about Jesus going against the stiffed necked attitude of the Teaching Leadership of that time? We need to teach the Truths of our Faith with LOve mercy compassion and the real desire to get these souls BACK HOME! That is what we are called to do and I think that Pope Francis is trying to do that. How are these people going to know that Jesus loves them and we love them if we have snobby holier than thou attitudes! I see these attitudes on all the conservative blogs and websites and it really is not the picture of Christ nor what His Church should look like.

  20. An excellent article by Dr. Samuel Gregg of the Acton Institute was just published by Catholic World report. The Three Counterfeits of Mercy:

    He has some serious meat in there that goes right at the culprits. I posted over there, I am reposting it here incase it doesn’t make it through moderation there.

    ” The prostitution of Divine Mercy in order to reshape the Christian Landscape so much so that sinners are told that they are no longer required to repent in order to be in a state of grace isn’t just emotivism, or mediocrity: it’s evil. It’s calling what is evil good, what is ugly beautiful and what is dead living. To call those who call out to others to repent, to live the Life of Grace and abide in the Lord by keeping his Commandments, stone throwing Pharisees who hide behind the law is to call good evil, truth falsehood, life death. It is to Condemn Jesus Christ…

    And this is what is going on in the heart of the Church.”

    • Thank you for the link. I looked it up and read the whole article.
      Btw, your comment was posted at Catholic World Report

  21. This makes my head want to explode. It is simply too bizarre.
    I am off to the desert to eat locust and honey inside a cave.
    When I see the mushroom clouds or the sound of trumpets, I will know the end is nigh.

  22. This is not the first clue that Jorge Bergoglio/claimant Francis the pope is not pope of the Catholic Church. Amores Laetitia is one more proof on his intent to destroy dogma and all that Holy Mother Church teaches. How long, conciliarists/post Vatican II Council people are you going to put up with his masquerade, with his hatred for Christ’s One Holy Catholic Church?

    • How long? Until someone with the God-given juridical authority to do something about it says otherwise. Last time I checked, comment-box crusaders do not fit that description.

      We don’t do sedevacantism here. We don’t spend our days proof-texting and counter-proof-texting in a big circular waste of energy to see if we can all wind up on a dead end street.

      Sometimes, things are better left in the realm of mystery. I trust that God has a plan for sorting this out, and when He implements it, all will be made clear. Until then, I will not arrogate to myself the authority to declare with confidence that things are other than they appear to be: we have a bad pope who has not used his official teaching office to promulgate error in faith and morals, though he is a personal trainwreck on these issues and has found a way to twist the misunderstanding of what papal infallibility entails to his own malignant purposes.

      We’ll survive it. Until then, we’ll fight it from within.

      • The One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church exists because of the foundational doctrines handed on and safeguarded by 260 legitimate popes and 20 councils. The councilor church we both know is imploding successfully as designed by the masterminds of the Vatican 2 Council and written in the book:
        “Animus Delendi-I Desire to Destroy” by Atila Sinke Guimarâes
        These are “Tumultuous Times” book by Fathers Radecki.

        Catholics became losers at the Vatican II Council and are being dragged into more muck and mire of the counterfeit Catholic church each and every day.

        God is sifting His people. Nowhere has the Church determined how long a vacancy may exist in the See of Peter. None know how or if ever the great apostasy will end.
        There is not a doctrine that binds Catholics to pray in communion with a fasle pope who violates Magisterium. Quite the contrary!
        Where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’.
        Holy Mother Church is alive and well as promised. Each person has a grave duty to defend Catholic doctrine. Disassociation with them who are hell bent to trash and smear dogma is necessary for salvation. Have you the courage to step out of the false church claimed Catholic and find the True Church Christ established?

  23. Document? Might as well have passed around mirrors so everyone looking at them can see what they want the most! I know one can argue “but the pope never actually said this or that”; howeverit was left too easy for having released an entire spirit of its own, like that prior spirit of Vatican ii.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...