Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Kazakhstan Bishops Call Communion for Remarried “Alien to the Entire Tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith”

Almost exactly a year after they issued a call for prayer that the pope would uphold Catholic teaching on marriage, three bishops from Kazakhstan — Tomash Peta, Metropolitan Archbishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana, Jan Pawel Lenga, Archbishop-Bishop emeritus of Karaganda, and Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana — have issued a new statement, saying that any change in sacramental discipline that would allow Catholic divorcees living in new sexual unions to receive Holy Communion is “alien to the entire Tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic faith”.

One year ago this month, these same bishops issued a joint statement urging the faithful to pray that Pope Francis would “confirm the unchanging praxis of the Church with regard to the truth of the indissolubility of marriage.”

As 1P5 reported last January:

The statement, issued on January 18th, the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter, is much more than a solicitation to storm heaven. The bishops document their concerns with “published norms” for the “application and interpretations” of Amoris Laetitia “whereby the divorced who have attempted civil marriage with a new partner, notwithstanding the sacramental bond by which they are joined to their legitimate spouse, are admitted to the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist without fulfilling the duty, established by God, of ceasing to violate the bond of their existing sacramental marriage.”

The bishops assert that “Pastors of the Church who tolerate or authorize, even in individual or exceptional cases,  the reception of the sacrament of the Eucharist by the divorced and so-called “remarried,” without their being clothed in the ‘wedding garment,’… are complicit in this way with a continual offense against the sacramental bond of marriage, the nuptial bond between Christ and the Church and the nuptial bond between Christ and the individual soul who receives his Eucharistic Body.”

Making mention of particular churches that have issued pastoral guidelines for the implementation of Amoris Laetitia along such lines, the bishop say that such guidelines “contradict the universal tradition of the Catholic Church, which by means of an uninterrupted Petrine Ministry of the Sovereign Pontiffs has always been faithfully kept, without any shadow of doubt or of ambiguity, either in its doctrine or its praxis, in that which concerns the indissolubility of marriage.”

Pope Francis did not, however, respond to their insistence that “only the voice of the Supreme Pastor of the Church can definitively impede a situation where in the future, the Church of our time is described with the following expression: ‘all the world groaned and noticed with amazement that it has in practice accepted divorce'”. Instead, he chose to add his confirmation of the permissive interpretation in the guidelines of the bishops of Buenos Aires to the official acts of the Holy See — a decision that Cardinal Coccopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, said makes it a part of the pope’s “authentic magisterium.”

In their new statement, issued on the Feast of the Holy Family (Dec. 31), the Kazakhstani bishops do not specifically mention the recent actions of the pope, but nevertheless warn that “The admission of so-called ‘divorced and remarried’ faithful to Holy Communion, which is the highest expression of the unity of Christ the Spouse with His Church, means in practice a way of approving or legitimizing divorce, and in this meaning a kind of introduction of divorce in the life of the Church.” Further, they say, the new norms being implemented by bishops in various parts of the world (in line with the pope’s support of the Buenos Aires bishops) represent “a matter of spreading the ‘plague of divorce’ even in the life of the Church, when the Church, instead, because of her unconditional fidelity to the doctrine of Christ, should be a bulwark and an unmistakable sign of contradiction against the plague of divorce which is every day more rampant in civil society.”

The bishops go on to explain the gravity of the shift in direction from the Vatican:

Unequivocally and without admitting any exception Our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ solemnly reaffirmed God’s will regarding the absolute prohibition of divorce. An approval or legitimation of the violation of the sacredness of the marriage bond, even indirectly through the mentioned new sacramental discipline, seriously contradicts God’s express will and His commandment. This practice therefore represents a substantial alteration of the two thousand-year-old sacramental discipline of the Church. Furthermore, a substantially altered discipline will eventually lead to an alteration in the corresponding doctrine.

The constant Magisterium of the Church, beginning with the teachings of the Apostles and of all the Supreme Pontiffs, has preserved and faithfully transmitted both in the doctrine (in theory) and in the sacramental discipline (in practice) in an unequivocal way, without any shadow of doubt and always in the same sense and in the same meaning (eodem sensu eademque sententia), the crystalline teaching of Christ concerning the indissolubility of marriage.

Because of its Divinely established nature, the discipline of the sacraments must never contradict the revealed word of God and the faith of the Church in the absolute indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage. [emphasis added]

In support of their position, the Kazakhstani bishops make ample reference to teaching and thought not just of the Second Vatican Council, but also of the conciliar and post-conciliar popes and other Vatican dicasteries, making it difficult for papal defenders to dismiss their claims as a solely traditionalist critique.

They then invoke their obligation as bishops, who have a “grave responsibility” and “duty before the faithful who await from us a public and unequivocal profession of the truth and the immutable discipline of the Church regarding the indissolubility of marriage.”

“For this reason,” they say, “we are not allowed to be silent.”

They go on:

We affirm therefore in the spirit of St. John the Baptist, of St. John Fisher, of St. Thomas More, of Blessed Laura Vicuña and of numerous known and unknown confessors and martyrs of the indissolubility of marriage:

It is not licit (non licet) to justify, approve, or legitimize either directly or indirectly divorce and a non-conjugal stable sexual relationship through the sacramental discipline of the admission of so-called “divorced and remarried” to Holy Communion, in this case a discipline alien to the entire Tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic faith.

By making this public profession before our conscience and before God who will judge us, we are sincerely convinced that we have provided a service of charity in truth to the Church of our day and to the Supreme Pontiff, Successor of Saint Peter and Vicar of Christ on earth. [emphasis in original]

The full text of the Kazakhstani bishops’ statement is below:


Profession of the Immutable Truths About Sacramental Marriage

After the publication of the Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris laetitia” (2016) various bishops issued at local, regional, and national levels applicable norms regarding the sacramental discipline of those faithful, called “divorced and remarried,” who having still a living spouse to whom they are united with a valid sacramental matrimonial bond, have nevertheless begun a stable cohabitation more uxorio with a person who is not their legitimate spouse.

The aforementioned rules provide inter alia that in individual cases the persons, called “divorced and remarried,” may receive the sacrament of Penance and Holy Communion, while continuing to live habitually and intentionally more uxorio with a person who is not their legitimate spouse. These pastoral norms have received approval from various hierarchical authorities. Some of these norms have received approval even from the supreme authority of the Church.

The spread of these ecclesiastically approved pastoral norms has caused a considerable and ever increasing confusion among the faithful and the clergy, a confusion that touches the central manifestations of the life of the Church, such as sacramental marriage with the family, the domestic church, and the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist.

According to the doctrine of the Church, only the sacramental matrimonial bond constitutes a domestic church (see Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 11). The admission of so-called “divorced and remarried” faithful to Holy Communion, which is the highest expression of the unity of Christ the Spouse with His Church, means in practice a way of approving or legitimizing divorce, and in this meaning a kind of introduction of divorce in the life of the Church.

The mentioned pastoral norms are revealed in practice and in time as a means of spreading the “plague of divorce” (an expression used by the Second Vatican Council, see Gaudium et spes, 47). It is a matter of spreading the “plague of divorce” even in the life of the Church, when the Church, instead, because of her unconditional fidelity to the doctrine of Christ, should be a bulwark and an unmistakable sign of contradiction against the plague of divorce which is every day more rampant in civil society.

Unequivocally and without admitting any exception Our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ solemnly reaffirmed God’s will regarding the absolute prohibition of divorce. An approval or legitimation of the violation of the sacredness of the marriage bond, even indirectly through the mentioned new sacramental discipline, seriously contradicts God’s express will and His commandment. This practice therefore represents a substantial alteration of the two thousand-year-old sacramental discipline of the Church. Furthermore, a substantially altered discipline will eventually lead to an alteration in the corresponding doctrine.

The constant Magisterium of the Church, beginning with the teachings of the Apostles and of all the Supreme Pontiffs, has preserved and faithfully transmitted both in the doctrine (in theory) and in the sacramental discipline (in practice) in an unequivocal way, without any shadow of doubt and always in the same sense and in the same meaning (eodem sensu eademque sententia), the crystalline teaching of Christ concerning the indissolubility of marriage.

Because of its Divinely established nature, the discipline of the sacraments must never contradict the revealed word of God and the faith of the Church in the absolute indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage. “The sacraments not only presuppose faith, but by words and objects they also nourish, strengthen, and express it; that is why they are called “sacraments of faith.” (Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, 59). “Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1125).

The Catholic faith by its nature excludes a formal contradiction between the faith professed on the one hand and the life and practice of the sacraments on the other. In this sense we can also understand the following affirmation of the Magisterium: “This split between the faith which many profess and their daily lives deserves to be counted among the more serious errors of our age.” (Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, 43) and “Accordingly, the concrete pedagogy of the Church must always remain linked with her doctrine and never be separated from it” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 33).

In view of the vital importance that the doctrine and discipline of marriage and the Eucharist constitute, the Church is obliged to speak with the same voice. The pastoral norms regarding the indissolubility of marriage must not, therefore, be contradicted between one diocese and another, between one country and another. Since the time of the Apostles, the Church has observed this principle as St. Irenaeus of Lyons testifies: “The Church, though spread throughout the world to the ends of the earth, having received the faith from the Apostles and their disciples, preserves this preaching and this faith with care and, as if she inhabits a single house, believes in the same identical way, as if she had only one soul and only one heart, and preaches the truth of the faith, teaches it and transmits it in a unanimous voice, as if she had only one mouth”(Adversus haereses, I, 10, 2). Saint Thomas Aquinas transmits to us the same perennial principle of the life of the Church: “There is one and the same faith of the ancients and the moderns, otherwise there would not be one and the same Church” (Questiones Disputatae de Veritate, q. 14, a. 12c).

The following warning from Pope John Paul II remains current and valid: “The confusion, created in the conscience of many faithful by the differences of opinions and teachings in theology, in preaching, in catechesis, in spiritual direction, about serious and delicate questions of Christian morals, ends up by diminishing the true sense of sin almost to the point of eliminating it” (Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitenia, 18).

The meaning of the following statements of the Magisterium of the Church is fully applicable to the doctrine and sacramental discipline concerning the indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage:

  • “For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient doctrines faithfully and wisely, which the faith of the Fathers has transmitted. She strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grow only within their own genus — that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning” (Pius IX, Dogmatic Bull Ineffabilis Deus)
  • “With regard to the very substance of truth, the Church has before God and men the sacred duty to announce it, to teach it without any attenuation, as Christ revealed it, and there is no condition of time that can reduce the rigor of this obligation. It binds in conscience every priest who is entrusted with the care of teaching, admonishing, and guiding the faithful “(Pius XII, Discourse to parish priests and Lenten preachers, March 23, 1949).
  • “The Church does not historicize, does not relativize to the metamorphoses of profane culture the nature of the Church that is always equal and faithful to itself, as Christ wanted it and authentic tradition perfected it” (Paul VI, Homily from October 28, 1965).
  • “Now it is an outstanding manifestation of charity toward souls to omit nothing from the saving doctrine of Christ” (Paul VI, Encyclical Humanae Vitae, 29).
  • “Any conjugal difficulties are resolved without ever falsifying and compromising the truth” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 33).
  • “The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm [of the Divine moral law]. In obedience to the truth which is Christ, whose image is reflected in the nature and dignity of the human person, the Church interprets the moral norm and proposes it to all people of good will, without concealing its demands of radicalness and perfection” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 33).
  • “The other principle is that of truth and consistency, whereby the church does not agree to call good evil and evil good. Basing herself on these two complementary principles, the church can only invite her children who find themselves in these painful situations to approach the divine mercy by other ways, not however through the sacraments of penance and the eucharist until such time as they have attained the required dispositions” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34).
  • “The Church’s firmness in defending the universal and unchanging moral norms is not demeaning at all. Its only purpose is to serve man’s true freedom. Because there can be no freedom apart from or in opposition to the truth”(John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 96).
  • When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the “poorest of the poor” on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal” (emphasis in original) (John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 96).
  • “The obligation of reiterating this impossibility of admission to the Eucharist is required for genuine pastoral care and for an authentic concern for the well-being of these faithful and of the whole Church, as it indicates the conditions necessary for the fullness of that conversion to which all are always invited by the Lord“ (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration on the admissibility to the Holy Communion of the divorced and remarried, 24 June 2000, n. 5).As Catholic bishops, who – according to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council – must defend the unity of faith and the common discipline of the Church, and take care that the light of the full truth should arise for all men (see Lumen Gentium, 23 ) we are forced in conscience to profess in the face of the current rampant confusion the unchanging truth and the equally immutable sacramental discipline regarding the indissolubility of marriage according to the bimillennial and unaltered teaching of the Magisterium of the Church. In this spirit we reiterate:
  • Sexual relationships between people who are not in the bond to one another of a valid marriage – which occurs in the case of the so-called “divorced and remarried” – are always contrary to God’s will and constitute a grave offense against God.
  • No circumstance or finality, not even a possible imputability or diminished guilt, can make such sexual relations a positive moral reality and pleasing to God. The same applies to the other negative precepts of the Ten Commandments of God. Since “there exist acts which, per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).
  • The Church does not possess the infallible charism of judging the internal state of grace of a member of the faithful (see Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 1). The non-admission to Holy Communion of the so-called “divorced and remarried” does not therefore mean a judgment on their state of grace before God, but a judgment on the visible, public, and objective character of their situation. Because of the visible nature of the sacraments and of the Church herself, the reception of the sacraments necessarily depends on the corresponding visible and objective situation of the faithful.
  • It is not morally licit to engage in sexual relations with a person who is not one’s legitimate spouse supposedly to avoid another sin. Since the Word of God teaches us, it is not lawful “to do evil so that good may come” (Romans 3, 8).
  • The admission of such persons to Holy Communion may be permitted only when they with the help of God’s grace and a patient and individual pastoral accompaniment make a sincere intention to cease from now on the habit of such sexual relations and to avoid scandal. It is in this way that true discernment and authentic pastoral accompaniment were always expressed in the Church.
  • People who have habitual non-marital sexual relations violate their indissoluble sacramental nuptial bond with their life style in relation to their legitimate spouse. For this reason they are not able to participate “in Spirit and in Truth” (see John 4, 23) at the Eucharistic wedding supper of Christ, also taking into account the words of the rite of Holy Communion: “Blessed are the guests at the wedding supper of the Lamb!” (Revelation 19, 9).
  • The fulfillment of God’s will, revealed in His Ten Commandments and in His explicit and absolute prohibition of divorce, constitutes the true spiritual good of the people here on earth and will lead them to the true joy of love in the salvation of eternal life.

Being bishops in the pastoral office, who promote the Catholic and Apostolic faith (“cultores catholicae et apostolicae fidei”, see Missale Romanum, Canon Romanus), we are aware of this grave responsibility and our duty before the faithful who await from us a public and unequivocal profession of the truth and the immutable discipline of the Church regarding the indissolubility of marriage. For this reason we are not allowed to be silent.

We affirm therefore in the spirit of St. John the Baptist, of St. John Fisher, of St. Thomas More, of Blessed Laura Vicuña and of numerous known and unknown confessors and martyrs of the indissolubility of marriage:

It is not licit (non licet) to justify, approve, or legitimize either directly or indirectly divorce and a non-conjugal stable sexual relationship through the sacramental discipline of the admission of so-called “divorced and remarried” to Holy Communion, in this case a discipline alien to the entire Tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic faith.

By making this public profession before our conscience and before God who will judge us, we are sincerely convinced that we have provided a service of charity in truth to the Church of our day and to the Supreme Pontiff, Successor of Saint Peter and Vicar of Christ on earth .

31 December 2017, the Feast of the Holy Family, in the year of the centenary of the apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima.

 

+ Tomash Peta, Archbishop Metropolitan of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

+ Jan Pawel Lenga, Archbishop-Bishop of Karaganda

+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

 

UPDATE (1/5/2018): Three additional members of the episcopacy have added their names to the statement: Archbishop Luigi Negri, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, and Cardinal Janis Pujats — thus bringing the total number of signatories to six.

Also, in a new interview, Bishop Schneider has explained the reasons why he signed, and offers additional commentary on the situation the Church is facing with the implementation of Amoris Laetitia. 

325 thoughts on “Kazakhstan Bishops Call Communion for Remarried “Alien to the Entire Tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith””

  1. This is an excellent statement by three humble servants of Christ. It is a good way to start 2018, with Catholic Bishops somewhere in the world actually being Catholic and remembering their solemn oath before God to Proclaim the Truth in season and out of season.
    May God Bless, Protect and Strengthen Archbishop Peta, Archbishop Lenga and Bishop Schneider and may he increase their number significantly. Amen.

    Reply
    • May our Blessed Mother protect the Church from heresy – we thank these courageous bishops for standing up for the faith, and may the Holy Spirit embolden them so that others may follow their good example.
      May 2018 expose and bring down all heretics that are trying to subvert the Catholic faith.

      Reply
    • I completely agree with you Fr.RP. It is about time, and very pleasing to hear this statement from these true Apostles of Christ.
      Dc. Don Beckett.

      Reply
  2. I just listened to Michael Voris who, in his characteristically assertive and, some would say. “strident” fashion, articulates his conviction that 2018 will be the Year of Reckoning for the Catholic Church. My description of Michael Voris’ manner is not intended to be in any way critical of him. And, I fervently hope and pray that, PLEASE GOD, HE’S CORRECT!

    Reply
    • Do you think that any leader is correct in defying the actual teachings of Christ on divorce and remarriage. We must continue the true faith, not change it to be something other than what Christ taught in the first place.

      Reply
      • What Christ taught in the first place is, “Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery.”

        No discernment, no accompaniment, no self-judging, no equivocation, no Kasper, no Bergoglio. Just the unadulterated law of God from the very mouth of God. Enough of this tap dancing charade. The forces of Satan lost the argument before the first words were our of their mouths so there’s no point to debating with them. Just repeat and repeat

        “Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery.” Luke 16:18 (DRA)

        Reply
      • It’s not clear to me what exactly the point is, unless it’s that CM never openly calls out Pope Francis. But here, I’m not concerned primarily with such deficiencies as may exist with the line of attack taken by Micheal Voris et al. I merely express my fervent and prayerful hope that he is correct in that 2018 will prove to be the “crunch year” when all the rottenness that has overtaken our newly-minted Church of Mercy up to the very highest level will be mercilessly exposed and finally and irretrievably overthrown. Do we not all long for the day?

        Reply
        • Stewart: It’s quite clear to most that the point is as perceived. I cannot fathom your apparent inability to see it as clearly as other do.
          With respect for MV and his very effective work, I restate my oft expressed concern that his reluctance to hold Francis responsible in even the slightest detail for the confusion and concern prevalent in the church today simply add to that confusion and does more harm than good. CM is held in wide regard and many,very many I suspect, hang from every one of his wise words seeking clarity in the midst of the confusion he (Francis) generates.
          As for the three Bishops from Kazakhstan, rarely do we find descendants of The Apostles speak with such Clarity. I am inclined to send you a copy of the response I received from Our Archbishop on Amoris Laetitia. Compare it with the above and you would taste the confusion of which I speak

          Reply
          • G’day Geoff mate! With respect, (and I do mean that), this is something of a pointless tangent. I had not the slightest intention of either championing or dismissing CM and Michael Voris. It is totally irrelevant. I had a conversation with one of our priests after Mass this morning in which we discussed the current parlous state of the Church and our profound gratitude for the fact that, as the Message of Fatima reaches its fulfilment, we have our Blessed Lady to guide the Barque of Peter towards calm waters and a destination in the Sacred Heart of her Divine Son. In the wake of this conversation, I happened to hear Michael Voris refer to this very fact and express his firm conviction that in this year of 2018 we see the beginnings, if not the culmination of the great “sorting of the wheat from the chaff” that the Church, and all of us, so desperately need. Beyond his, I don’t feel greatly concerned about what Michael Voris says or does not say.

          • Stewart: Thanks for your courtesy….I take your point. You look at the big picture whereas and I and others here seem to be looking at only one of the many parts that make up the whole. Yes, when all is said and done, we should be grateful that Our Lady holds the tiller and through the auspices of her Son steers the barque of Peter. I also agree that the consequences of Fatima loom on the horizon. I agree with your comments … I feel also however that the many parts of the whole I speak off, have consequences if ignored.

            Your, ‘g’ day mate’ suggest your are not far removed from this part of the world (W.A.)?

          • Correct, Geoff; not too far removed. I’m at the other end of the island from you. And may God bless, preserve and protect you and your loved ones.

          • You may be correct, or, alternatively: according to Newton’s third law of motion, “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Of course, Isaac Newton was addressing the material universe and the laws of mechanics, but it still has an application in the supernatural realm. With every expression of opposition or, shall we say, any lack of total, obsequious submission, there is a hostile reaction by Bergoglio, either personally or by unleashing his attack dogs. The most recent example was his warm, fraternal Christmas address to those members of the curia, and others whom he labeled, “traitors”, careerists” etc. It is inevitable that following upon this statement by the bishops of Kazakhstan, Francis and his cohorts will be feeling increasingly insecure and potentially aggressive. So, we can expect an even more hysterical response from one or more of his inner circle of toadies. This in turn may, we may reasonably suppose, prompt, not so much an equal and opposite reaction as such, but an even firmer though measured reaction from those who strive to uphold doctrinal rectitude. And if this happens, Francis and his unprincipled, sycophantic sidekicks will become even more unstable. Eventually, and we hope, very soon, things will start to unravel. Hope is far from lost, O Pearl of York!

          • Thanks for encouraging words. Taking the short view for only 2018 above. I know the Church will be gloriously restored. If only I live to see it!

          • Yes indeed, I think we all feel somewhat like that. As a young seminarian said to me recently: “It will be a long road back to normality.” To which I felt moved to respond: “And by the time we get there, I will be compost.” However, despite my feigned pessimism, I really cannot believe that God will delay. The situation is becoming so dire and so quickly that there must be a resolution on the horizon.

          • i’d take a more positive outlook……
            when i was younger i always wondered how Christ would separate the goats from the sheep……well…..it’s happening right before my eyes………

          • You are correct. I’m taking the short view, for 2018 only. The Church will be gloriously restored. Alas, most of my life has been spent in NuChurch dystopia.

    • This isn’t about Mr. Voris, though, since you brought him up, I’ll take the opportunity to liken him to a Catholic Glenn Beck.

      Reply
      • I quite disagree. He is a true purveyor of the faith and went out of his way not to discredit the Pope initially – he is very careful where he treads – but he does tread truthfully.

        Reply
      • Ehm… It’s not a Waterloo victory. It’s just three bishops from Kazakhstan, many people don’t even know what Kazakhstan is, it could be an island of the Pacific Ocean or a mountain of Africa, and nobody cares about that Conference. They surely did their duty, of course they are brave, of course, but the enemy’s size is on another scale.

        Reply
        • Ehm…the same can be said for the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem… “it’s not a Waterloo victory…but the enemy’s size is on another scale “…. and we know what happened there. God chooses the truly humble to confound those rich in pride and hubris.

          Reply
          • I hope it will be. The most frustrating thing to me, is the cowardice of those legions of cardinals and bishops and priests, never at their place to give Sacraments and do their duty, wearing as left wing teachers of the 70es, but present and in high uniform when there’s a big party and the media and the army that salutes them. Traitors.

    • Indeed it is a direct ‘indirect’ public correction of all who hold the erroneous position of AL, including the supreme pontiff who is mentioned via the ‘supreme authority’ (I would correct that statement with ‘the Visible supreme authority of the Church Militant’):

      “The aforementioned rules provide inter alia that in individual cases the persons, called “divorced and remarried,” may receive the sacrament of Penance and Holy Communion, while continuing to live habitually and intentionally more uxorio with a person who is not their legitimate spouse. These pastoral norms have received approval from various hierarchical authorities. Some of these norms have received approval even from the supreme authority of the Church.

      Reply
      • I take it that what you are saying is that this “indirect” public correction is not addressed specifically and personally to the current Successor of St. Peter, but rather that, to but it somewhat crudely, the authors of this correction have packaged him together with all his “fellow travelers”?

        Reply
        • Yes, and it doesn’t say many other things that it could say and also it does not warn those who hold or teach such erroneous beliefs that their immortal souls are in danger for doing so. It is an excellent and direct statement of the truth and condemns the error as error, but as a public correction or people holding/teaching the erroneous belief it is only so indirectly.

          Reply
  3. I am not sure how quoting anything post-conciliar, especially Paul VI and John Paul the Small, is going to convince people like Francis. Either: 1. They don’t care or 2. They believe that men like JPII and Paul VI help to change doctrine, due to the times and circumstances. Hence, Francis thinks he is doing what his pseudo-holy predecessors have done.

    Considering this, even pre-conciliar references do not matter.

    Have they ever read the New Theologians? Both the more mild ones and then the hardcore ones? If Francis and others think like de Lubac, Balthasar, Congar, Rahner and other vile men, then the Kazakhstan bishops pointing out that the correct teaching has always been apart of Catholicism does not matter. They view Catholicism as changing, doctrine can change, meanings can change, everything can change.

    Consider their statement above:

    “The constant Magisterium of the Church, beginning with the teachings of the Apostles and of all the Supreme Pontiffs, has preserved and faithfully transmitted both in the doctrine (in theory) and in the sacramental discipline (in practice) in an unequivocal way, without any shadow of doubt and always in the same sense and in the same meaning (eodem sensu eademque sententia), the crystalline teaching of Christ concerning the indissolubility of marriage.”

    Francis and the gang laugh at this, because they do not think the above statement is true.
    Then the Kazakhstan bishops turn around and quote JPII and Paul VI, who represent for Francis, agents of change in *doctrine*

    Francis and his ilk ignore things like this because they think these men are 5th rate theologians and do not understand the complexity of modern man and the change of praxis. That is what they are thinking, they don’t care for “it’s always been taught!” because they have learned to hate that and disbelieve it, it makes their skin crawl. They are in control, they have the Papacy and media outlets, they care not to respond.

    Reply
    • I disagree. I believe Pope Francis and his supporters are very sensitive in these matters. I think that the very use, and mention, of the term “authentic Magisterium” speaks to the fact that they themselves know that the teaching is not convincing.
      Now that there is a clear push back, the ball is back in their court.

      Reply
      • Oh, you are right – they care about results and what people think. The thing I was talking about is that Francis and the gang do not care about it “always being taught” because they think it can change. That’s what they don’t care about. Arguments citing Popes, Saints, and councils do not matter to them. Doctrine can evolve and they can call it “authentic magisterium.”

        Reply
    • It’s interesting to note that this is not a correction of Francis specifically, but rather the practice being spread. Hence, the target audience isn’t Francis and the academics. It’s the lay faithful, and the faithful clergy and prelates who, as of yet, haven’t known what to do. This gives all of us, laity and clergy alike, some authority to get behind.

      Reply
      • You are right, to some extent, IMO. But really – authority to get behind and do what? The enemy is in control of most Catholic entities. Faithful laity and clergy are too few against the tide of indifferentism, ignorance, and neo-Modernism. My priest, who offers the TLM, doesn’t say a word about it. People I talk to have no idea about this.

        I am not sure what to do really – I think it requires an outpouring of grace.

        Side note: quoting JPII and Paul VI to help me, as a lay person, is like giving me lighter fluid to fight a fire. Those two did so much damage in other areas that I do not care if they say something right because Francis and his minions can point to them as agents of doctrinal change. JPII and Paul VI are scandalous and helped harm the faith. It does nothing to help me.

        Reply
    • “…they don’t care for “it’s always been taught!” because they have learned to hate that and disbelieve it, it makes their skin crawl. They are in control, they have the Papacy and media outlets, they care not to respond.”

      They don’t care because they don’t believe in God. It’s no more complicated than that.

      Reply
      • The tyranny of relativism inevitably leads to might makes right.
        Only The Blessed Virgin Mary can correct this.
        Can the majority even agree on praying the rosary?

        Reply
  4. This a great first step, but ultimately it falls short of the courage of using the H word. Yes it is alien to the Catholic faith, but is also a moral heresy. While saying alien is safe and charitable, what is being advocated is outright heresy. Heresy from the top of the Church hierarchy.

    Reply
    • I’m unclear about the mechanism for declaring any Catholic a “formal heretic,” but I don’t think that three bishops’ authority is sufficient. My understanding is that Pope Francis is merely espousing (pun intended) “material heresy,” since he has not declared “specifically and infallibly” that a false teaching is “true.” We faithful must continue to wait and pray.

      Reply
      • These three bishops don’t have the authority to put a Pope on trial for the crime of heresy, but they have responsibility to warn him that he may be teaching heresy and guilty of the sin of heresy. A public warning done for the sake of charity. How Pope Francis responds to charges of heresy from bishops and cardinals helps establish his pertinacity.

        Reply
      • The Pope can’t have it both ways. He has had AL published in the Acta and insists his word is Magisterial. He qualifies as a manifest heretic going and coming in ways past counting.

        Reply
        • To be more precise about what the Pope did a month ago: he had published in the AAS the guidelines from the Buenos Aires Bishops that, after convoluted explanations, allow Holy Communion for at least some divorced-remarried persons who are living more uxorio, basing this conclusion on AL Ch. 8. He also had published his previously private letter to the Buenos Aires Bishops thanking them for their work and saying “There is no other interpretation” for Ch. 8. He directed that these two documents are to be considered “authentic Magisterium.”

          Reply
    • Strictly speaking, actually, this is NOT heresy. Heresy is a teaching contrary to the deposit of faith. What we have going on, in the strictest sense, is the implementation of a practice in contradiction of the deposit of faith, which is not, technically, a heresy. It is true that this practice has to have its source in some heresy or deficiency of faith, but that is not what these bishops are intending to deal with. They are condemning this particular practice. Since this is specifically what they are doing, I think it is very wise that they don’t use the word heresy.

      Consider this: if they use the word heresy, they will immediately be put into a box by the majority of Catholic media as “traditional reactionaries,” they will be accused of calling the pope a heretic, and all the wannabe theologians like Stephen Walford, and the crackpots like Austen Ivereigh, Michael Sean Winters, et al. will have a hay day. By staying away from that word and dealing strictly with the “concrete situation,” and using statements from both the pre- and postconciliar eras, and the problematic Council itself, to support the true position that the perennial teaching of the church does not allow this, thus calling it alien to the sacramental practice of the church, the papal positivists have a harder time with it. In addition, other prelates who have perhaps been personally on the fence or themselves have been confused can get in behind this.

      Strategically, this move is brilliant.

      Reply
      • I have no problem with the word alien. Specifically, in this sense it denotes the fact that these teachings referred to are foreign to and contrary to the absolute teachings of Jesus Christ and the Holy Catholic Church. If they had used the word heresy they would have been called on to specify the exact point of departure, provable beyond doubt. This would be a job for Cardinals, not Diocesan Bishops. The whole document is brilliant and inspired.

        Reply
        • I agree that the bishops’ not using “the H word” on this document is a prudent choice, but I disagree with your reasoning. I question the whole current fad of deference to Cardinals. Each and every BISHOP is a successor to the Apostles, and each and every BISHOP has a solemn teaching responsibility.

          Reply
          • Every bishop is in fact a successor to the Apostles, that is correct. The Cardinals, however, are the bishops who are supposed to directly assist the Pope. That would also include formal correction. Saints Timothy and Titus never “withstood Peter to his face,” that was Saint Paul. These bishops from Kazakhstan did exactly what they should have. They laid out the problem and properly analyzed the errors, stating their reasons for objecting and formulating a statement that they could not comply. It appears that this whole document was then sent to the Pope. Their part is complete with that.

      • I think there’s far too much hair splitting on this subject. As I said above, he and the hair splitters can’t have it both ways. He had AL published in the Acta and declares, from morning to night that his word is magisterial. He has declared the heresy of the Buenos Aires bishops to be the only correct interpretation of AL. If it walks like a duck, etc. Letting him off the hook by the excuse or fear is playing in to his hands.

        Reply
        • It’s not about fear or hairsplitting. Because they don’t play by the rules, we need to adhere even more closely. If you say something and it isn’t something, technically, then the opponents can hit you hard on that and it takes legitimacy away from what’s being said. So I think any hairsplitting here is actually incredibly important and works to the benefit of the statement/correction itself.

          Reply
          • This may seem odd, but it was explained in a 1987 episode of The Real Ghostbusters called “Night Game”.

            Evil cheats, it doesn’t play by the rules. By its very nature. Good can’t do that, or it becomes evil, and loses anyway. In Night Game, it is the soul of Peter Venkman (the most questionable of the ghostbusters, always on the edge), which is on the line in a ghostly baseball game. Winston really shines.

            A worthwhile 30 minutes of my youth.

          • You sound like the Cardinals are supposed to be in the business of consensus building.
            The doctrines of the Church are not dependent on there popularity.
            Legitimacy is not decided by having enough of the right people to support you. (subjective)
            It should be supremely objective or have we degenerated that far down the road of relativism?
            I think we have, which is why we need these Cardinals to be as clear, direct and unambiguous as possible with good timing and due respect.
            Fine lines to be sure but very doable.

      • A.L. promotes heresy in that it claims one can be living in a state of Grace when one is committing adultery.

        Our Pope and Our Cross is clearly a heretic and being trepidatious about it and refusing to call him a heretic is a sign of weakness

        Reply
        • I disagree that it’s a sign of weakness. It depends exactly on what you’re trying to do. These bishops were not explicitly calling out the pope. They were calling out the error, and noted that the supreme authority has promoted it, and staying well within the bounds of their own authority.

          Reply
  5. May the clergy, from parochial vicar to curial cardinal, endorse and publish their agreement with this “Profession of the Immutable Truths About Sacramental Marriage.”

    May a universal endorsement challenge the pope to endorse and publish it himself as part of his “authentic magisterium” or to surrender his office in whatever manner fulfills the Code of Canon Law and God’s Holy Will.

    Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, pray for us!

    Reply
    • It’s not an accident that this exemplary courage and fidelity to the Faith and Tradition should come from Kazakhstan. Catholic Church there is made primarily of the forcibly relocated or their descendants, Poles and some Germans (most of whom moved already to Germany). This is the place of terrible suffering where faith was tried with fire and iron. Bishop Peta said in an interview with the Vatican Radio – “The church in Kazakhstan is a little flock that has grown on the blood and tears of millions on martyrs”.

      Reply
      • The new Magi from the East now step forward to restate what the Church has always taught and must always teach. They bring gold, frankincense, and myrrh. The gold is the Truth that is more precious than any earthly treasure. The frankincense is the true worship of God in the Eucharistic Priesthood of Christ. The myrrh is the suffering that will surely be imposed on them, in necessary union with the Cross. As the three bishops from Kazakhstan write, for bishops as teachers in the Church, silence is not allowed. Indeed, who can be silent? Must we wait for the stones to cry out?

        Reply
  6. The union of Sacramental marriage represents the union of Christ with the Church. If sacramentally married people get civil divorce without proper annulment of their Sacramental marriage and then r allowed to receive Holy Communion it is like saying that the Church can go against Christ and still behold his face in heaven. This is logical nonsense and people thinking logically would easily see the fallacy in this. So all those who r supporting this are in fact illogical and need not have any following.

    Reply
    • Well said! One of the things I love most in the bishops’ statement is the way they describe the connections between the nuptial meanings of marriage, of the relationship between Jesus and His Church, and of the relationship between Jesus and the individual soul.

      Reply
  7. What a joy to see REAL Bishops at work — and willing to stand up and be counted for the authentic Catholic and Apostolic Faith!!! How refreshing!!!
    May Our Lady of Fatima give them, and others, much courage in the year ahead!

    Reply
  8. A service to the whole of the church indeed- who must hear of this, whether they listen or not. That’s our job; get it out there. Also look at the additional rub they added at the end:
    31 December 2017…” in the year of the centenary of the apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima”. By adding this, they add that they believe in the apparitions and the messages of Our Lady of Fatima. Of equal significance is the choosing of the Feast of the Holy Family.

    Reply
        • let’s hope not…..if the Pope is legit, he’s legit regardless.
          don’t get me wrong…..I wholeheartedly agree with these Bishops.

          Reply
          • Is he legit, that is the question …….? When one reads of the likes of the late (Liberal) Murphy-O’Connor whizzing around Rome canvassing for Bergoglio prior to the conclave! Murphy-O’Connor once being the Secretary to that (late) dreadful Archbishop Worlock!!

          • that’s going down a rabbit hole…..it’s MUCH easier to refute the “authentic magisterium” by sound reason and what we’ve been taught in the Deposit of Faith.

  9. How refreshing to hear the Truth spoken so clearly. unfortunately the present pontiff is deaf to such straightforward language and will no doubt ignore the statement as he has many others. I continue to await a blessed release from this tormenting reign and pray that at the next conclave Francis’ example will discourage the assembled Cardinals from elevating another unstable character to the Papal throne. I think some of those electors already realise that they made a huge mistake and are hopefully unlikely to be quite so stupid again.

    Reply
  10. The sheep that belong to me listen to my voice; I know them and they follow me. I give them eternal life; they will never be lost and no one will ever steal them from my hand. The Father, for what he has given me, is greater than anyone, and no one can steal anything from the Father’s hand. [John 10:27-29]

    Reply
  11. “The bishops assert that “Pastors of the Church who tolerate or authorize, even in individual or exceptional
    cases, the reception of the sacrament of the Eucharist by the divorced and so-called “remarried,” without their being clothed in the ‘wedding garment,’… are complicit in this way with a continual offense against the
    sacramental bond of marriage”

    How about a Wedding garment of Humility for those entangled in sinful situations.

    In the Gospels Jesus is often seen to welcome all to dine with him at an open table; but an extension to the inclusivity of the open table can be seen in (Matt 22:11)
    Where All are called to the Wedding Feast but one condition is imposed a wedding garment has to be worn,
    those who original heard this parable would have known instantly that the custom of the day was that the wedding garment was provided free of charge, by the Father of Bridegroom and had to be worn no matter how well one’s own apparel may be, dignitaries etc would conform to this custom as did those with poor apparel, not to do so would be an affront the groom.

    This garment also created equality (Mutual respect) amongst the guest. I believe that name of this garment is humility; we can deduce this because we are told that one of the guests had no garment, to those hearing this parable they would have
    instantly have concluded that he was arrogant by refusing to wear the free customary garment of compliance offered to him. He wanted to be accepted on his own terms as he was in his own/self-image (ego). He was gagged, his opinion no
    longer to contradict (offend) God, his stance so offensive that he was bound hand and foot and thrown into the darkness, never to be able to repeat the same action again.

    The wedding garment has been purchased by the Master own body and blood (suffering) and His body and blood should be freely available to ‘All’ who are willing to wear the wedding garment (Humility) but to do this we have to willingly drink (accept openly own our own frailty) and suffer it, with our heads bowed low as we form a relationship of Trust in God’s infinite love and mercy.

    Our Father in the incarnation gave of himself out of love to save that which had been lost. All of us, Clergy, laity, married, divorced, gay, the crippled (in mind and body), the lame, the bad, the good, we (the lost) are all flawed and
    sinful. But we have ALL been called (invited) to partake in the Wedding feast but when the Master comes will he find our hearts ( which are broken, sinful, and lost,) now contrite, blest, and wearing the wedding garment of humility(Holiness).

    The True divine Mercy image gives all of those who cannot receive the sacrament of reconciliation the means to wear the wedding garment of humility. This includes those who have committed themselves to the use of contraception, those who have divorced and taken a civil partner;

    Although the garment is freely offered, for some it can be difficult to wear/own openly our own fallen human nature, but not to do so is to partake of The Lords Table, dressed in one’s own self-righteous apparel and personal stance (self-image).

    Please continue reading see the link below which deals with a way forward for all, in humility.

    http://www.catholicethos.net/errors-amoris-laetitia/#comment-167

    kevin your brother
    In Christ

    Reply
      • Thank you Margret for your comment
        “The wedding garment is sanctifying grace. C.f. Rite of Baptism”.

        Yes and humility ensures we remain dressed in it.

        kevin your brother
        In Christ

        Reply
  12. In reality, I think that we had to have AL implemented from the top of the Church in order to restore the abuses that had been happening throughout many parts of the church for many years. The push back from those that are in the tradition is building momentum and isn’t going away and therefore the truth will win in the end. Afterall, it is Jesus Christ’s church and the one true faith.

    Reply
  13. Thank you, good bishops.
    Your reward from the Supreme Judge is great.
    This abomination is only temporary. God will not be mocked.

    Reply
  14. The bishops in the East are men! Real men. They’re true shepherds who take their mission seriously. They’ve been forged and strengthened by communist persecution and they will be the salvation of the Catholic Church in this crisis. Lenga and Peta are Poles, not surprisingly.

    A complete contrast to the time servers, effeminate zeitgeist-grovelers and flaming queens who afflict us in the West.

    Reply
    • it wouldn’t be the first time the Church was saved by the Eastern Catholics in general and the Poles in particular.

      Reply
  15. Let us continue our prayers for these bishops, Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Sarah and those yet to be named.

    Such love these bishops have shown their Master and all of us.

    Protect them Holy Mother, please.

    Reply
          • Jafin, im sure much has been said just not reported publically….I fear this is a game of chess unlike none ever seen before….one day someone will write a tell all book…

          • I think many are holding on to hope about Cardinal Sarah because of a perceived holiness… and that he understands, mostly, the liturgy. Thing is, there is little evidence left.

          • Time will tell, or better yet, the action or inaction within that time interval (public and private) will tell

          • Odd, indeed. In fact we have not heard much from him since the Francis put the public smack-down on him for encouraging priests to offer the Novus Ordo ad orientum. Jafin, most of the God-fearing cardinals- Burke included- seem to lack the courage- supernatural, and otherwise- to do the right thing. Simply hoping the whole problem will go away with Francis’ death or resignation is a pipedream. We have formal, major schism rapidly nearing completion in the Latin rite. What is a good cardinal to do? That is the question.

          • Be martyred for the faith.

            These three bishops have decided, of their own free will, to defend the faith as best they can, pointing to
            the ” alien” nature of Bergoglio’s rantings. They understand the consequences of this action, and they understand the consequences of their inaction as well.

            Perhaps I am living in “lala” land, but I do believe that Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Sarah shall do the same.

            I have grown weary of riding this roller coaster ride. Yet, holy men as these cardinals, who are greatly outnumbered, shall do what is right by God first, and let the Holy Ghost take care of His Church.

          • We have had a defacto but hidden schism since the revolt against Humanae Vitae. Making it formal, especially with this pope and a lack of courage enshrined in the western episcopate, is a serious step.

            Still, I agree. It could be in this form, a letter or a book published prior to the next synod (before more damage can be done) answering the Dubia with appropriate citations to past Popes, past council documents, and scriptural references. Cardinal Caffara was the best and would have been the one to do it, although the other two are no slouches either. they don’t even have to call the current Pontiff by name, just say:

            “Since our previous questions, asked in full respect for the Pope’s authority and role as leader of the universal Church have remained unanswered, we have researched the matter thoroughly and have come to the following conclusions.”

          • Speaking to the proper administration of the Sacraments is his job. I think “odd and conspicuous” is about the best one might be able to say about Cardinal Sarah’s much ballyhooed silence.

          • Cardinal Sarah’s books address his stance on AL? Communion for civilly divorced and remarried? The Pope’s comment that half of Catholic marriages are invalid?

            Please provide references.

        • Possibly, but such orders would not be enforceable because a higher good, the salvation of souls, requires silence be broken.

          Reply
  16. Some people have mentioned the possibility of schism. I have never thought this possible under the present papacy as the traditionalists are never going to go off on their own. However I do see a deepening split in the Church with orthodox Catholics becoming more and more disenchanted with the liberal modernist agenda and actively avoiding having anything to do with it or the liberal modernists themselves. Is this a split akin to the division between Eastern and Western Catholicism? It may take centuries to resolve.

    Reply
    • The only act which could cause a schism is if those who uphold and hold fast to the Deposit of Faith are excommunicated from the Church by those who wish to force novelties upon her doctrine and dicipline. The present situation calls for widespread and faithful disobedience to the errors of the modernists and the resolute acceptance of any consequences which follow from that.

      Reply
      • I’m not sure about the widespread part. Of the 1 point some odd billion Catholics, what percentage is true believers, and of the ones who still believe, what percentage is practicing?
        We are only talking about remnants here……

        Reply
        • I would guess that the situation is complex and varies in different parts of the world. In the UK the situation is surely that there are many who regard themselves as Catholics but do not practice. Probably because they have a very hazy idea of what it is all about as a result of poor catechetics. As they do not practice they do not put money in the plate.
          Then there are many who have lost the faith but see the Church as some sort of NGO worthy of continued support – a few of these may be clerics. The point is that the institutional church surely depends upon money. For a time the sale of church property will sustain it. In the long run though it will have to depend upon the contributions made by the remnant and that remnant may be more selective as to what they will want to support.

          Reply
          • “Then there are many who have lost the faith but see the Church as some sort of NGO worthy of continued support – a few of these may be clerics.”

            Yeah, that’s the succinct description I’ve been searching for!

            No personal relationship with God, no concern for the doctrine and practice of the Church, just a hazy feeling that this big institution is something worth keeping around.

          • “No concern for the doctrine and practice of the Church” I am not so sure – they usually say that these do not matter and thereby undermine them.

          • just thinking out loud here….
            maybe the “institutional” church will cease to exist. in the apostolic times, it wasn’t institutional, and yet the Faith spread like wildfire and very much alive. now? i’m not sure how many Catholics know what they’re receiving at Holy Communion.
            the Church can be defined by Faithful layman and Faithful clergy, connected over the Internet, with a few remaining operational Church buildings, be they basilicas, cathedrals, or what have you.
            what needs to be preserved is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Deposit of Faith, and Tradition.

  17. It is a curious fact that God often sends men His most important messages from places all but unknown to most of them, sites like Ur, Bethlehem, Fatima, Knock, Tepeyac Hill [in then nowhere Mexico], etc.). Now from Kazakhstan, a place few Americans could pinpoint on a globe, comes a message of truth, a message thunderously truthful. Let’s pray that Francis and his cohort decide to shut up and listen for a change.

    Reply
    • I think the key grace in all those places you sited was humility.
      Noteworthy America was not listed, what does that say about us as a country particularly given our influence in the world?

      Reply
      • Just so, Rick. Nowadays we spend an enormous amount of time in school studying what happened two thousand years ago and more in the city of Rome. The real “action” back then, though, the most important event in all human history, took place in a tiny part of the vast empire, in a remote and often troublesome outpost occupied by the imperial troopers. In every generation, we human beings have an enormously difficult time keeping our “eyes on the prize.”

        Reply
  18. The Feast of the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph 2017 has been blessed forever
    with the statement of faith by the courageous National Conference of Bishops of Kazakhstan. We witness at last a true witness to Christ. Hopefully a start for others. Certainly the emergence of the Church faithful opposed to the Wicked. The center of controversy impinges on one issue, which affects all moral doctrine–whether communion can be given to D&R. Former Prefect for CDF Ratzinger in the Doctrinal Commentary attests that Sententia [statements whether written or oral] that affect the First Proposition, the Deposit of Faith must comply with Proposition Two and be either solemnly pronounced, or given as Sententia Definitive Intenda. That means the intent is definitively stated. Kazakhstan’s Bishops confirm Intrinsic evil adultery, false witness, abortion cannot be subject to discernment of gradations of mitigated culpability. Discernment is the ability to distinguish between opposites, the essence of a free decision [liberum arbitrium] and definition of humanness. Intrinsic evil cannot become good due to subjective affect, “concrete circumstances”, intent. The object of the act must be good, meaning ordered to God.

    Reply
      • Absolutely!

        The difficulty with driving out the demon of sodomy and all its permutations is that so many people — even within the Church and Her hierarchy — have come to believe the diabolical lie that certain individual “are” homosexuals or transsexuals per se, born that way in their very nature, as if there were a sub-species of the Human Race called lgbt. But, of course, there are no such beings, no creatures that are “naturally” lgbt. Everything about lgbt is about Sexual Transhumanism: it is precisely unnatural and aggressively anti-natural, indeed, anti-human.

        This is exactly what St. Peter Damian is getting at when in his brilliant and prophetic description of the evil of sodomy, as written in his 11th Century treatise on the subject, The Book of Gomorrah. With Comprehensive Sexuality Education molesting the minds and grooming the imaginations of kindergartners with sexual fetishism and psychosis, the Saint’s words are more riveting than ever:

        “This vice (sodomy) is the death of bodies, the destruction of souls, pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the intellect, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, introduces the diabolical inciter of lust, throws into confusion, and removes the truth completely from the deceived mind…

        “For it is this (sodomy) which violates sobriety, kills modesty, slays chastity. It butchers virginity with the sword of a most filthy contagion. It befouls everything, it stains everything, it pollutes everything, and for itself it permits nothing pure, nothing foreign to filth, nothing clean.”

        Reply
        • It is truly frightening what awaits those souls who ignore this warning from St Peter Damian.
          His words were true one thousand years ago and they are true now.
          Pray hard.

          Reply
  19. What a fulsome, beautiful and exemplary witness to the Catholic Faith of all time with which to begin 2018. May the Lord bless these faithful bishops and may many others follow their example of fidelity to Christ Our Lord.

    Reply
  20. It is important to see this for what it is. This is a formal and public correction of the error espoused by much of the hierarchy and even the pope himself. They target the error specifically though not the pope directly. I don’t think it is quite the equivalent of correcting Peter to his face, but it’s only one step removed. This is exactly what we should hope and pray for from every bishop of every diocese. We won’t get it, but this is what it should look like everywhere. This is exactly what the bishops of the various dioceses should be doing. And then it should be the cardinals correcting the pope specifically in a manner similar to the filial correction that came out late last year.

    Brethren, this is the beginning of what we have been waiting for. Keep your eyes and ears open. Devote yourselves to prayer and fasting. Spread this far and wide. This is a formal correction of an erroneous practice promoted by the Supreme Pontiff. It may not be THE formal correction, but it is the beginning. Take heart in this!

    Reply
  21. “The admission of so-called ‘divorced and remarried’ faithful to Holy Communion, which is the highest expression of the unity of Christ the Spouse with His Church, means in practice a way of approving or legitimizing divorce, and in this meaning a kind of introduction of divorce in the life of the Church.”

    Every Catholic bishop who doesn’t subscribe unequivocally to the statement if the Kazakhstan is no longer a Catholic and should do the only honest and honorable thing and resign his office and leave the Catholic Church.

    God will not be conned. He will be the true God of surprises, as our heretic bishops will find out when they die. Just follow Bergoglio, boys. Follow him straight to hell.

    Reply
  22. But, the little boy bishops continue to worship the violation of the positive promises of marriage through their scandalous submission to the soft rape of the Brother and Sister living arrangement, which does NOTHING to work to heal the broken sacrament or to support it, save with a wink and a nod.

    This is insufficient.

    The laity, led by faithful abandoned spouses, MUST run the Catholic Church.

    Reply
  23. So, what is going to happen to the principle of unity between the rock – “Chair of St. Peter” and his brothers bishops across the whole world? Logicaly, it is an official start of the protestantization of the “Roman-Catholic Church”, similar to the events in England during the rein of Henry VIII.

    Reply
  24. An addendum

    To my post that I made five hours ago with a link in which I have proposed a means in that all those who cannot
    receive the Sacrament of Absolution for whatever reason apart from the sin against the Holy Spirit should be permitted to receive the sacrament of Holy Communion in fellowship with all baptised Catholics.

    To give clarity to my post above I have looked for a comparable situation to demonstrate the concept of an Act of Perfect Contrition made publicly before the true Divine Mercy Image, just prior to the communicant receiving Holy Communion.

    The permutations of this scenario are endless and in some cases far more difficult.

    John was married for six years he has two Children, he is a cultural catholic, he develops an addiction problem that ruins his marriage, although married in a Catholic Church his wife was not a Catholic but is a baptized Christian. She remarries and has another child, a few years later John meets someone who helps him with his addiction problems, he commits to a civil union, he now has two more young children, with his new partner, she is an unbeliever and is sceptical of Catholicism and believes that many are hypocrites “the majority use contraception which is a mortal sin etc”

    John lives in a small house with two bedrooms he has a low income his partner suffers from a debilitating illness and cannot work, he is a good father and compensates for her lack of energy in bringing up his two young children, and one of them will soon be school age.

    John has a true conversion (He realizes what he has lost) in that all the errors/ sins he has committed come in upon him, he wants to recapture that which he has lost and return to the Church and in doing so wants his children to be brought up as Catholics, his partner is in agreement with him but would not be prepared to live the single life and why should she.

    He knows he cannot return as he cannot receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation or partake of the Bread of Life, he is entangled in a sinful situation, in his heart he knows that he cannot leave his present family and he also knows that continence even if attempted is unrealistic for him with his new partner, if he is to maintain family harmony at this moment in time.

    He accepts that he is living in a sinful situation he is looking for a way back

    I believe that the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in the temple exemplifies the situation that John is in, in relation to the tax collector, as both are entangled in serious sin.

    The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people, robbers, evildoers, adulterers or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

    But was full of himself and his own goodness; the favour and grace of God he did not think worth asking, his pray was not accepted.

    Jesus castigated the Pharisee for his Pride and arrogance

    But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner. “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God “(Not man)

    The Publican is aware of his own sin, it is fair to say he now endeavours not to misuse his power as a tax collector but nevertheless goes back (Home) to his position of colluding with the enemy, he is still entangled in a sinful situation one of
    collusion with the enemy, but a journey of reconciliation (Spiritual growth) has commenced. As he owned himself a sinner by nature, by practice, guilty before God. He had no dependence but upon the mercy of God; upon that alone he relied.

    ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner

    The publican’s pray was full of humility, and of repentance for sin, and desire toward God.

    I have the same hope for John in his desire for reconciliation towards God

    “Jesus I trust in thee”

    For many cultural Catholics it does not take a strong act of will to commit a mortal sin, as a strong act of will against God, assumes hatred of Him; that is to want to extinguish the divine spark within ones heart (The Sin against the Holy
    Spirit) is a mortal sin as it cannot be forgiven. By definition all other sins can be forgiven and in this sense they are not ‘truly’ mortal.

    It could be said that many have been drawn into sinful situations due to human ‘weakness’ as their Faith has never truly/fully developed.

    Many cultural Catholics are aware that they have not been able to live up to the standard of the definition of a mortal sin, as an example, the use of Contraception. And so many fundamental good men and women have left the church in despair, as
    it created a situation of self-rejection before God within their own hearts.
    Others have remained by creating a self-serving conscious but in doing so have stifled spiritual growth. Possible some live outside the church in humility before God.

    It could be said that the Tax Collector dwells in a state of humility (St. Bernard- Humility a virtue by which a man knowing himself as he truly is, abases himself) and if he continues in this state it is fair to say that he has a constant relationship (proper disposition) with God, as he walks along His Path/Way of spiritual growth/enlightenment (Self-awareness before
    God) leading to the onward transformation of the human heart, that is a heart of compassion.

    I am sure many who read this will agree that only God knows the full reality of each human heart and that He cannot be deceived, we are not here to stone others or to put stumbling blocks before them, rather we would want for them that which we have been given, that is His continual mercy. And for this reason we are not to judge but encourage our brothers and sisters, no matter what their state of being (Entanglement with evil), to also embrace His Divine Mercy in humility,
    as we encounter them at the cross roads (Difficulties of life).

    Also I am sure that many will agree that we are justified, declared righteous, at the moment of our salvation. Justification
    does not make us righteous, but rather pronounces us righteous. Our righteousness comes from placing our faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. His sacrifice covers our sin, allowing God to see us as perfect and unblemished.

    For me this is the situation of the tax collector and John who are both entangled in a sinful situation .

    Matthew Henry from the link
    http://biblehub.com/luke/18-10.htm

    The Tax Collector

    “He owned himself a sinner by nature, by practice, guilty before God. He had no dependence but upon the mercy of God; upon that alone he relied. And God’s glory is to resist the proud, and give grace to the humble. Justification is of God in Christ; therefore the self-condemned, and not the self-righteous, are justified before God”

    “For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again”.

    kevin your brother
    In Christ

    Reply
    • Too long, Kevin.

      Rule of thumb, not perfect but generally useful:

      Sophistry usually takes more words.

      Rule of thumb, not certainty.

      Reply
      • Thank you for your post Karl J
        A scenario that incorporates the asking of God’s Divine Mercy cannot be pure evil.
        You may attempt to live by the rules but without them been underpinned by His Divine mercy you would most probably lose your soul.
        kevin your brother
        In Christ

        Reply
    • Another rule of thumb: hard cases make bad law. But the real problem here is that none of the extenuating circumstances, alone or together, remove the fundamental problem: if there is a valid sacramental marriage, then co-habitation with someone who is not one’s spouse is adultery and adulterers are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.

      I am puzzled by the argument that someone does not understand the requirements of sacramental marriage or that divorce and remarriage are mortally sinful can somehow be allowed to receive the Sacraments under some excuse of mitigated guilt. A person who is not familiar with the Ten Commandments, including the Sixth, and does not know the Commandments of the Church, including that one must obey the laws of the Church concerning marriage, is not sufficiently catechized to be receiving Holy Communion. Once those matters are explained, then there is no choice but to correct the bad decisions. No doubt there are situations in which the damage cannot be repaired, but that cannot be an excuse to compound the matter by committing more sins.

      Those who are responsible for catechesis, parents and clerics and others, and have neglected their duty will have to give an accounting. It is true that ignorance can mitigate guilt, but the Church and the Sacraments that are in the external forum must be consistent with the teaching of Christ and the nature of the union of the Church and Christ.

      Reply
      • Thank you for your direct open response Donna Bethell, it was refreshing

        Yes of course I agree that “none the extenuating circumstances, alone or together, remove the fundamental problem: if there is a valid sacramental marriage, then co-habitation with someone who is not one’s spouse is adultery”.

        And this is clearly stated in the link within my first post.

        “Then as the recipient approaches the priest for communion after his /her public confession the priest could say (or words to the effect of) “Welcome to the path/way of salvation/confession/reconciliation receive The body of Christ” in doing so acknowledging the on-going commencement to receiving the full sacrament of Reconciliation, by doing so His outward sign of inward grace His Divine Mercy is manifest at that moment in time as having been given by God Himself to the recipient before His Church (People/Faithful) full absolution has not given by the Church as they dwell in His Divine Mercy as he/she returns to his/her sinful situation (Entanglement with evil) but a journey of HOPE in that spiritual growth has commenced, this must be clearly understood by the laity in regards to the indissolubility of marriage”

        You say

        “No doubt there are situations in which the damage cannot be repaired, but that cannot be an
        excuse to compound the matter by committing more sins”

        The whole of my premise is based on an act of perfect Contrition which can take place at any time if the heart is moved to do so.

        And I believe the true divine Mercy Image an image of man’s brokenness given by our Lord Himself to the Church gives the Church the means to embrace “situations in which the damage cannot be repaired” through normal channels (The sacrament of reconciliation) the means to do so and lead
        our brothers and sisters to His table and receive spiritual nourishment and eventually lead them to the full sacrament of reconciliation.
        Perhaps you or anyone posting to me would consider reading my ‘full posts with the link’.

        And then come back to me with an opposing argument.

        kevin your brother
        In Christ

        Reply
        • Where to begin? We know we are in trouble when we see “or words to that effect,” the hallmark of the make-it-up liturgy called the Novus Ordo. It is also the hallmark of modernism, in which everything is changeable.

          The scene you describe is simply incoherent and incompatible with the Church’s understanding of the sacraments, grace, sin, repentance, and forgiveness.

          There is no possibility under Canon 915 of licitly admitting to Holy Communion a person persisting in manifest grave sin, no matter what path or whatever of reconciliation he considers himself to be on and no matter how many perfect acts of contrition he makes. By the way, “perfect” means perfect; there are no gradations. Almost doesn’t do it. I wouldn’t trust myself to be so sure. And a perfect act of contrition does not substitute for a sacramental confession if that is available, which in your scenario it obviously is, or rather isn’t because your sinner is still refusing to amend his life. So it’s no go on several counts. Just stick to the Catholic and Apostolic doctrine and practice.

          Reply
          • Thank you for your comment Donna Bethell

            ‘Where do we begin?

            I think we stand beside Jesus in the temple as he looks upon the Tax Collector and the Pharisee
            and attempt with His eyes/heart to see the reality of this situation

            The Pharisee has the authority of the Law and see himself as a reflection of that law, he see this because he makes sacrifice in almsgiving and regular fasting a sign of penance but it was not true repentance, rather for many it was an outward would sign of their own goodness, to be seen by men with their tassels symbols of goodness etc.

            We can discern that it was not sincere repentance because if it were he would not have been
            able to condemn the Tax Collector as in doing so he would condemn himself. Our judgements in this type of situation would be a reflection of one’s own heart/soul.
            With all the stress which they placed on externals, they missed the living heart of their religion it was too much tradition and conformity to rules.

            We now turn our gaze to the Tax Collector a symbol of sin a counterpart to a prostitute. He is honest with himself as he sees the reality of his self, he depends on nothing But God alone, for His Mercy and in doing so, he makes an act of perfect contrition, he does not make a statement
            that he will sin no more, for to do so would make him an hypocrite as he knows his own reality (Living Situation). Jesus also knows his reality nevertheless He tells us that he went home justified before God, (Not ‘MAN’). He was acceptable to Jesus and it would be fair to say that today he would be welcome to partake of His table.

            Has it become more difficult, two thousand years later, to embrace the Lord?

            I see all those who are entangled in evil situations such as the Tax Collector/Prostitute (Adulterers) been in the same boat, so to say. I also believe that the True Divine Mercy Image one of Broken Man. Given by our Lord Himself to the Church, has within itself the capacity to draw in to communion, in humility, all those outcasts who our Saviour came to save and I
            rejoice that it can be so, and possible one day you will too.

            Sincerely

            kevin your brother
            In Christ

          • Brother Kevin, the story of the Pharisee and the publican certainly teaches a necessary lesson: the need for humble repentance. But this was before Jesus Christ established the sacramental economy which He entrusted to His Church. Now the normal path to forgiveness of mortal sin is through the Sacrament of Penance, which requires not only repentance and confession of past mortal sins but also the firm resolve to avoid future mortal sin. Access to Holy Communion requires the forgiveness of all mortal sins. That’s pretty much it.

          • Thank Donna Bethell , for taking the time and effort to respond to my post.

            Yes I agree with what you say in that this is how things stand at this present moment in time.
            And for you “That’s pretty much it” so to say.

            But should it be so today after Christ’s Sacrificial death on the cross, that it is now harder for a man or woman to partake as of the Lords Table (Spiritual Nourishment) or to go home justified before God as he previously could.

            Can the formal teaching of the church supersede God’s Divine Mercy in that it can reject contrite hearts, no matter what their state of being?

            There can only be one answer to this question.

            As a contrite heart is a humble heart not a perfect one but a developing ongoing one and by
            its very nature regrets past sins and would be aware of its entanglement with evil and because of this it would put its trust in God while it is been transformed by Him into a compliant tender knowing compassionate one. Jesus confirms this when He tells us that The Tax Collector went home justified (In his entanglement with sin) and I believe this is applicable to all contrite hearts

            To know that you need God’s mercy is to acknowledge your dependence on Him and Him
            alone and when this understanding is ACCEPTED in the heart, it forms a bond (Friendship) with God. It becomes the greatest gift we can possess as it incorporates Faith, Hope and Charity “unites us to God” and in this friendship based on our humility before Him we cannot help but feel compassion for our neighbour, because in him we see our own fallen self. And in doing so, we would struggle ‘vigorously’ to give others that which we have been given, God’s Divine Mercy (Love).

            In context with this post perhaps you would also read my post to cs below.

            kevin your brother
            In Christ

          • >>Can the formal teaching of the church supersede God’s Divine Mercy in that it can reject contrite hearts, no matter what their state of being?<< The formal teaching of the Church is Christ's teaching. Christ does not contradict himself. All you are saying is not dealing with that fact. It is all emotional false hope. You are also not dealing with what I said in my last post.

          • Thank for your comment Donna Bethell

            De internis non iudicat Ecclesia—the Church does not pass judgment on the internal forum of men.”

            So for this reason it cannot supersede God’s Divine Mercy as with the Tax Collector he went home justified in the eyes of Jesus Christ (Not Man) God does not contradict Himself and for this reason the Church acknowledges that the sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; “a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise”

            It is not emotional hope, as a broken contrite spirit is a state of being.

            “Now the normal path to forgiveness of mortal sin is through the Sacrament of Penance”

            Yes that is what the Church teaches but she also acknowledges an Act of Perfect Contrition

            But as stated above it is sincerity of heart that sits at the base of Christs teachings and this state can be ‘ongoing’ even in a soul entangled in a sinful situation (Cannot receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation) it is on the spiritual plane that sins are forgiven. A Catholic can still carry the intent to make an official Confession while living in this ‘on-going’ state so that when that situation has been remedied he/she can ask for official absolution.

            “But a Public confession is made just prior to receiving the Bread of Life as the priest acknowledges their ongoing path to full reconciliation. They do not receive the full Sacrament Reconciliation,
            until their entanglement with evil is remedied, they remain dependent on God’s Divine Mercy

            Many go to Holy Communion who should not, this includes those who use contraception also many
            hide their true identity under a façade of worldly goodness. What I am proposing if accepted would create a more honest church, a humble church one that is seen to serve the Truth.

            kevin your brother
            In Christ

          • Thank you for your comment Nicolas Bellord

            Please consider reading my on-going debate the Donna Bethell which I believe deals with intent not to sin again, in those who are entangled in sinful situations from one of my posts

            “But as stated above it is sincerity of heart that sits at the base of Christs teachings and this state can be ‘ongoing’ even in a soul entangled in a sinful situation (Cannot receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation) it is on the spiritual plane that sins are forgiven. A Catholic can still carry the intent to make an official Confession while living in this ‘on-going’ state so that when that situation has been remedied he/she can ask for an official absolution of their sins.
            kevin your brother
            In Christ

    • Brother Kevin,

      Your rather convoluted scenario does not conform at all to the multiple Magisterial pronouncements or the consistent Sensus Fidelium so cogently and coherently presented in the Kazakhstani Bishops’ statement, “Profession of the Immutable Truths About Sacramental Marriage”.

      Please address this deficiency in your apologia, which seems to discount without regard any of these Doctrines, several of them rather emphatically promulgated.

      BTW, the Divine Mercy Devotion was disapproved TWICE, under TWO different Pontificates before (an evidently biased) Pope John Paul II established it. What is that? “Three times, the Charm.”??? Ever consider the primacy of the Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Brother? Get the impression of a certain redundancy in the Divine Mercy Devotion and an attendant attenuation of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Devotion?
      Notice a decline in Rosary prayers before Mass in preference to the Divine Mercy Chaplet? In all this, has anyone discerned an increase in piety at their respective Parrish?

      Pax Christi in Regno Christi

      Reply
      • Thank you for your comment top8305

        I believe that my post to above to Donna Bethwell, deals with “Profession of the Immutable Truths About Sacramental Marriage”

        With regards to your statement “the Divine Mercy Devotion was disapproved TWICE, under TWO different Pontificates”

        For clarity I will now give further information relating to the Divine Mercy revelation that some may
        be unaware of, to do this I will quote extracts of comments from another participant, on another site.

        Michael said; I agree with this statement of yours. It sounds real and true….

        “We can assume that her attempt to paint the image would be very childlike in effect a distorted/broken reflection of the vision she saw. This reflection is a self-reflection of herself but also a reflection of all
        of us before God, that is one of been flawed and sinful.”

        Questions to you:

        —Where did you find out about the existence of the distorted/broken image, where can one be located?
        —Is Faustina really a saint in your opinion?
        —Why would the Church try to misrepresent her?
        —All of this undermines the credibility of the Church even further don’t you think?

        My response to Michael;

        Initially information given to the laity in the late nineties stated

        “At first she tried to paint/sketch it herself, she was no artist and failed after man trials (Attempts), someone was found who could and did paint it”

        As with all insightful information of this nature relating to such occurrences, it is fair to assume that these attempts with many of her personal possessions would be kept by her religious order.

        “Is Faustina really a saint in your opinion?”

        She was uneducated coming from a very poor family with only three year’s very basic education. She was very innocent and trusting we can deduce this because after her first vision she immediately attempted to paint Jesus herself and for this reason I believe her vision was genuine and received in total trust. This simple trust is often seen in many of our saints.

        “Why would the Church try to misrepresent her?”

        Initially Pius XII put her writings on the Index of Prohibited Books also it has been said that her writings would still be gathering dust in a Vatican Archive, where Pope John XXIII sent them, if she were not Polish. I can only assume that they knew that God’s Word (Will) is inviolate and that they would have had to accept her original distorted picture in its simplicity and then venerate it throughout the whole church, this creates many problems in relation to how the church perceives herself in relationship to the forgiveness of sin (The Sacrament of absolution) also it includes the self-image of the priesthood, my post in the links (above) given
        draw attention to this.

        “All of this undermines the credibility of the Church even further don’t you think?”

        Yes and no as the revelation given to Sister Faustina calls for the leadership of the church to give account for themselves before God and mankind, if this were to happen these words by her would be fulfilled

        My Post above, poses this question to the elite within the church (and all of us).

        Is an act of humility too much to ask?

        kevin your brother
        In Christ

        Reply
    • “It could be said that many have been drawn into sinful situations due to human ‘weakness’ as their Faith has never truly/fully developed.” – as you stated.

      But it is through the sacrifice, remaining in the teachings of the Church, the ” giving up”, that faith becomes restored, not through excuses.

      Reply
      • Thank you cs for your comment.
        I can only respond by saying read all of my post including my post in the link, if you have not done so already and then reflect on these words

        “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you”
        kevin your brother
        In Christ

        Reply
        • Being a mother, your response reminds me of one a child may use when being disciplined or told, ” No.”

          ” Aw…..you hate me….I knew it. You don’t understand me or care about me.”

          Truly loving someone rests on one’s solid judgement based on the natural law and moral law which our Church has given in care of God’s many.

          Reply
          • Thank you cs for response

            Been a sinner myself I see Our Fathers love and concern for our brokenness in the Tax
            Collector, who in his humility abased himself before our Father in heaven.

            Jesus did not say “No” to him.

            Yes there are laws, but truly loving someone also incorporates tender mercy, especially
            when asked for. So in this ‘context’

            “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (When you also look for mercy)

            We see in this statement the natural law and moral law, as in the final judgement of God.

            In my last post above made to Donna Bethell I asked her this question while I also ask the same of you

            “Has it become more difficult, two thousand years later, to embrace the Lord?

            Perhaps you would consider reading the post.

            kevin your brother
            In Christ

          • Mercy is our Lord’s graces, given to mankind to repent and change their lives as God desires.
            Repentance glorifies our Lord.

            You ask it has become more difficult, now, than two thousand years ago, to embrace the Lord?
            Sin has hardened so many hearts! Sin has caused so many to turn away from the Lord.
            The acceptance of sin has lead mankind to reject our Lord, except when they want His mercy.

            In giving God glory, only then, will we be truly “happy”. And that happiness will be found in the graces given in the virtues each and every soul is capable of obtaining. How can a person be truly happy, when they know, they have broken a vow of marriage and now are with another? I do not understand this in any context. I suppose we are all good at justifying our exceptions to God’s Laws, that is why
            Holy Mother Church guides us in her teachings, traditions.

            Perhaps Francis has given up on humanity and our abilities to live to glorify our Lord?
            The world is very base, materialistic so very impure, so very pagan, and so does he think, one must first satisfy his or needs before loving Christ and hence obeying Him? Such little faith if this is so.

            A contrite heart is God’s mercy.

          • Thank you cs for your response

            Yes as you say “Mercy is our Lord’s graces, given to mankind to repent and change their lives as God desires”

            You ask “how can a person be truly happy when they know, they have broken a vow of marriage and now are with another?
            And then add “I do not understand this in any context”

            Marriages fail for a multitude of reasons due to our fallen nature and that includes immaturity as in cultural Catholics

            Happiness is an illusionary term for a Christian as how can a parent be happy when children, parents or loved ones, abandon the faith or fall into grave sin. We can only walk in trust/faith and pray that they will recognize God’s Divine Mercy and embrace it in humility.

            Yes “A contrite heart is God’s mercy” and do we not see a contrite (Humble) heart in the Tax
            Collector and John my symbolic fictional character. What I am proposing does not ‘give scandal’ as no one is deceived rather it glorifies God before the laity and mankind as it shows the merciful human face of Jesus Christ.

            A perfect act of contrition could be described as a state of being before God, as been in a continual relationship with Him.

            To avoid duplication perhaps you would consider continuing this discourse by reading my other Post to Donna Bethell, above.

            kevin your brother
            In Christ.

          • I shall re read your post to Donna Bethell.

            Poor children who see their parents divorce and take up with another.
            Poor children. Their primary witness to love and fideltiy is broken, no matter how one tries to intellectualize or rationalize the immaturity of the couple. How it harms their faith in the God nad His loyaty to them.

            I am very sorry for situtaions such as your fictional character John
            What can we do though?
            We must pesevere and follow the Moral Laws of God through the Church. He knows what is best.
            It is not John’s Church, or your Church, or my Church, it is Christ’s Church.

            We disagree. I am sorry. But my fideltiy is to Christ first.

          • Thank you for your comment cs I am in absolute agreement in that marriage breakups are usually disastrous for the children.

            And as you say it is Christ church and we know the Church’s official teaching but rather than say
            we disagree I would say we see things differently.

            Twenty years ago I would have probably said exactly what you are saying now. Also I have stated
            recently that I believe the marriage bond should be strengthened in regards to annulment.

            But the True Divine Mercy Message one of Broken Man that has been given to the Church by our Lord in such a manner that it calls into question the leadership of the Church and its understanding of Divine Mercy

            Taken from a running discourse with Michael Dowd at crisismagazine

            “We need to be reminded about sin and how we resist it”

            “Yes! We do Michael, and that also includes calling (Reminding) our spiritual leaders to give
            account of themselves, when they deceive the laity.

            Many hope for divine intervention, to deal with the chaos within the church at this present moment in time. But it could be said that God has already intervened, as our Lord Himself has placed before these men of power, the elite within the church, who in their own hubris ensnared themselves, by crystalizing their own hypocrisy before God and the whole church, in such a way that cannot
            be misunderstood by all. In endorsing…….”

            Please consider continuing in the link below

            http://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/the-bashfulness-of-sin

            kevin your brother
            In Christ

    • “For me this is the situation of the tax collector and John who are both entangled in a sinful situation .

      Matthew Henry from the link
      http://biblehub.com/luke/18…”

      Hey if you are going to spout support for heresy you might as well garner that support from a raging Protestant heretic! At least you are consistent!

      Reply
      • Thank you for your comment RodH
        I know nothing about Matthew Henry but these words of his hold true do they not?

        The Tax Collector

        “He owned himself a sinner by nature, by practice, guilty before God. He had no dependence but upon the mercy of God; upon that alone he relied. And God’s glory is to resist the proud, and give grace to the humble. Justification is of God in Christ; therefore the self-condemned, and not the self-righteous, are justified before God”
        kevin your brother
        In Christ

        Reply
        • This has utterly nothing to do with the long-ago settled matters involving marriage and divorce.

          The “modern world” knows no new or novel relationship that demands some new form of “mercy” that has never been applied before. ALL the attempts, intentional or not, to revisit the issue of divorce and remarriage are ultimately merely attempts to change Church teaching and enshrine heterodoxy as orthodoxy.

          And immorality as morality.

          It really is that simple.

          Reply
          • Thank you for your comment RodH

            Please consider reading my last comment to Donna Bethell above

            “Has it become more difficult, two thousand years later, to embrace the Lord?
            My question is really that simple.
            kevin your brother
            In Christ

      • “[A]ll those who cannot
        receive the Sacrament of Absolution for whatever reason apart from the sin against the Holy Spirit” ARE permitted to the sacramental of Spiritual Communion, rightly understood (not as communion of desire, but) as desire of communion.
        God won’t deny His grace to those in good faith who practise this lovely sacramental, for which giants of the Church, such as Liguori or Barone, have composed beautiful prayers.
        Dealing with Spiritual Communion as if it does not exist in order to allow what is obviously forbidden by Divine Law is confusing the faithfuls and depriving them of the only means they really have to enjoy the grace of God.

        Reply
  25. I actually take heart in what is happening. Just look at how the swamp is being drained every where. Darkness cannot abide where there is light – it will be painful initally, and the swamp will stink mightily at the onset, however, once it’s all drained and dry, new life appears. Hail Holy Queen.

    Reply
  26. In the third-to-last bullet point, I love this final sentence: “It is in this way that TRUE discernment and AUTHENTIC pastoral accompaniment were always expressed in the Church.” (caps mine) Touché, bishops!

    Reply
  27. “Some of these norms have received approval even from the supreme authority of the Church.”

    I haven’t read all the comments here and maybe someone else mentioned it, but this is the blockbuster in the statement by the Bishops.

    There is no denying that the Pope is supporting, promoting and advocating for a change in Church teaching, AKA heresy.

    These good Bishops are making that pretty clear and taking the fight to the Pope himself.

    Reply
    • Rod, you hit the nail on the head. However, these bishop’s words, however good in meaning and intention, amount to a hill of beans if the Dubia Cardinals do not act and follow through on the fraternal correction.

      Reply
          • He appears to suffer from multiple theological disorder which is similar to multiple personality disorder, something that has spread through the Church and is now in ascendency:

            They claim to maintain the ancient Catholic and Apostolic Faith completely, while constantly finding new ways of understanding that Faith so that they can interpret the Doctrines of the Faith to mean the opposite of what they were always understood to mean.

            In other words: Modernism.

          • This is one of the first things I noticed upon my conversion.

            “Everybody” in the Catholic Church hierarchy claims to be “orthodox”.

            No matter what they do, say or teach.

            As if they can fool God.

          • Modernism is a bona-fide heresy, the “synthesis of all heresies” according to Pius X, and a particularly insidious and pernicious one at that. Why aren’t those who espouse it, and there are MANY, called out on it specifically?

          • You can do bold and italics easily:

            Bold: type this before the word or section you want bolded or for what you want italicized (but without the spaces). At the end of the word or section type the same thing but add / before the b or the I: or (again without the spaces.)

            I put spaces between the and the letter so it wouldn’t bold or italisize so that you can see what it looks like. When you do it don’t use the spaces.

          • He is a Social Justice Warrior which means he wants to make the Faith not Faith but continue to call it the Faith.

            He is an agent of Satan

          • One can be so easily seduced by modernism. What a horrible and diabolical thing it is.

            I think it is preying on the sentimentalies, emotionalism of many, and Bergoglio has given it wings to fly.

            One can only pity Cardinal Mueller at this point.

          • I trust that Burke and Brandmuller have their reasons. And I trust that God is guiding them.

            Patience. Patience.

            God is never late, but He’s seldom early.

          • Or, the “patience” of Burke and Brandmuller might be sending people to their eternal damnation? God is never late, but humans often are.

          • davend, surely you’re not implying that people’s salvation hinges on whether or not B&B push forward with the Dubia? If so, then you’ve got Christianity all backwards.

            We don’t rely on humans, but on God. He will work His Divine Will through anyone and anything He wants. Burke and Brandmuller aren’t the be-all and end-all of our damnation or salvation and looking to them to save us from the current crisis is mistaking their power for God’s. God has limitless options and He will move through them or around them, as He sees fit.

            This is OUR chance to grow in Faith and patience. We will be judged on how well we do.

            God is never late. Never.

          • I think you’re confusing Calvinism and Catholicism. The Scriptures display numerous examples of God’s will being forestalled by human stubbornness and lack of faith.

            If false teaching doesn’t endanger souls then there’s nothing really at stake here.

          • Are we talking about the same thing here? You insinuated that Burke and Brandmuller’s “patience” might be “sending people to their eternal damnation.”

            I replied that anyone who thinks you can lose your salvation by putting your hopes in any mortal man doesn’t understand Christianity. We already have a Savior and Burke isn’t it.

            God can use anyone He wants to effect a change in our current crisis. Anyone. How is that Calvanist? That’s totally Catholic. He’s added Weinandy and now the BIshops of Kazakhstan to the mix, to heat up the fire a little.

            Burke and Brandmuller aren’t promoting false teaching. Not putting forth the Fraternal Correction YET is not the same thing as promoting heresy. Burke has never said he WON’T go forward with the Fraternal Correction. He just hasn’t done so yet.

            Timing is everything and I believe Burke is fully trusting God to make it very clear to him exactly when and under what circumstances he and Brandmuller should proceed.

            This has only been going on for a year-and-a-half. How long did the Arian heresy last? What about other cataclysmic shifts in Church history? Nothing happens as quickly as those suffering want it to.

          • The opportunity to recant/repent of, error. And the opportunity for us to pray for all enemies, and get better at it.

        • Bergoglio is out to attack these five bishops.
          LifeSite reported from inside source.
          It was predictable.
          The man who sits in Peter’s Chair is of no good and now all can see, as his attacks will grow more vicious against these humble and holy bishops.

          I could not help but pray very intensely for Cardinal Burke last evening. What an enormous burden lays at his feet. If I could say to Cardinal Burke, ” You are NOT responsible for my soul or the souls of the Catholics.
          You are responsible to defend the faith. We want the faith!”

          Reply
          • Hello Donna Bethell,

            I initially saw this from a poster on LifeSiteNew. Seems CMTV/ Michael Voris
            has a full report on his site today.

            Here is the initial post from LifeSite News: “My friend fra’ Cristoforo, from Anonimi della Croce, reports that Bergoglio is not happy at all about the Declaration of five Bishops. According to what he knew, Bergoglio is committing the dirty job to some journalists, in order to delegitimate these five Prelates, by finding some allegations against them. Would be interesting to check who will help the Satrap of Santa Marta in this operation of calumny and slander..

            https://anonimidellacrocebl

            The article is in Italian here. But….if you go CMTV site you will be able to have more information.

  28. God bless these brave Bishops! I know by faith that Jesus is the INVISIBLE Head of His Church, but as a human being it is good to know in the present crisis that there are faithful Shepherds,who are taking very seriously their calling to task, to save souls! For the past four years my feelings towards the pope,quite a few high ranking clergy and one particular jesuit priest, have oscillated from disappointment, anger, betrayal………

    Reply
  29. God’s timing is never late nor early, but perfect. The last day of the 100th anniversary of Fatima, as all prayers of the year gathered in heaven as a symphony in a concert hall, the intercessory power of Mary shines, and the voice of the King of Kings echoes through this proclamation made on the Feast of the Holy Family, just as the enemies of Christ think their 2018 projects are a slam-dunk!

    Thank you Jesus, Mary and your Graces!

    Reply
  30. Clear and accurate from bishops who understand their roles as magisters. Now these bishops need the open, vocal support of other bishops and members of the Curia, including and especially Cardinal Sarah who is responsible for the administration of the Sacraments. Silence speaks volumes.

    Reply
  31. Diane Montagna, Lifesite’s Rome Correspondent, is reporting that two more Archbishops have signed the Kazakhstan’s statement. https://twitter.com/dianemontagna

    Archbishop Luigi Negri, emeritus of Ferrara-Comacchio.

    Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former apostolic nuncio to the United States.

    Please God continue to encourage other Bishops and Cardinals to join them. Amen.

    Reply
  32. Dear brother pastor/priests: I copied the statement and emailed it out to family, friends, and especially to parishioners who would otherwise not see this statement. I even included the two vicar generals of my diocese (Peoria). I have endeavored to update news on Amoria Laetitia and this is an important moment in this whole debacle. I pointed out that the U.S. Bishops are working on a statement that will take two years—TWO YEARS!!!! It is incumbent, as teachers, to teach—to quote the bishops here, “we cannot remain silent.” Please consider doing likewise.

    Reply
    • Amen, Father! We wish more priests would take the same position. Unfortunately, too many shy away from “controversy” and refuse to take a firm stand. Too many others, unfortunately, actually applaud AL because they are also products of VII and see the acceptance of divorced and remarried Catholics as a breath of fresh air.

      Reply
    • Bravo, Father! (Are there any tough hombres in your flock? Perhaps retired gendarmes or Marines? If so, ask them to accompany you when you’re out and about, to have your back. From what I’ve seen lately, the ‘compassion’ merchants out there have a penchant for violence. They’re capable of just about anything.)

      Reply
  33. Cardinal Coccopalmerio is at it again, this is from the Register piece on the Kazakhstan statement:

    In comments to the Register last month, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio insisted the Pope’s official endorsement of an Argentine directive on the issue did not contradict canon law.

    The president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts said it is true that “divorced and remarried (or cohabiting) cannot be admitted to Holy Communion because they are ‘in manifest grave sin.’”

    But he added that there are “divorced and remarried (or cohabiting) who have the intention to change their condition but cannot. Therefore such faithful are only in objective sin, not subjective sin, precisely because they have the intention to change, even if they cannot. This intention makes a difference!.”

    He further noted that the relevant canon, number 915, states that Holy Communion cannot be allowed if the person remains “obstinately persevering” in grave sin. The word “obstinate” means “without any intention to change,” Cardinal Coccopalmerio said, “so these faithful can be admitted to Holy Communion because they have the intention to leave the condition of sin and therefore they are not in sin.”

    Wrong Answer. One must not just have an intention to change, aka stop sinning, one must actually stop the sin. There is no such thing as “I would stop sinning if I could but I can’t.” One must always end the objective sin otherwise one’s intention is insincere.

    I can’t go to confession with cocaine in my pocket and say I intend to change but I can’t because I’m an addict, so therefore absolve me because my intention makes it all better. And I can go and snort this coke after I leave the confessional and be just fine because I intend to change when I can but I can’t at this time. That is what Cocaine Cocco is actually saying, I just switched Cocaine with adultery. Adultery is fine so long as the adulterer intends to change when circumstances allow for the change but for now it’s impossible.

    Council of Trent: “If anyone says that the commandments of God are impossible to keep; (even for one justified and constituted in grace, let him be anathema.”

    All these people are saying is that for certain people the commandments against adultery are impossible to keep due to their subjective circumstances. This is a condemned proposition.

    http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/three-bishops-issue-profession-of-truth-about-sacramental-marriage

    Reply
    • Exactly. From the bishops’ statement:

      No circumstance or finality, not even a possible imputability or diminished guilt, can make such sexual relations a positive moral reality and pleasing to God. The same applies to the other negative precepts of the Ten Commandments of God. Since “there exist acts which, per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).

      Reply
    • “But he added that there are “divorced and remarried (or cohabiting) who have the intention to change their condition but cannot. Therefore such faithful are only in objective sin, not subjective sin, precisely because they have the intention to change, even if they cannot. This intention makes a difference!.””

      This is a bl**dy joke. To think that a cardinal of the Catholic Church could say such twaddle and expect to be taken seriously is beyond belief.

      Reply
      • OH my dear, you took the words out of my mouth. This has just become farcical. I am embarrassed and dumbfounded to be Catholic right now. I don’t know what to think of this mess, it’s unbelievable.

        Reply
        • IANS could not be prouder to be Catholic and you should also feel the same way.

          What Our Pope and our Cross has been doing has been allowed by God as a way to test our Faith.

          Don’t fail the test.

          Reply
          • I’ve actually considered if The Good Lord has allowed the Church to be filled with vile sodomites and communists in order to foster humility. Perhaps we were proud to be Catholic when holy nuns were running around educating children in the faith and taking care of the sick and orphaned, when Priests were administering Last Rites to our loved ones and guiding us to salvation instead of Rules For Radicals. But if you read Hx, this happened in the Church, some of the time the flock had to look past a bad Priest to the miracle of the Holy Eucharist and whole convents sometimes went loony. But He promised us that the Pope would be a rock. A ROCK. Something is wrong. BTW, I appreciate your admonition and pray I pass the test.

          • Jesus did promise that Peter would be a Rock but that presumed that future Peter’s would remain Faithful but a Pope can’t be a rock when he exercises his free will and chooses to be a rolling stone.

      • No one but no one should try this specious nonsense on judgement day. When Christ taught “don’t “, who are we to teach and do otherwise?

        Reply
    • I personally know Coccopalmerio, I know him to be a first-rate canonist… and I don’t understand how could he make such blunder! It *does* contradict both Divine and Canon Laws, *unless* the person in question makes the firm resolution of living ‘more sororio’ with his/her partner. Check the Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn. 1451-1454, and the Code of Canon Law, cc. 915 and 987.

      Reply
    • It is hard to take that guy seriously. You do not need to know moral theology to grasp his position is stupid. Imagine a married man having sex with another woman and claiming his intention was not to commit adultery. Therefore, he is inculpable. Such absurdity is to place mere words above common sense.

      Reply
    • Is continence all that’s required or does the couple in irregular situation need to cut off all bonds and return to the previous spouse?

      Reply
      • If they can return to their Spouse, then by all means they must. If they have children of the adulterous union, then they cannot legitimately cut off all bonds for they still need to take responsibility for their children and help to raise them, though they would still need to return to their legitimate spouse if that is possible (it isn’t always possible for the spouse may not always take them back.)

        The Council of Trent teaches that there are many reasons why couples may legitimately separate (but not seek ‘remarriage’). So, one does not have to return to the ‘spouse’ if their is a legitimate grounds for separation: i.e real substantial abuse, etc…

        Reply
    • Blessed New Year, Rod. Thanks for that link. Peters is a prig. His “clarifying” statement was needed about as much as a submarine needs a screen door. It’s net effect is to make the bishops look like they are misleading by imprecision.

      The Bishops of Kazakhstan have no need of his pretentious posturing or “clarifications.”

      Reply
      • I disagree a bit here.

        There is a value in Peters’ assessments in that he continues to present the case that these resistance documents of the various theologians and now bishops are not in violation of Church teaching but rather support it, which places the onus on the Pope and his buddies. It is a mounting pile of evidence against the Pope.

        YOU know the deal here, but many do not, and they may have “feelings” that a bunch of renegade “schismatic” bishops or theologians are squealing and many Catholics immediately turn off their ears when they hear critique of Popes, easily relegating any such criticism to “Traditionalist” excesses and the ideas of freaks {no matter how orthodox those critiques may actually be}.

        The fact that no one calls Peters a Traditionalist is to the advantage of all that is holy here, because he is a respected canonist and he is making the case, intentional or not {from my reading and interaction with him, I actually think intentional} that this current stream of criticism of the Pope and the Pope’s positions is sound. As one who works with contracts and lawyers by necessity and has had to use good counsel in my business, I greatly appreciate the sort-of “nitpicking” Peters does BECAUSE FOR 50 YEARS THE MODERNISTS HAVE BEEN USING NITS TO SHUT DOWN DEBATE and it is best to know just where attacks might come from. In this case, the canonist adds his position that the nits are in the comb, not the head. We know it, but now we have a document to hand to anyone who doesn’t.

        Like my Bishop who I plan to send a copy not just of the 3-Bishop’s statement to but also a copy of Peters’ assessment. See, my bishop was one of those Akinizers who told me there was nothing heretical in Amoris Laeitia…..

        To sum; in the current crisis, the critiques appear to be from Peters’ perspective, sound. Which, granted, we all know, but it is nice to have the reinforcement from this well-known canonist.

        Fact is, whether we like it or not, canon law matters, and I personally believe it will partly be through technical breaches of canon law that the modernist movement will be seen to fail and will fail.

        Put another way, would we rather have such a canonist come out condemning the 3 bishops’ position as violating canon law? No, I don’t think we would.

        Peters has not attacked their position, rather, he has “clarified” it and roundly added his in no uncertain terms in effect added support to their conclusions.

        Reply
        • Can’t agree, Rod. I calls ’em as I sees ’em. He begins his short corrective by referring to it as “sound.” However, he offers that opinion using the”comparative” degree (as “compared” to the Argentine hierarchy as well as those of Malta and Germany — a rather low bar for assessment; the comparative here is uncalled for). But then he ends by referring to the Kazakhstan’s episcopal statement as using “sweeping language.” “Sweeping language” is not an evaluative neutral description.

          As are you, I’m in a profession that requires precision of language. When Peters’ little article is parsed it has the effect of weakening the statement of the Bishops. Remember, the statement was issued on the Feast of the Holy Family; I presume it is meant to be pastoral. It is not a document to be read before the Catholic Theological Society of America (though it’s doubtful that crew would even know where Kazakhstan is located on a map).

          We’ll agree to disagree.

          Reply
          • I’m not sure how Peters could be any more supportive of the 3-Bishops’ statement than in this copy/paste from his assessment:

            “The presentation of Catholic teachings on marriage and morality set forth in the brief statement from Kazakhstan Bps. Peta, Lenga, and Schneider is quite sound. Indeed, in contrast to, for example, the ambiguous statement from the Argentines the Kazakhstan profession is a model of clarity; set against the disastrous statements by, among others, the Bishops of Malta and German episcopal conference the Kazakhstans are withering.”

            The Bishops’: “Quite sound”. “Model of clarity”. “Withering”.

            The Argie/Malta/German “Axis Powers'”: “Ambiguous”. “Disastrous”.

            What’s not to like? How else could he show clear support for them? I don’t see how anything he says after this blast can be seen as “weakening” the 3-Bishops’ statement. What he says here is…devastating!

            The language of the 3-Bishops’ statement IS “sweeping language”…and rightly so!

            If precision of language is at all important, the rare exceptions he presents MUST be addressed, MUST be, in order to head off the certain use of them by heretics in disingenuous “sweeping language” of their own that could be used to weaken the 3-Bishops’ statement!

            We already see the nonsense puked out by Cocco and all the rest of the Pro-Adultery Faction and this statement of Peters’ is weapon and ammo enough to silence all such lame attempts.

          • You say: ” Remember, the statement was issued on the Feast of the Holy Family; I presume it is meant to be pastoral. It is not a document to be read before the Catholic Theological Society of America”

            By your own standard…this statement could be parsed to imply the 3-Bishops’ statement is not a doctrinal one and thereby demonstrative of no binding teaching.

            Yet Peters doesn’t treat it as that at all. In fact, he treats it with total support as a “withering” attack against the enemies of orthodoxy.

            😉

          • Rod, my ‘Ol Comrade-in-Arms, I think a very quick summary of what I’ve been beating around the bush trying to say is that Peters “clarifying” for bishops who are successors of the Apostles (when he has not been invited to offer a critique and with whom he has absolutely no relationship) is a layman sticking his nose into a place it has no right to be. It is condescending at best. It grates and it annoys.

            I just had to dig down and get it off my chest. Be well.

          • Well, that’s a different issue.

            As an issue of clerical authority, I’m glad you mentioned it as it influenced my brief cover letter to my Bishop I just wrote in which I enclosed a copy of both the 3-Bishops’ statement and also Peters’ comments.

            As a practical matter, for the hearing of the “common man” {faithful or not} the weighing in on the issue by a non-clerical professional is a plus. The despair many feel over the integrity of clerics in general and bishops especially during this time of crisis can only be ameliorated to some degree by a statement of support by a man in Peters’ position.

            But your point of clarity being the job of clerics is a darn good one!! I won’t forget that!! Those that DO speak and act with the clarity orthodoxy demands are the worst victims of those who don’t.

        • “many… have ‘feelings’ that a bunch of renegade ‘schismatic’ bishops or theologians are squealing and many Catholics immediately turn off their ears when they hear critique of Popes, easily relegating any such criticism to ‘Traditionalist’ excesses and the ideas of freaks”

          So true! I have had that reaction from people. My mother, for example, thinks any criticism of a Pope in public is tantamount to sin. Not only do such folks close their ears to what I’m trying to say, they dig in their heels and defend Pope Francis — not just the papacy in general (which I of course support), but the particular individual, Pope Francis. And even if they had their own doubts about him, coming to his defense causes them to end up believing he’s even better than they thought before. This is a very common human behavior in conflict situations, and the bishops are probably aware of it.

          Reply
  34. I am thinking of a Sunday donation containing the note: “Dear Father, no more donations will be made until your bishop publicly upholds Catholic doctrine on Marriage and Communion, as the Kazakhstan bishops have done. “

    Reply
  35. Not enough. The corrections in question and answer form (dubia) have not been answered in over a year. Do we not have men with enough guts (courage), testosterone (aggression), brains (wisdom) and supernatural faith to start the process of calling a new college of faithful cardinals (on holy marriage) to elect a TRUE pope to counter and put to rest the idea that the antipope, Francis the First, is anything but a heretic, worse than any Arian!!!!

    Reply
  36. Remember, it was the pharisees who wanted Our Lord to approve their adulterous unions with new wives. This is what happens when the scourge of judaizing is allowed to enter the Church.

    Reply
    • My, my. Cherry-picking from the Bible doesn’t help your case, Sursum. Long before the Pharisees asked Jesus to allow adulterous unions, Moses allowed divorce. Check out Matthew 19:7-8.

      You also seem to forget that Jesus was a Jew. So was his Mom. What you are talking about is sinful proclivities, which can be found in ANY religion. It’s called Concupiscence.

      Reply
  37. Mesmo que eles consigam o apoio de outros bispos para barrar amoris laetitia, isso é apenas um paliativo, tal qual a morfina para o câncer. A razão da crise é o CVII, e esses bispos não reconhecem isso. Eles dizem “nosso magistério é o magistério de São João Paulo II”, ou seja, a continuação do CV2. Só vejo esperanças para o fim da crise quando disserem “nosso magistério é o magistério bimilenar da Igreja” e “Dom Marcel Lefebvre e Dom Antonio de Castro Mayer tinhão razão”.

    Reply
    • I agree that we are watching the logical consequences of Vatican II, just as Vatican II was the logical consequence of a century of modernists worming their way into the Church. See the great work by Roberto de Mattei, The Second Vatican Council: The Unwritten Story. And I think these bishops would agree. But would it be an effective response to the specific error being derived from Amoris laetitia to attack Vatican II and all its progeny?

      If the sacrilege of giving Holy Communion to habitual adulterers cannot be rolled back, there is little hope for a discussion of Vatican II. If people cannot see this concrete error, they will never understand the much greater aberrations of Vatican II and its “spirit.” But if this error can be recognized for what it is, then the way could be opened to ask how we arrived at such a pass.

      Reply
  38. I can’t help noticing the many of these stalwart bishops and cardinals come from some of the poorest countries, while many bishops who support heretical practices come from very wealthy countries. This article is exactly right when it uses the word bulwark. The immutable church is a refuge from an often terrible and ever changing world, and yet the elite of the world dare to chip at that rock, the one constant in people’s lives. These brave bishops are like a voice in the desert.

    Reply
  39. Now Cardinal Napier has jumped into the fray in defense of Cardinal Coccopalmerio’s nonsense:

    http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/three-bishops-issue-profession-of-truth-about-sacramental-marriage#.Wkz6d-Qwt9B … Very interesting explanation of what is sometimes called “the pastoral solution”. This is a pastoral action, which is applied to a situation where the normal canonical solution is not possible. https://twitter.com/CardinalNapier/status/948463970486226944

    Where the problem lies, as far as I can see, is in taking this pastoral solution, which has up to now always been applied in the internal forum, and putting it out in the open on the debating floor of the Synod of 2014 & 2015, and subsequently in the media https://twitter.com/CardinalNapier/status/948465723575341056 He has some more rich replies in this thread…

    I remember the renowned moral theologian Louis Jansen explaining this to a class way back in the 1960’s; and that was when Catholic University Louvain was highly respected but regarded as rather “conservative”! https://twitter.com/CardinalNapier/status/948464722080419840

    Reply
    • Apparently, Cardinal Napier forgot what he wrote in Tweeter a year ago…
      I quote: “If Westerners in irregular situations can receive Communion, are we to tell our polygamists & other ‘misfits’ that they too are allowed?”
      Yes, Internet is a terrible thing! Memories are impossible to delete!…

      Reply
      • He may not have forgotten. That is a logical step in this line of reasoning. I don’t even think there was a huge clamor from divorced & remarried in the West to receive Communion, they just did or they didn’t come to Church anymore. But…the sodomites are always, always clamoring to be ratified in their sin. In fact according to MV, sodomites living chaste lives are saints on earth.

        Reply
    • Of course coming up with these contrived cases where it is “impossible” to change circumstances is nothing but the typical liberal way of introducing novel practices. We’ve seen it time and again in the Church and in secular politics. First of all, it is questionable that such cases actually exist in the first place and if they do, their number is infinitesimal. The goal is to normalize communion for the D+R so that all D+Rs freely receive the Eucharist, without any “pastoral accompaniment” or “discernment” or anything else. I hope everyone realizes this. It’s similar to abortion. It was supposed to be lawful only in narrow circumstances where the “life of the mother is in danger” and within a few years, it was lawful for any mother who wishes to rid herself of the child in her womb for any reason whatsoever. Now it’s called a “fundamental right of women’s healthcare”.

      This would be another example of the proverbial “camel’s nose under the tent”.

      Reply
    • I agree, but it has to start somewhere, and getting Bishops to make an orthodox statement is in today’s world not far removed from the parting of the Red Sea.

      And remember…they did say this: “These pastoral norms have received approval from various hierarchical authorities. Some of these norms have received approval even from the supreme authority of the Church.”

      That’s a gauntlet dropped square on the feet of Bergoglio.

      By 3 Bishops.

      Reply
          • It is worth bearing in mind too that Bergoglio has had almost 5 years now to get the 5,000 Bishops on his side. And how many of these 5,000 have openly come out in support of him? Apart from the gang of 9, the two Maltese heretics, Argentina and a few devils in the US, not many others. And how many new names in the last 12 months? +Ouellet maybe (but he is more a dissembler than an open supporter of Francis), and that faggot-loving archbishop of Dublin. Very few else.

            Bergoglio must be beginning to despair of his wicked program. While we are frustrated that the 5000 won’t speak for the Truth, Bergoglio must be livid that they won’t speak in support for his wickedness eirher.

            It doesn’t matter either how tough Bergoglio seems on the outside. He is an old man who hates the Truth and every voice of opposition to him is a potential fatal blow to his rebellion.
            He is not finished yet but I can see too that his time is short.

          • Excellent points.

            While certainly there are more Bergoglio disciples than the few stalwarts whose names appear frequently, just as you say, the fact is, there has not been a general rising up in his defense.

            I have to imagine many are simply waiting for him to die.

            But then, what?

            That is the question.

            The effeminacy of Catholic leadership is seemingly so pervasive it is hard to imagine the Cardinals fighting for a righteous Catholic Pope. But then, bad Popes have been followed by good Popes in the past…

            And so I pray.

  40. The word from Rome via Marco Tosatti is that Francis the Humble is on a rampage (yet again), promising that the three rebel Kazakhstan bishops will “regret it” and giving his advisors full authority to besmirch the Bishops’ names on social media.
    Papal goon Massimo Faggioli has already embarked on his campaign of slander via Twitter.

    Reply
  41. On the eve of the Epiphany 2018, three wise men have come from the East. Their gifts are to remind us of God’s love, truth, mercy and justice.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

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

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...