Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Pope’s Letter on Argentinian Communion Guidelines for Remarried Given Official Status

A letter from Pope Francis praising episcopal guidelines that would allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion in some cases while living in a state of objective grave sin has now been added to the official acts of the Apostolic See, conferring official status on what was formerly considered by many to be merely private communication — and raising the stakes on the Amoris Laetitia debate significantly.

Of the guidelines issued by the bishops of the Buenos Aires region that would open “the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist” in “complex circumstances” where “limitations that lessen the responsibility and guilt” of couples who will not make the commitment to “live in continence” despite living in an objectively adulterous situation, the pope said in his letter that “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations.”

In August of this year, this letter was added to the Vatican website as a papal document available for public reference. Concerns were raised that what had previously been viewed as only private correspondence — and thus, completely outside the realm of papal magisterium — was being given the appearance of an official papal act.

Others were quick to point out that the presence of such a letter on the Vatican website, while troubling in itself, did not grant the document any status, but only publicity. The concern, as I speculated at the time, was that the letter seemed likely therefore to find its way into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis  (AAS) — the journal of the official acts of the Apostolic See. Such a move would confer an official, and at least quasi-authoritative status to the document, in as much as the AAS “contains all the principal decrees, encyclical letters, decisions of Roman congregations, and notices of ecclesiastical appointments. The contents are to be considered promulgated when published, and effective three months from date of issue.”

As Vatican journalist Marco Tosatti reported yesterday, the addition of the letter to the AAS has now been confirmed*:

[T]he “private” letter of Pope Francis to the Argentine bishops was published in the October 2016 edition of Acta Apostolicae Sedis, after they had issued directives for the application of chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia (the chapter with the famous footnotes on giving communion to the divorced and remarried). Directives which, as has been noted and emphasized here, are anything but clear.

The publication of this letter in the Acta is accompanied by a brief note from the Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, together with an official rescript from a papal audience in June 2017, announcing that the Pope himself wanted the two documents — the guidelines and the letter — published on the website of Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

The announcement can only serve to further fuel the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the controversial apostolic exhortation as well as the Pope’s way of doing things, which yet again appears to be a far cry from the clarity and straightforwardness that many of the faithful would expect [from the Holy Father]. He has given no response to the dubia Cardinals, no response to the letters, petitions and other initiatives written by scholars, theologians, and ordinary faithful people who have been confused by the deliberate ambiguity of the document. Yet, at the same time, he has given a veneer of officiality to one letter sent to one member of one bishops’ conference.

To what end? To obligate all to give religiosum obsequium [religious assent] to a magisterium expressed in oblique and ambiguous forms, or to respond without committing himself in a direct response which would express the mind of the Pope in an unequivocal manner to the doubtful and perplexed? One is given the feeling that the only thing this does is cause the simple believer annoyance with the Pope’s comportment, which may be defined as a “pretext” in the worst sense of that term.

You can view only the relevant section of the October 2016 edition of the AAS here (Spanish/Latin PDF). (The full edition is available here, but a word of caution – it’s a huge PDF document at nearly 1,200 pages and with a 300MB file size.)

Some outlets are already reporting that the presence of the Buenos Aires letter in the AAS elevates it to the level of “authentic Magisterium,” which would therefore require the aforementioned religious assent of mind and will (cf. Lumen Gentium 25). Others are not so sure. We asked for an assessment from Dr. John Joy, co-Founder and President of the St. Albert the Great Center for Scholastic Studies and a specialist in Magisterial authority. “It means that it is an official act of the pope,” Joy said, “rather than an act of the pope as a private person. So it cannot be dismissed as a merely private endorsement of their implementation of AL. It is an official endorsement. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that the letter to the Argentine bishops is itself magisterial” and thus requiring religious submission of will and intellect. Such a requirement, Joy said, would only apply if the document intended to teach on matters of faith and morals.

Inasmuch as the letter was in praise of pastoral guidelines that were anything but concrete, this seems unlikely.

Dr. Joy pointed out that adding the letter to the AAS could, in fact, damage the credibility of Amoris Laetitia by potentially removing the possibility that it could be interpreted in an orthodox way through establishing, via its publication in the official acts of the Apostolic See, that the unorthodox interpretation is the official one.

Marco Tosatti says that even some who have been ideological supporters of the pope are allegedly losing patience with his brashness:

And further, if what we have learned from two different sources is true, this annoyance extends to the Vatican. A cardinal of great renown, a former diplomat, who has served an impressive career at the head of Congregations and in high offices in the Secretariat of State, is said to have reproved the Pope for his actions [as Pope], saying to him essentially, “We elected you to make reforms, not to smash everything.” News of this conversation — if it can be called a conversation — has spread through the Vatican, because it took place at a high decibel level, which carried through the fragile barrier of the doors and walls. The cardinal in question was one of those who supported the candidacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the conclave of 2013.

It would not be the first time such dissent has been reported from within the pope’s own camp. In March, The London Times reported that some of the cardinals who helped to elect Francis wanted Francis to step down out of fear that his agenda might cause a schism “more disastrous” than the one wrought by Martin Luther, and that the Church could consequently be “shattered as an institution”. That story indicated that at least some of the group had an interest in replacing the pope with Cardinal Pietro Parolin, who heads up the aforementioned Secretariat of State.

Earlier this week, we also told you about a new book, The Dictator Pope, which alleges that many cardinals who helped elect Francis are experiencing “buyer’s remorse,” in part because Francis “is not the democratic, liberal ruler that the cardinals thought they were electing in 2013, but a papal tyrant the like of whom has not been seen for many centuries.”

It seems difficult to believe that just over a year ago, we were attempting to ascertain the veracity of the papal letter to the Argentinian bishops — which had been called into question nearly immediately after its publication — and we now learn that it was only the following month that it became an official act of the Apostolic See.

As reported in The Dictator Pope, the English Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor told journalist Paul Valley in 2013, “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things.” Every day, we receive new evidence that this might have been a significant understatement.

* Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino

607 thoughts on “Pope’s Letter on Argentinian Communion Guidelines for Remarried Given Official Status”

  1. “NUTS!” was the word the American general communicated to the German Nazis during WWll, upon being told to ” give up” in the deep forests of Belgium, surrounded and outnumbered.

    And I would say that as well to the great apostasy and this heretical pope:
    NUTS to you my friend and all those who with great zeal desire to change Dogma in the Magisterium, opening the way for Communion for civilly divorced/remarriage and which will have a cataclysmic altering in the Church’s teachings/ disciplines on faith and morals.

    Yes…..we know that God wins in the end…..what of that?
    Does that mean we whine and hide and lament, particularly if we are in a position of authority as Cardinal Burke? Oh, the emotionalism of these prophecies and their excuse for impotence in defending the faith is beyond belief!

    I do believe in our Lady’s revelation. I promise this. But, they were not given for men to
    ” hold their hands up” in surrender. The prophecies were given to warn, to prepare and to FIGHT the evil that is setting on the Church faster than the setting of a sun.

    The Church needs desperately a leader, strong spoken, convicted, and afraid of only the Lord to cry out, ” NUTS to you Francis….NUTS to you cardinals and bishops and priests and every single lay person who supports the heresies being laid into the teachings of the Church.

    p.s I posted this just minutes ago on LIfesite News in regards to Cardinal’s Burke lamenting about the ” end times.”

    Reply
  2. The hole goes ever deeper.
    On the positive side know he rips the mask from himself.
    His legacy is consigned to the trash pail at his own hands. For this we can be deeply grateful.

    Reply
  3. It seems pretty clear now that Francis is a heretic, plain and simple. Is this anything we didn’t already know? Really? The clues have been there pretty much since he became pope that there was something terribly wrong with the man. I know I saw it, and I know I’m not that unique. Sometimes people can surprise us, but they usually don’t. People usually act as we expect them to act. Meanwhile, from the cardinals, we need lions and we get kittens.

    Reply
  4. The ecclesial equivalent of a guy deliberately knocking over your drink in a bar room then staring you straight in the eye with a…. “so what ya gonna do about it?”, look.

    This is good. It removes plausible deniability and draws a line in the sand which will position all cardinals on one side or the other. No more weasel words, no more verbal gymnastics, no more fence-sitting (are you listening, Cardinal Mueller?).

    Your move, Cardinal Burke.

    Reply
          • I love this picture. It should read “The church is not a democracy and I am the pope. I’ll be damned if I turn it over to the papal throne to those who will abuse power to advance an agenda of exclusion.”

          • Exactly. It says “don’t I look merciful?”

            It says all are welcome in my Church…..except those who humbly and obediently believe what the Catholic Church has always taught. They’re “rigid” and I’ll fight these people by “excluding” them.

          • More like: I’ll be damned for teaching heresy.

            And I wholeheartedly agree.

            Caption should read : This My church and I will as I damn please.

          • Aah exclusion. That overused word.

            There’s a shop that says no entry to those attired only in speedoes and two piece bikinis.

            Is the shop excluding me if I insist on wearing only underwear, or am I insisting on excluding myself.

          • You were one of the guys who took umbrage at me saying Burke was “tiresome and weak”….now you want the average “Joe Pewsitter” to write to tell him to do his duty….incredible.

          • If I am correct, in the time of the Arian Crisis in the Church, the laity were strong in numbers.
            Now, far worse, it seems that not only but a few bishops and cardinals would support Cardinal Burke’s Formal Correction and possible calling of another imperfect Synod, but the overwhelming majority of laity
            will be against Cardinal Burke.

            Francis will become uglier than ever seen before, in my opinion…….( I do not know his heart………but I haver a brain.)

            For me, I do not bear these consequences and those that will be taken against the faithful.
            Cardinal Burke will. And so, in my opinion, I believe this fact could be preventing +Burke from issuing the Formal Correction.

            Cardinal Burke needs our support and prayers. So much on his shoulders now. And yet, it is very clear, that he must do what he must do. Perhaps with all this time gone by, and Francis’s continued ” spit on the Church’s teachings”, our Lord is showing the good Cardinal that there is clearly no other option now.

          • We should all chip in, send him a copy of Archbishop Lefebvre’s autobiograp, and The Mouth of The Lion,” on Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer. Perhaps seeing how some relatively recent bishops who really took the office seriously, defend the Faith. Those men lived lives of meager creature comforts, were tough men. They didn’t run from banquet to banquet, they stood tall, inspired their flocks. They also weren’t infected by VII poison, as every current prepare is. Those considered “orthodox” in today’s age, would be considered soft and borderline heretics in another time.

          • About a week ago I submitted a short, time sensitive piece to 1Peter5. Although my submission was acknowledged, it hasn’t been gotten to yet. Tgwrefore I am reproducing it below:

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

            All Things Have Their Season (Ecc 3:1)
            Michael J. Ryan

            And “A time to keep silence, and a time to speak.” (Ecc 3:7)

            For fifty-five years, from the laying of the foundation of the destruction of the Catholic Church with the hijacking of the Second Vatican Council until now, the laity have kept silence, meekly accepting (and often welcoming) each error and ill-advised innovation in a developing structure intended to replace that of the Church. With Amoris Laetitia it became all too apparent the new ediface was incompatible with the Church founded by Our Lord, Jesus Christ, entrusted to the apostles, affirmed and preserved by the fathers and doctors, embraced by the saints and expounded and taught by the Universal Magisterium through two thousand years. In response to this “awakening” four cardinals sought definitive clarification from the current supreme pontiff, Pope Francis, concerning statenents and propositions made in the afore mentioned document under his name. More than a year has passed with the pope obstinately refusing to answer the legitimate and respectful Dubia raised by these cardinals. During the intervening months two of the four have died and no others have had the courage to either take their place or swell their ranks. Consequently, the bulldozers of the Catholic Church’s demolition crew continue to pursue their goal. The dubia cardinals promised a possible “filial correction” would be forthcoming. Yet, we whose very salvation is in jeopardy, are left groping in the dark, waiting for an action which is vitally necessary but which appears will never be made.

            Therefore, I submit the time has come for us, the faithful, to speak, to make known to those with the authority to take the needed steps to halt the destruction of the Church. Our message needs to be loud and clear yet respectful. It should not be issued as pressure, but to communicate our concern regarding the souls who are being led astray and to encourage and to plead with Cardinals Burke and Brandmuller to take the next step in the correction process. To this end I am about to create a petition on change.org to obtain as many signatures as possible by the first of the new year. The contents of this petition will be a final version of the following letter.

            ***********-

            His Eminence Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke
            His Eminence Walter Cardinal Brandmuller
            Palazzo della Cancelleria,
            00186 Roma, Italiatt
            Piazza della Cancelleria, 1

            Dear Eminences;

            We are writing on behalf of the many faithful and orthodox Catholics around the world. All of us have grave concerns regarding the direction in which the leadership is taking the Church, a direction which we believe places the salvation of every Catholic and, indeed, every person on the planet at far greater risk than ever before. We are aware the Church changed course with the Second Vatican Council, virtually every document of which contains at least one error through contradiction, misinterpretation, misdirection, denial, ignoring, ambiguity, omission or other deviation from Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition or the perennial Magisterial doctrines and teachings of the Church which have been established, confirmed and re-affirmed over the past nearly two thousand years until the 1960s. The innovations following the council have served to weaken the faith of a vast number of Catholics who call into question most of the precepts of the Catholic Faith with a corresponding loss of belief even in the core doctrines such as the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist and His very divinity. These errors have compounded over the intervening years culminating in the words, writing and deeds of Pope Francis and those aligned with him which deviate in the extreme from Divine Revelation and the Magisterial pronouncements given through the centuries.

            We know Pope Francis has refused to respond to the proper and respectful questions raised by the Dubia. We sincerely believe his silence is indicative of obstinancy. Although we are aware that many concerns and issues regarding the next step must weigh heavily on your hearts and minds, we would dare to remind you that the salvation of souls is the expressed will of God, for which Jesus gave His life and founded His Church. We deeply believe His will and the true mission of the Church override and supercede all other concerns and issues. We likewise know that there is a proper protocol for any correction to the Church’s course laid out and followed by the licitly elected Vicar of Christ. Yet, far more than a year has passed since you delivered the Dubia to Pope Francis and he remains silent. With each passing day without the formal correction more and more souls become enmeshed in this tangle of error and an increasing number are lost forever as more people die while following the Church’s deviation from its perennial Divine Revelation rooted and Holy Spirit guided Magisterial doctrines and teachings in disobedience to Our Lord’s will. We are also keenly aware the possibility exists that the end result of the correction process could be the removal of Pope Francis for heresy and a corresponding schism. However, should this occur, as tragic as these results would be, it is, nevertheless, imperative that the True Church of Our Lord be restored to complete fidelity to Him, to His Word and to the historical, Magisterium led Catholic faith handed down to us from the apostles. Furthetmore, the true, authentic and restored Catholic Church resulting from a schism caused by the correction and possible removal of Pope Francis, while smaller in terms of numbers and less wealthy, would surely be the remnant which has been promised by Almighty God in whom we place our complete and utmost trust.

            Therefore, after months of prayerful consideration, we believe it is our bounden duty as faithful Catholics to earnestly and respectfully plead with you, for the sake of the Church and its mission along with the souls of all of her members and the world, to take the next step in the correction process by immediately issuing the first of the two required warnings while simultaneously making preparations for calling, convening and conducting a general council to address the serious errors contained in Amoris Laetitia, among others, should Pope Francis deny the first and second correction warnings and refuse to repent and recant his errors. Furthermore, although the contents of each warning of a formal correction are to be privately communicated to Pope Francis, we believe, as members of the Mystical Body of Christ, we have a God-given supernatural right to be informed, immediately upon the delivery of each warning, that said warning has bern issued.

            Sincerely yours in Christ,

            Signatories

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

            I will gladly accept and welcome with gratitude all constructive criticisms, suggestions and corrections. Once the letter has been finalized I will create a petitition on change.org (which I want to do by the Feast of Mary, Mother of God) and will announce it in the comments section for this post. I urge every faithful orthodox/traditional Catholic to sign the petition and to encourage every like-minded Catholic you know to do likewise. I would like the signed petition to be sent to Carfonals Burke and Brandmuller on Ash Wednesday, 2018. I pray that what I have proposed in this article is in accord with the will of the Lord.

      • I would like to know from the Cardinal what Pope Bergoglio could possibly do in addition to this latest act to cause the Cardinals and bishops of the Church to depose him. We have seen enough damage done to Holy Mother Church and we must not stand for more.

        Under no circumstances will I allow this Marxist tin horn dictator to force me to be complicit in acts of adultery done by thousands all over the world.

        Reply
      • Talking of St. Nich , there are some bishops who want to eliminate the Last Sun. of Advent on Dec.24 because it falls on a Sunday. This spirit of Vatican ll is alive and well. Is it that hard for people to go to Mass 2 days in a row?
        I remember when Jan.1 was eliminated as holy day of obligation if it fell on a Sunday. This was just an insult to Our Lord and His Mother. Jan. 1 is still a Feast day in my book.

        Reply
        • THIS FRI. IS A HOLY DAY , Dec.8 (Immaculate Conception)
          “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” BLESSED Pius lX

          Reply
        • I sing in our choir at mass, and we are singing for the 9:30 pm mass on Christmas Eve and also for the mass on Christmas Day at 11:30 am. Then, in order to fulfill my obligation for the last Sunday of Advent, I am planning to attend the Saturday vigil mass Saturday on the 23rd. That will be three days in a row. Between the Feast of the Immaculate Conception on Friday, a White Mass I had to go to with my doctor husband this past Saturday, and another “special” choir mass with the Bishop coming to our parish next week, there are a total of TEN masses I HAVE to attend this month! I also work full time and have two children at home. However, I do NOT see this as a burden. I am gratefully looking forward to worshiping our Lord all the more (and hopefully receiving even more of His graces)!

          Reply
          • Oh, poor baby! You sound like you are bemoaning the fact that you have to give more time specifically to the Lord. And we are supposed to be giving EVERY moment of our existence WILLINGLY AND JOYFULLY to the Lord SPECIFICALLY. Sorry, but no sympathy here.

          • Muat have missed them. Yet, if all this was not a burden, I can’t helo but ask, why the laundry list? It sounded like complaining or patting herself on the back. Sorry, but that’s my viceral reaction.

    • Unfortunately, I anticipate more excuses to justify their inaction. For example, they can pretend they didn’t see or hear the guy challenging them.

      Reply
    • Whatever Francis does, there will be no end to the verbal gymnastics of the conservative Novus Ordo clique. Every time something shockingly heretical comes from the Pope or the Vatican dicasteries, they’ll find new excuses and loopholes. They’ll stay with him no matter what he does. His white cassock is their only point of orientation — and that’s why they’re sometimes bewildered by the white cassock of Ratzinger. They’ll not even leave Bergoglio when he commands them ex cathedra to worship the devil. In order to avoid the sin of schism they are prepared to commit apostasy from the faith.

      Reply
    • Yeah….. Burke can make a move and the pope can continue to ignore him. Haters are going to hate, hate, hate. All we can do about it is to join Francis in praying for Burke’s conversion to Christ.

      Reply
      • “Haters”…..the vacuous, infantile pejorative of choice for those with whom one disagrees, employed by those who can’t marshal an argument.

        Reply
      • Sealed in the Redeemer and CoRedeemer as they will and intend in all ways, be silent satan and may Cardinal Burke and all disciples by prayer and penance bring the grace of conversion to Jesus and Mary by the Pope and all…..

        Reply
    • “na kojoj se strani borio gospodin Osama bin Laden u Bosni?”

      Na onoj istoj na kojoj su se borili i Amerikanci. Samo naivčinama još nije jasno da su jedini istinski saveznici na području Hrvatske i BiH ustvari dvije strane zemlje koje na našem teritoriju nemaju što tražiti: Saudijska Arabija i Amerika. Te dvije zemlje i njihovo ortaštvo uzrok su današnjeg očajnog stanja u hrvatskim krajevima i servilne politike Hrvata. Izmanipulirali su narod podjednako i u BiH i u Hrvatskoj, posvađali nas, osiromašili, rascjepkali i politički uništili. Je li to rezultat dobronamjerne politike?

      Bošnjaci su se naivno poveli za Saudijcima isto kako su se Hrvati naivno poveli za Amerikancima. Od toga koristi nije imala nijedna država ni narod, samo korumpirani pojedinci koji su se nekim čudom baš u to doba propadanja svoga naroda uzdignuli i obogatili. Drugim riječima, dinastija Izetbegović nije po ničemu drugačija od dinastije Saud. I jedni i drugi su izdali ne samo vlastiti narod (Saudijce, odnosno Bošnjake), nego i svoju braću (Palestince, odnosno Hrvate). Tko je u svemu tome bio “medijator”? Velika Britanija, Izrael i SAD. Saudijci su izdali Palestince kako bi se osnovala Izraelska država u Palestini, a zauzvrat su im cionisti ponudili Islamsku državu do BiH, dok je ostatak hrvatskih krajeva trebao pripasti Velikoj Srbiji iz zahvalnosti što je uvijek bila vjerna cionistima. Tko je danas glavni u njegovoj provedbi? Amerikanci na čelu s Donaldom Trumpom! No važno da blentavi Hrvati u njemu gledaju “spasitelja”, odnosno da vrli katolici mole za obraćenje Rusije, jer ne vide da je Amerika ta koja se treba preobratiti, budući da se Rusija već jest preobratila i da zajedno s Iranom pod zaštitom Majke Božje brani katolike na Bliskom Istoku da ih suniti, židovi i protestanti ne istrijebe onako kako su to učinili u Europi.

      Pošteni mali ljudi, neovisno o vjeri i nacionalnosti, moraju progovoriti o ovom velikom problemu. Hrvati muslimanima u BiH nisu htjeli zlo niti su imali razloga za rat s njima. Mi se nikada nismo između sebe odjeljivali u “no go zone”, niti je u hrvatskim krajevima postojao jedan zakon za muslimane, a drugi za katolike. U Hrvatskoj su muslimani i katolici uvijek mogli naći zajednički jezik ako su se pošteni ljudi susreli. No nekome to nije odgovaralo. Zašto? Zato što ako bi se muslimani i katolici ujedinili, ne bi bilo Izraelske države. Jer nijedan katolik ne bi mogao podržati silnu agresiju na Palestince, koja ide i protiv Boga i protiv čovjeka. Takvi dogovori u kojima dvije velesile kao Velika Britanija i Amerika dogovaraju okupaciju zemlje i etničko čišćenje malog naroda kakvi su Palestinci, to je djelo sotone, a ne razumne i dobronamjerne politike. Kako bi katolici mogli pristati uz djelo sotone? Ako mu se nisu u stanju usprotiviti, onda nisu katolici! No, nažalost, mnogi su mu se priklonili. Zanimljivo da je u toj priči jedino Iran shvaćao što se doista događa, a tek u novije doba i Rusija. Europljani i Amerikanci ništa nisu shvatili, iako su njihovi karizmatici “puni darova”, navodno Duha Svetoga.

      E sad, da se još koliko-toliko pobožnim Hrvatima nije dogodio isti slučaj kao Palestincima, odnosno da zbog podrške Palestincima nisu nedavno nastradali Katarani i Libanonci, da li bi mi Hrvati uopće bili u stanju uvidjeti kakav je “igrač” Amerika i s kime je sve manipulirala, bilo u interesu Velike Srbije, bilo u intetesu Islamske države, bilo u interesu Izraelske države.Vjerojatno nikada ne bismo shvatili da Amerikanci nisu nikakav “medijator” nego da siju sukobe i razaranja gdje god nogom kroče! Što je najtragičnije, Njemačka i Amerika zajedno su okupirale Hrvatsku bez da su Hrvati to uopće primjetili. Tek sada kada su se Amerika i Njemačka između sebe razišle određene “nijanse savezništva” postaju vidljivije.

      Za one koji se pitaju što devastirana, raseljena, osiromašena, goloruka, okupirana i izmanipulirana Hrvatska može sada učiniti, odgovor je jednostavan: javno o tome progovoriti i osuditi takvu politiku! To je napravio general Praljak, to je napravio general Čegar, i to treba napraviti svatko od nas, neovisno koje je vjere i nacionalnosti.

      Hrvatima se dogodila Palestina! Ne osudimo li mi Hrvati nepravdu i agresiju počinjenu prema Palestincima, s kojim pravom očekujemo da će itko osuditi nepravdu i agresiju počinjenu Hrvatima? Tako kako su se “Bošnjaci” svrstali na stranu agresora u BiH, tako smo se i mi svrstali na stranu i svoga agresora u Hrvatskoj, i njegovog saveznika u Palestini. To je naša greška koju moramo ispraviti! U suprotnom nam nema spasa.

      Sveti Alojzije Stepinac, moli za sve male narode koji trpe zbog svoje malenkosti i zaštiti ih od strukturnog (društvenog) nasilja!

      P.S. – I da, Božji odabrani narodi jesu upravo ovi koji su se u stanju boriti za Boga, Crkvu i domovinu, a ne nekakvi lažni i izmišljeni “Izraelci”, “Bošnjaci”, “Europljani” i “Amerikanci”. S obzirom na to da će istina o stogodišnjoj židovsko-protestantsko-sunitskoj zavjeri uskoro u svijetu odjeknuti poput “bombe”, netko bi trebao reći Jorge Mariu Bergogliu da “Papa Franjo” ustvari “igra za pogrešnu ekipu” ili, da budem preciznija, “bori na pogrešnoj strani”.

      Your move, Cardinal Burke.

      Reply
    • Benedict is the Pope. Most of these softy Cardinals know that, anyway. His abdication was illegal, the Conclave was void. Daneels had admitted they rigged Bergoglio to be chosen, so that is another reason it would not have been valid.

      Reply
    • What you going to do about it? Get behind the bar and look at the spilled drink you caused, wipe it up and put it back in the glass, or figure out what was in the drink by closely studying it’s aroma, color and other abstract evidence. Now do it or suffer the consequences.

      Reply
  5. According to the rescript in question, Pope Francis decreed that his Sept. 5, 2016 letter to the Buenos Aires Bishops, as well as their “Basic Criteria for the Application of Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia”, issued the same day, “are to be made known as authentic magisterium“. Here’s an unofficial translation of the rescript, provided by churchmilitant.com (https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/breaking-pope-declares-troubling-interpretation-of-al-authentic-magisterium):

    The Supreme Pontiff decrees that the two Documents that precede [this Rescript] are to be made known by publication on the Vatican website and in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, as authentic Magisterium. From the Vatican Palace, on the 5th day of June in the year 2017.

    (emphasis added)

    Pietro Cardinal Parolin
    Secretary of State

    Reply
  6. One more piece of evidence to indict him and his legacy with. If he will not repent we should pray that a future Catholic Pope will anathematize him and all his works in the same way that Honorius was anathematized.

    In the meantime no Catholic can be obliged to give religious submission of intellect and will to any thesis or praxis which contradicts the plain teaching of Our Lord and the Deposit of Faith. On the contrary, we are obliged to resist it.

    Reply
      • Francis step down? Seriously. He’s on the move, don’t you see?
        And Benedict is gone, caput…..left us…….silent…..bye bye he said this to us….remember?
        Was he forced out? Who knows, but he isn’t talking, is he?

        What we need, are some cardinals who not only see the heresy, but see the Francis for who the man is,
        Something you will not hear on sites as CMTV.
        Francis is not only a bad pope, but he is a very mean and nasty human being who is bent on changing the teachings of the Church……And until these cardinals understand this very clearly, they will not budge from their comfortable positions.

        Reply
      • Be careful what you wish for – you just might get it. Then we’ll have a situation like 1 Corinthians 1: 10-17 (which in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is the Epistle for the 8th Sunday after Pentecost):

        [10] Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.
        [11] For it hath been signified unto me, my brethren, of you, by them that are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. [12] Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. [13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul? [14] I give God thanks, that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Caius; [15] Lest any should say that you were baptized in my name.
        [16] And I baptized also the household of Stephanus; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. [17] For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.

        If you substitute Benedict, Francis, and _______ (provided the formal correction is done, PF resigns and X is elected Pope), then you get the idea. Some will still be loyal to Benedict, many to Francis, and others to the new pope.

        It will be worse than the Great Western Schism (and considering the state of the Church today, it will be).

        Maybe that’s the final goal of the modernists – to split the Church. Read The Keys of This Blood by Malachi Martin.

        Reply
    • We should pray that a future Catholic Pope not just anathematizes Francis but all post-conciliar popes including the Second Vatican Council and all its erroneous teachings. And anyone that teaches them or celebrates the bastard mass of Paul VI shall be excommunicated.

      Reply
  7. You know how oftentimes really shocking letters (like one from a Philippine bishop re. homosexuality) are dated on significant feast days (like St. John Chrysostom, who was a true defender of marriage) or St. Joseph. Notice that this one is put out on the feast of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary. Kind of like that slap in the face: light show on the feast of the Immaculate Conception. This isn’t lost on us. The irony and the sacrilege! What an insult to Our Blessed Mother, and what an outrage against her Son, who is the true (invisible) head of the Church, His Bride. It really is breathtakingly audacious.

    Reply
    • They revel in wrapping their filth in tradition. It is boldly telling of their character. They appeal to a tradition they hold in contempt to provide credence to the erroneous. They adopt the papacy as a costume in order to undermine its authority.
      What kind of men would do such?
      All their theatrics will bear the fruit of seeing their demonic effort consigned to its rightful place.
      “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea.” Mark 9:42

      Reply
  8. “The announcement can only serve to further fuel the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the controversial apostolic exhortation as well as the Pope’s way of doing things, which yet again appears to be a far cry from the clarity and straightforwardness that many of the faithful would expect [from the Holy Father].”

    I don’t know, Tosatti, it seems to me that the pope is making what he believes and wants implemented clearer and clearer all the time.

    Reply
  9. The entire Catholic media spin machine needs to stop now. No more writing the letter off as a “private communication”. No more claiming “it’s not a formal magisterial act”. No more hand wringing and excuse making. It’s time to put up or shut up.

    Not that I have much faith in these people and establishments, but I am henceforth issuing a challenge to the following:

    —Jimmy Akin
    —Karl Keating
    —The entire Catholic Answers staff
    —The entire EWTN staff (well, everyone not named Arroyo, who has at least acted like a journalist on this issue)
    —National Catholic Register
    —The Wanderer
    —Michael Voris and Church Militant.com
    —Any other major Catholic media players who aren’t fully traditionalist and have remained mostly silent on this issue

    To all listed above, I challenge you to either:

    1. Provide a thorough, Scholastic defense a la Aquinas of this letter now that it is formally a part of the official acts of this pontiff that can once and for all prove definitively that there is no possible way this document can in any way contradict two millennia of Church teaching. Special pleading and appealing to some sort of senus Catholicus (e.g., “The document must be read in light of existing teaching and only that way”) isn’t an acceptable response, as there are far too many who ARE able to read it in heterodox fashion.

    2. If you cannot do that, then immediately and publicly issue formal apologies to those who have been sounding the alarm on AL since the 2014 Synod. Having done so, begin defending, in print and on your respective websites and social media accounts, traditional Church teaching against this apparently now-magisterial letter and its implications. Cease your slander of those who have objected as “rad trads”, “schismastics”, et cetera.

    Any organization who cannot do either by the end of December will have definitively proven they are not worthy of being taken seriously, if they have not already done so. It is time to take a stand and choose a side; the days of “middle ground”, conservative Catholicism from the JPII era are over. You all must decide who you serve: Christ or mammon.

    Reply
        • “It’s true, I suffer a great deal–but do I suffer well? That is the question.” – St. Therese of Lisieux
          Pray and fast for the Pope. Submit your fears with love to the Sacred Heart.

          Reply
    • Exactly. Put up or shut up. And, I can’t say that you are in good company, but we are together in being banned from CM. I got banned for a post… that I posted on this website.

      Welcome to 1984, CM style.

      Reply
        • I can’t remember exactly, but I think it was when Pope Francis endorsed Contraception to prevent the Zika virus and I simply told the truth that enough was enough and that’s heresy. I know I was forceful in my comment.
          Anyone who is not forceful via comment regarding the sitting Pontiff endorsing contraception for the purpose of eugenics should be held in contempt or at least as a benighted fool.

          Reply
          • The pope & CMTV were wrong.
            Pope Paul VI never sanctioned condoms for nuns. I don’t know where Francis got his info.

            So basically they have blinders on and they forbid any question on the pope.

          • Actually, it was Pope Benedict who gave the example of condom use by a male prostitute as a step toward responsibility towards others. Sometimes our path to Christ is incremental and sometimes condom use it part of that step forward. Here is the actual quote from Benedict.

            When asked “the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms,” Benedict replied: “It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution. In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality…There may be justified individual cases, for example when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be … a first bit of responsibility, to redevelop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes…. But it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection.” – Pope Benedict, 2010,

          • You have so completely misunderstood what Benedict said.

            In the case of a man who is HIV positive and has decided to use condom to protect others from his disease, it is not about incremental but a choice between two evils. Using condom is the lesser evil to fornicating and giving others disease.

            It means that he finally realized that apart from his own sexual sin, there is the sin of added harm (and sin) of knowingly infecting others.

      • Well Fr. RP, you probably wouldn’t remember, but one good thing for me anyway, when you were posting on CMTV you gave me a beautiful and holy piece of advice regarding something and I NEVER forgot and in fact, copied and saved it in my drawer where I keep my Bible and Rosary.

        Reply
        • Perhaps this is why I’ve seen many people just totally disappear from the comments on Church militants web page over the past 10 months

          Reply
        • Perhaps this is the reason they were banned from USCCB
          Convocation of Leaders?
          Maybe this is why parishes won’t allow them on their property.

          Reply
      • I was banned (under another name) by CMTV for suggesting to them that it was their duty to report on the Pope’s intentions for the month of January 2016 video!

        Reply
      • I have also been banned from commenting on the CMTV website. But from what I’ve seen of their recent material, they seem to be waking up. Same goes for the Register, although progress is slower there

        Reply
      • I’m proud to say I’m banned from Catholic Answers and LifeSiteNews for saying things about Bergoglio early on that every faithful Catholic, including LifeSite is saying now. I banned myself from CMTV a year ago.

        Reply
      • The problem with CM is that they refuse to remove their blinkers.

        They go on and on about this priest and that bishop (rightly) but never quite takes it to the top.

        It’s like blaming the sergeants but excusing the general who is responsible for the sergeants and are equally guilty.

        It’s funny because Voris loved Benedict but when he was gone he blasted him for the fact that we now have to deal with Francis but refused to acknowledge the problem that IS Francis.

        Reply
      • For having the audacity, in their opinion, to post comments questioning this papacy on other Disqus forums, such as 1P5. Literally nothing I posted on their forum violated their policy, and they did not even have the courtesy to message me directly saying I was banned. I merely received a “your account has been blocked” notice when I attempted to make another comment on their forum.

        Reply
        • Same here LB 236…I posted previously as Al the Silent Crusader. Many of us have been way ahead of the “power curve” on this “pope” for quite some time.

          Reply
          • Nice to hear from you again, Al. It’s been too long. And I agree with your sentiments, of course. Terry Carroll has turned CMTV into his own personal plaything, with Voris all too eager to go along for the ride, even if he has to repudiate his own previous positions to do so (e.g., his 2010 video on the Novus Ordo and interviews with Ferrara and Verrechio which have mysteriously “disappeared”).

          • Voris’s main investor. His money provided them with their studio space in Detroit several years ago, but it’s come with a price. From what I’ve been able to find on the Internet, Carroll attends an FSSP chapel and has an almost pathological hatred of the SSPX. He also has a “don’t criticize the pope” attitude, and since his signature goes on the checks, Voris has no choice but to accommodate.

            If you can actually find Real Catholic TV (CMTV’s former name) productions from before Carroll got involved and compare them with what CMTV is turning out now, it’s like night and day. The old Voris had no compunction against criticizing the flaws in the Novus Ordo and Bugnini’s treachery in getting it implemented, nor did he have a problem with having “rad trads” like Ferrara and Verrechio on his show. All that changed once Carroll got involved: the SSPX is now in schism, end of discussion according to CMTV (even though they have no authority to make that assertion), the Novus Ordo isn’t really all that bad, it just needs to be celebrated properly, and it’s never the Pope’s fault: it’s the bishops, especially Dolan, or the media, or gremlins, or whatever.

          • You nailed it about how CM will never criticize the pope. Always GOTTA be somebody else’s fault, never Francis. And if you do criticize Francis for any reason: they will ban you from their comment section. Ridiculous and small-minded people.

          • This is an example of a lack of prudence in becoming too dependent on one or a few major donors. Eventually they own your soul. If you want to fund a Catholic activity and keep your integrity, either do it all yourself or build a large base of small donors. The big donor who solves all your problems looks like a gift from God, but he is not. Soon enough you will find yourself trimming your sails, dancing to his tune, and selling t-shirts.

          • So this explains why the have now recently succumbed to selling jewelry, T shirts , coffee, soap.
            I thought that was strange for a tv studio.

          • CMTV is a cult. If they were serious trads like the Remnant et. al. they would’ve had Bishop Fellay or Bishop Tissier de Mallarias on their programing to talk about the SSPX to hear their side of the story.

        • Wow. Well I guess I’m next because I’ve been very outspoken in condemning the heresy of FRS James Martin SJ and Dan HORAN OFM for the past 9 months!

          Reply
        • I don’t understand an interview with MILO.
          He’s a perverted soul just like FR Martin SJ.
          BOTH OF THESE MEN NEED OUR PRAYERS.
          The NAtl Catholic Register has basically endorsed FR Martin.
          Mother Angelica would never had an interview with him!

          Reply
          • The interview with Milo and CMTV’s incessant praises of this man, disturbed me, along with the numerous comments which applauded Milo, in spite of his recent homosexual ” hitch up”.
            I was respectful and voiced my concern and BAM, I got banned.

            From reading LB236 post, I think I understand why, as I had previously voiced my concern over their ruthful preoccupation against SSPX . I guess they caught up to me, when I asked CMTV to ” leave SSPX alone.”

          • They’re not perfect—none of us are, least of all myself—and I think they’re trying to simply keep the traditionalist community unified in “recognize and resist” mode; I recall Matt’s video from a year of so ago imploring SSPX, FSSP, and diocesan chapel attendees to stop fighting amongst themselves.

            I did notice, however, they dropped Barnhardt like a bad habit once she put forth her thesis on Benedict/Ratzinger. So I’m not 100% certain who to trust at this point, but I know for a fact the ones on my list above most certainly have some reckoning to do for their condescending, dismissive attitude toward the concerns not only of traditionalists but also conservative NO types who have begun to speak out.

          • Many of the faithful do not know who to trust these days. The sheep are wandering all over the place. May the Good Shepherd come and rescue them from those dark places.

          • My three favorite sites are this one, Ann and Remnant. I hate that Ann and Remnant are at odds with each other. It was barnhardt.biz that I stumbled on first and converted, so I naturally have an affection and loyalty towards her. I think it was about a year or so ago I got into a pissing contest with Chris Ferrara; he accused Ann of “click baiting” for her speaking out and calling PF an antipope. She is out spoken. She may be wrong. But to accuse her of click baiting for readership/funding? I don’t think so. i was pretty relentless in cajoling Ferrara to apologize, but he never did…though he did back down from the click bait accusation. I think I’ll add unity for all the rad trads in my St. Andrew Novena.

          • The new alliance of Mr. Matt and the can’t we all just get along cult of Matt is a solution without a problem. The problem is not infighting among traditionalists the problem is the Churchmen lost the Faith and we are dealing with a new religious system and a new church Bottom line we are dealing with two religions.

          • Setting up a straw man argument there. But I do appreciate the great seriousness of what is happening under PF. God help us and Mary intercede.

        • The Remnant has never changed it’s position on the liturgy for 50 years. Walter Matt left his brother Alphonse’s Wanderer and started the Remnant over the TLM. Michael Matt is the late-Walter’s youngest son.

          Reply
    • I could never understand Mr VORIS always saying…. I know a certain bishop but I won’t reveal his name……. if you’re going to defend the faith, name NAMES. Don’t give half the truth. You can’t do this in the Police Dept..You can’t do this in any family.

      Reply
    • I too am “Banned” on the Church Militant website. Funny how many of us here have had the same negative experience with CM. I myself had the audacity to suggest that perhaps the problem wasn’t just “the bishops”, but Pope Francis himself. Apparently that was beyond the pall for those stuffed shirts. Not a problem: just moved my CM donation over here to OP5, a much better website in every respect anyway. See ya!

      Reply
    • Add to your list Catholic News Agency and all the folks at Patheos (Shea, Fr. Longenecker, Deacon Kandra et al., )

      BTW, I’ve just seen a preview of Jimmy Akin’s latest article. It’s entitled “10 Ways to Know if Your Pope is a Heretic”.

      Reply
      • BTW, I’ve just seen a preview of Jimmy Akin’s latest article. It’s entitled “10 Ways to Know if Your Pope is a Heretic”.

        Oh, you’ve got to be kidding. Wait, no, that sounds about right. Someone needs to respond with “10 Ways to Know if You’re an Overpaid, Professional Neo-Catholic Sycophant” and simply post 10 pictures of Akin for the text.

        Reply
      • Shea will never in a million years say a word against the Pope. He and I got into a rather nasty, 100+ comment online shouting match over the matter a couple of months back

        Reply
    • The faithful desperately want to put the best possible face on what is happening; to make every possible excuse but putting lipstick on a pig is not helping.

      Reply
    • Please leave the challenge to the Lord, do penance for sinners like the 3 children of Fatima, the Lord has things perfectly under His Wise Control…be little, hidden and humble so that prayers and penance may be efficacious….

      Reply
      • Yes, because Francis believes in “dialogue”. We’re constantly told that “dialogue” is so important. We shouldn’t be closed and “rigid”. “Dialogue” is the key to the Church’s mission.

        Except when it’s not.

        Reply
  10. Joy has it right. Insertion of the letter in the Acta doesn’t meet the requirement of binding teaching or even that which is owed religious assent since it is addressed to a Bishop of a Conference and not to the Church. It lacks consistent character and intention (Lumen Gentium 25) and is a comment on another document, a form of double possibility since the Argentine directives speak of possible exception. This has been part of the “tactic” (Prof Pierantoni’s description) of reference to a negative commandment Thou shalt not commit Adultery in a positive context allowing for exception. Why wouldn’t the Pontiff make official pronouncements on what he continuously indicates are his intentions but furtively, obliquely, always with a degree of ambiguity if not that he is aware that an authority above himself will not permit it and he knows that. If God permits this trial for all concerned, which He in fact does and that none of these apparent doctrines are binding then we are being given a conscientious choice centered on loyalty to the words of Christ or their repudiation. That really is our choice in this.

    Reply
        • Sorry, but your statement is inaccurate. Cardinal Parolin’s audience with Pope Francis took place in June 2017. The October 2016 issue of AAS was published this week.

          Reply
      • Eric it is an error but the canonical standard for heresy requires a clear, adamant, and consistent repudiation of an article of faith and morals. Error yes formal no.

        Reply
        • Father, can you provide an example of a clear an adamant rejection of the faith. It’s very sad because the reception of communion is just one subject, added to my concern is what appears to me to be clear rejections on what the Church teaches concerning the death penalty and Hell

          Reply
          • The Church Eric is dealing with the Pope’s premises that suggest communion can be given for those living in an an objective state of grave sin. The issue here is proving that he teaches it. Laity and bishops however are practicing what the Pontiff suggests. They by doing so if consistent and determined are in serious error as apostates. It’s not to say the Pope is not morally responsible. It appears he is. God is his judge.

          • “The issue here is proving that he definitively teaches it. ”

            Am I to try to understand then, that Pope Francis’ letter to the Argentinian bishops was only one of support for the reception of the Eucharist for those civilly divorced and remarried? And the fact that the pope is not ” teaching this heresy” in so far as changing Doctrine; that means he is not a formal heretic and hence
            cardinals are stuck watching a disaster unfold as then so is the laity?

            I just don’t know if that is going to fly very well with our Lord?

          • The Pope is in error. Formal heresy requires obstinate repudiation as I note from the Catechism. He knows that, which is why he’s evasive and only gives out enough to sanction without being formally accused of heresy. Yes. God knows that. As a priest guiding the faithful I refrain from judging his conscience. I judge his works. Where do I stand? As Christ said we judge a tree by its fruit. The fruit are toxic.

          • The problem is, it’s not just an “error”.

            the Pope merely reflects what a vast portion of the Church already IS.

            Something needs to be done about that and I just don’t see it happening. i cannot fathom in my mind the restoration of discipline {however imperfect that might be in practice} in the Church unless a schism of some sort occurs and since I’m not going anywhere, I just can’t see how this gins out in any way that makes the Church a clear beacon of truth to the world.

            This one is beyond me. I await the Lord’s intervention.

          • If we remain faithful to Christ regardless of this Pontiff and his errors and those who follow him they, if there is no correction are and will remain Apostate–and the faithful will represent the Mystical Body of Christ in spirit and in truth. Hold your ground and remain courageous in practice of the faith and Christ will reward you and assure your salvation. We are as it is increasingly evident facing a test and it may be the Final Test. Whatever transpires remain faithful and steadfast.

          • Perfect. It is no one’s place to judge the state of another person’s standing before God, whether they are in the state of grace or not. But we can certainly judge their works [as works] as being either in accord with the moral law or not. So, as you say, PF’s words are in error, but that is not the same as to say that he himself is in “obstinate repudiation”. So, we can affirm that his words concerning communion for the D&R are in error and lead to sin and as such are odious. But we cannot judge the state of his conscience. Again, helpful distinctions. Thanks.

          • Obstinate repudiation is what qualifies formal heresy.
            I am not certain if I should feel relieved about that or more concerned that Pope Francis has full reign to
            do what he desires to do.

            I shall probably get ” reeled in” for asking this, but why cannot one judge the state of one’s conscience, referring to his or he character, morality, virtue or lack of given a preponderance of overwhelming evidence?

            Should we not discern carefully, but do discern as we choose a spouse, a friend, and those who have authority over us? I remember years ago, a group from the diocese gave a talk on discerning
            how to vote for president of the USA, using our ” Catholic conscience.”
            I asked, ” But, shouldn’t we, the citizens of the USA not discern the conscience of those running for office who have great power over our lives and decision making?”

            Discerning the conscience of a man or woman, does not correlate with ” judging them to hell”.
            Perhaps my definition of conscience is incorrect?
            But, it is an important task, no less, in my opinion.

          • CS insofar as discernment of conscience we enter into the Pontiff’s approach of discerning whether a D&R penitent is sufficiently in God’s grace free from serious sin and permitted to receive communion–without viable evidence such as required by a tribunal. As regards the Pontiff’s letter of affirmation it doesn’t rise to the level of evidence that he is a formal heretic, one who obstinately repudiates or doubts an article of faith and morals. The letter is an approbation of Argentine Bishops who believe there are possible exceptions due to mitigating factors such as invalid exchange of vows, or sufficient repentance and conscientious disposition. There is nothing in this that can be interpreted as formal heresy. Although I strongly disagree and oppose this policy because it’s based on a value judgment not evidence and without viable discrimination thereby effectively permitting all D&R persons with similar disposition to receive communion .

          • You must mean marital not martial Tem. What you imply is correct. They are forbidden by Church teaching. They by doing so are in disobedience to Christ’s commandments despite being told otherwise by clerics who themselves are in error and all are subject to committing grave sin. That’s why this heresy is so dangerous spreading rapidly worldwide and appears Apocalyptic.

          • We are talking about material heresy, Pope Francis is teaching material heresy, that is certain. But we cannot and do not have the authority or insight to accuse him of formal heresy. That seems to be the situation.

          • You are in error RevFr. Canon Law does not require “formal” heresy to trigger the automatic loss of apostolic office. Both the 1917 Code (188.4) and the 1983 Code (1364 and specifically 194 #2) merely require “public” heresy. Formal heresy is never mentioned and there is a world of difference between the two. An ordained member of the Catholic Church who is a public heretic is assumed to be in formal heresy given his training and responsibility. Material heresy relies solely on non culpable ignorance which Francis certainly does not possess at this point, most appropriately the realm of laymen or with clergy concerning only very fine points of doctrine. A Pope Pressing the delete key on the 4th, 6th, and 9th Commandments does not fall under that purview.

          • Thank you for raising those points, the issue still remains though about a competent authority to declare Pope Francis as a heretic-

            194 point 4 adds “§2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.”

          • Yes, but hasn’t the annihilation of souls been condemned by the Church as a heresy?

            How does he dodge that one?

          • Yes Rod it is an error. He said it at least once. The difficulty is eliciting a definitive response since he usually obfuscates. Recall when shortly after publication of AL he announced most marriages are invalid. Then when questioned he backpedaled. That’s his game. He issues the poison then backs off while the poison takes effect.

          • Yes, he obfuscates. Like the less talented team in a football game has to resort to trick plays to survive. If a team is clearly better than their opponent and they know it, they simply line up and shove the ball down their opponent’s throat by running a lot and straight up the middle. Pope Francis knows very well that he does not have the truth on his side. Faithful Catholics (the stronger team because they have the truth on their side) want him to line up straight and fight it out in a fair fight. But since he knows he could never win that fight, he has to resort to name-calling and obfuscation (red-herrings that are his ‘trick plays’). Not to put too fine a point on it, but it’s a bit like trying to squash a cockroach with your shoe: it would be very easy if the darn thing would just sit still for a moment. But they’re not going to make it that easy for you; they duck and weave. And obfuscate;)

          • Father, I think all the ambiguity and word games is an insult to the intelligence of the Catholic faithful. As an adult, as a man, as a baptized Catholic, we know in our hearts to raise our children to be clear in telling the truth, especially to those in desperate need of it. This pernicious mess is not just a strike against the holy office but also against what it means to be an adult and a man. If he believes so much in his own opinion as being true, why ignore the dubia? He has the highest office in the earthly Church, and still must be covert about his opinion? It surely must be made of sand.

          • It seems a little bit nitpicking about all this. Oh, the pope must cross THIS line, no, we mean THIS further line. No, we mean he must publish heresy even more consistently and openly than he already has. No, we mean he must repudiate God in clear terms and on and on and on. Denial of an article of faith or the obstinate doubt or , in the case of a prelate in a place of authority with the responsibility to proclaim the Truth and does not do so…all of these things point to heresy.

          • Maggie I agree with you. As in a court of civil law we have canon law with exacting standards including standards for formal heresy in order to insure justice. That is why I oppose this Pontiff’s policies that in essence repudiate the Deposit of Faith. If the Pontiff cannot at present be charged formally with heresy and removed, which many desire be assured Christ in his own time will exact justice.

    • Excellent point Father. The Devil’s party prefers to proceed by deception and in the dark of night, but by the very uncertainty they create, they assist God in putting His question to humanity: are we on the side of the sheep or the goats. Francis will proceed in his plan, but he can’t stop God from testing humanity and discovering His saints, any more than Judas and Caiaphas and Pilate were able to stop God from proving His apostles.

      Reply
    • With all due respect, Fr. Morell, I am still unconvinced.
      Adultery is an intrinsic evil, and hence, always sinful (and imputable), regardless of circumstances. Correct?
      On the other hand, both Pope Francis’ letter and the document of the Buenos Aires bishops – now officialy declared to be part of the Magisterium by the reigning Pope himself – contradict the teaching of the Church concerning the existence of intrinsic evil acts (cf. dubium #2).
      The Pope gave his official seal of approval to a teaching of a regional group of bishops, who claim that one can remain in the state of sanctifying grace (“under certain circumstances”) despite committing intrinsic evil acts. Thus, said teaching became the Pope’s own official teaching – i.e. the Pope attempted to promulgate it for the entire Church by decree/rescript/publication in AAS – with all the consequences that derive therefrom …
      Of course, as Deacon Augustine rightly points out, nobody can bind the faithful to adhere to an erroneous/heterodox proposition.

      Reply
          • Formal heresy requires a declaration from the church, and the deposition of the pope requires some sort of ministerial action from the Church as well, as far as we’re able to understand… so it seems that, until further notice, he’s still Pope. The ball is in Cardinal Burke’s court right now since he seems to be the one reluctantly taking point on this…

      • If you mean by your conviction that the Pope is a formal heretic 2089 CCC states “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same”. Obstinate is synonymous with adamant and means persistent. I agree what he implies in his letter is certainly an error. The definition of Adultery however is not sufficient as a proof that the Pope is obstinately denying that it is not grave sin.

        Reply
        • No attempt here, from a simple sheep, to make a determination as to whether the Pope is a formal heretic, or not. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
          All I was saying is that by declaring the Buenos Aires bishops’ document as magisterial, Pope Francisc made their interpretation his own. And that said interpretation is at odds with the Deposit of Faith.

          Reply
          • Joannes you are certainly correct that the Pontiff owns what those Bishops are implementing as he owns other abuses like assisted med suicide, euthanasia, same sex union elsewhere indicated by his tacit approval and is clearly in error. He is in error in the two conditions for permitting communion for D&R by his silence and refusal to correct. The first condition he cites is the fallacy he propagates that most exchange of vows are invalid. The other is that those validly married then D&R who are at peace with God and receive his grace are eligible for communion. This is the basis for his approval of the Argentine Bishops directives. He presumes the first possibility, that the invalidity of the simple exchange of vows is a probability. He presumes the second absolves the sin of Adultery by simple conscientious disposition on the part of the D&R. The first is an unethical exaggeration, the second is a presumption contrary to Christ’s teaching who said that there are no exceptions to a valid marriage. The difficulty those opposing him have is eliciting a definitive response as was the purpose of the Dubia.

          • Since I’m not sitting in the docket of a court of law and you are not a prosecutor my answer has already been given.

          • With all due respect Father (I mean that) we Catholics have become a joke. The man could preform an abortion in St. Peters square and clerics would say things like “that is above my pay grade” no sorry one does not need to be a judge to say water is wet. I am glad I am not a Priest I do not think I could in conscience pray for him as Pope in the mass tomorrow morning. Any clerics who knows about this act of the “authentic Magisterium” should not be PRETENDING anymore.

          • It is precisely because we have a conscience that we pray for every living person regardless of who they may or may not be or what they may or may not have done.
            This is a hallmark of Christian Faith, don’t lose you’re perspective and remember we are all sorting this out in our own heads too.

          • A conscience dictates more than prayer for every living person.

            We had better know evil when we see it and be prepared to fight and not hide.

          • Absolutely agreed! There are too many whose body language suggests the proverbial
            Ostrich. Imagine a call to the concerned Catholic World to make a pilgrimage to Rome
            and conduct a vigil in St.Peter’s Square….
            But a call from whom…?

          • You must know I side with you and other agonized Laity and not the Pope on these errors dividing the Church and inevitably leading persons into apostasy and eternal damnation. Your previous yes or no question leaves the matter unresolved. The Pope is in error but the error as presented in the letter doesn’t rise to the level of formal heresy. Nothing is above my pay grade when it relates to the truth and the salvation of souls.

          • As his vocation would suggest he ACTS in a much greater and efficacious way than you or I could
            ever hope too. Your frustrations are better directed elsewhere.

          • Nonsense! My frustrations are rightly directed it is the clerics who need to fix this. It is the so called faithful good guys that have been propping up this gay modernist cult of man by lending legitimacy to it had the so called conservatives and “trads” acted in the 60’s and 70’s we would not be here now it is the good guys that are in fact the bad guys.

          • “There is even greater suffering that these good priests have had and ARE enduring than you or I could even fathom.” my own thoughts.

            I understand your angst regarding this pope………for some time, I have not been able to prayer for him, for the mere thought of him put me into inner turmoil. I don’t remember EVER having this experience about anyone in my middle age life. It is so much easier to pray for those who have hurt “us” personally, than to pray for those who have hurt loved ones; and for me, I could be wrong here, but I think this was a good part of my inability to pray for Pope Francis – the mere thought of him harming Christ, the Body of Christ,………etc.
            And there is something frightening about him; a man with so much authority who seems to be on a mission to cause all kinds of mischief without anything to stop him – and he seems to UNDERSTAND this very well.

            I am no one to give advise on this issue regarding prayers for the pope. But, I do pray for him once again…..in fact, I just started about two weeks ago……..great timing, wouldn’t you say???
            Do Call on our Blessed Mother, she understands very well what it is like to endure those who followed her Son and LEFT HIM……….except for one named John.
            She helped me to have a bit more pity for Francis, in spite of himself and his bad fruits.
            Personally, I am do not like this man very much……and I still angst over his incredulous behaviors
            I think that is within reason. But, for why own soul, my own happiness, I pray for him, because that would be more pleasing to our Lord than not to.

            I think, if what is going to happen, actually happens, many of our priests will need our support and patience right now……….It is going to be a very difficult road ahead for them and for us…..

            Regarding your last line; I would agree.

          • I am afraid that there are many more problems re. allowing Holy Communion for D&R than silence and failure to correct on Pope Francis’ part. Cf. “Filial Correction” and the theological critique of AL by the 45 theologians.

          • Perhaps he is Garrett. My opinion is if he is it can be proved not by the letter itself or any particular premise but rather by the accumulation of premises and errors causing many to repudiate Christ’s teaching. And his unwillingness to intervene and correct what is causing them to be apostate. The evidence is mounting to the extent that he may be de facto Apostate. That is why we are not simply free to reject his policies but are under serious obligation to reject them.

          • Yes, thank you for your reply, Fr. I felt a touch of guilt firing that last comment off to you. My current thinking is that the faithful need to be speaking up vociferously now in order to prevent possibly even greater scandal and calamity down the road.

          • Absolutely correct. ‘but under serious obligation to reject them.’… Bishop Schneider has said as such!! He, in his last interview admonished the faithful that we are OBLIGATED under serious penalty to reject such ‘teaching’ and to do it publicly. I believe he has given us our marching orders!

      • By making this letter official, does it not appear that the Pope is attempting to elevate this letter from a piece of private correspondence to a teaching instrument for the whole Church?

        Reply
      • “ adultery is an intrinsic evil, and hence, always sinful (and imputable), regardless of circumstances. Correct?”

        The Cardinals of the Dubia admit that a divorced and remarried could be subjectivily free from mortal sin
        http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/full-text-and-explanatory-notes-of-cardinals-questions-on-amoris-laetitia

        “the question of the admission to the sacraments is about judging a person’s objective life situation and not about judging that this person is in a state of mortal sin. Indeed, subjectively he or she may not be fully imputable or not be imputable at all.

        Along the same lines, in his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 37, St. John Paul II recalls that “the judgment of one’s state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one’s conscience.” Hence, the distinction referred to by Amoris Laetitia between the subjective situation of mortal sin and the objective situation of grave sin is indeed well established in the Church’s teaching.

        John Paul II, however, continues by insisting that “in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved.” He then reiterates the teaching of Canon 915 mentioned above.

        Question 3 of the Dubia, hence, would like to clarify whether, even after Amoris Laetitia, it is still possible to say that persons who habitually live in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, such as the commandment against adultery, theft, murder or perjury, live in objective situations of grave habitual sin, even if, for whatever reasons, it is not certain that they are subjectively imputable for their habitual transgressions.”

        This does not mean that we should admit them to Communion if they do not live chastely, this only means that we can’t assume that they are all in the state of damnation.

        Reply
    • Dear Father how can I attend mass tomorrow and hear this apostate Pope’s name mentioned in the canon. I cannot pray for him but only for his removal. I am in a moral quandary.

      Reply
      • Eugene I must pray for him every day because I offer Mass every day and prayers for the Pontiff are required in the liturgy. Now Hope is a theological virtue. We have a right to our personal views and I empathize with your dilemma. Practice of a theological virtue [for example to hope for his correction of errors] is what is owed God.

        Reply
      • As RodH says, below, pray for his soul. When his name is mentioned during consecration I take it that the faithful are praying precisely for that—not for his acclaim or for his enjoyment of life.

        Our parish has been praying the Rosary before every Mass—including weekday Masses—for the entire year in honor of the 100th anniversary of Fatima. As an auxiliary member of the Legion of Mary I occasionally lead that Rosary. The first Our Father, after the Creed, is supposed to be for “the intention of the Holy Father.”

        When I do lead the Rosary, I announce that Our Father with: “For growth in the personal holiness of Pope Francis; for the faithful success of his pontificate and for the holy intentions of both Pope Francis and pope emeritus Benedict XVI…” And I leave it to God to perfect him if he’s open to that grace, as well as to bring success to this pontificate even in spite of Francis. And on the off-chance that he has any holy intentions, may they come to fruition.

        Reply
    • This is true Fr., but you know as well as I that the prelates around Francis, and all those who support him in every respect, will put this into working order and promulgate this as magisterial. It really doesn’t matter to them if the ‘letter’ doesn’t meet the requirement of ‘binding Church law’. They will proclaim that it DOES and act accordingly. And so, if they wish to ‘excommunicate’ us for our so called ‘unfaithfulness’ then so be it. We will fight all the harder! The Blessed Mother will show us the way.

      Reply
      • True devotion to Mary our spiritual mother will evoke her guidance. Those who are aware of the errors and anticipate what Bishops and Conferences will do know that we must remain loyal to Christ words and the Apostolic Tradition fearlessly and with trust in Christ’s protection.

        Reply
    • What God is evidently asking us to do is ignore Pope Francis pronouncements on sexual morality and follow the Church’s age old teaching. For most folks this will be a test they fail. Much, much easier to follow Pope Francis under the rubric of papal infallibility. So….under these circumstances how do we exercise the spiritual works of mercy to instruct the ignorant and counsel the doubtful? God is asking a lot here. Let us pray He helps us with this one.

      Reply
      • Michael reading your posts you are already doing what Christ wants of us. Continue teaching and advising others who are in doubt in accord with the 2000 years of Apostolic Tradition. It’s impossible to be in error if we do.

        Reply
        • Father, what do we do when other Catholics say things like “The Pope says It’s OK.” When I try to explain that the Pope is not infallible in everything he says but only under certain conditions (c.f. Vatican I Pastor Aeternus 1869-70), they think that I’m being disloyal to the Pope or that I’m like a Protestant.

          Reply
          • Margaret refer them the Catholic Catechism 891 where it states the Pope is infallible when “he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith and morals”. A definitive proclamation is clear and unambiguous. A more comprehensive explanation is given in the Doctrinal Commentary to Ad Tuendam Fidem on the different levels of authoritative teaching [Lumen Gentium 25 is referenced] including infallibility and what is binding. It is available on the Internet under that title.

    • With all due respect Father Morello, ‘The-Pope-isn’t-teaching-what-he-taught-and-here’s-why,’ schtick has lost all its charm among layman in possession of an average Catholic IQ.

      Nothing of substance concerning this papacy can be objectively construed as furtive, oblique or ambiguous.

      Priests will be forced to make the choice between the words of Christ in this matter or their repudiation as you say, and the repudiation will be coming from a religious superior to whom an oath of obedience has been given.

      Reply
      • No one on earth can command that we practice error and commit sin. In fact we are obliged under penalty of grave sin to reject any such demand to knowingly commit sin whether it pertains to an oath of obedience or loyalty to the Pontiff. Ultimately and in every instance our Commander and Judge is Jesus Christ. The Pontiff has not officially taught error because God will not permit him. So he propagates his errors by stealth. The integrity of the Papacy is thereby maintained by God.

        Reply
    • This week, the Vatican’s organ for promulgating the Official Acts of the Apostolic See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS), has published its October 2016 issue, containing Pope Francis’ infamous Letter to the Buenos Aires Bishops. AAS not only published this letter, declaring that there are “no other interpretations” (“No hay otras interpretaciones”) of Amoris Laetitia other than those of the Buenos
      Aires bishops, but it also published the full Buenos Aires guidelines themselves, which permit Holy Communion in some cases for couples in a state of permanent and public adultery who are not committed to living in complete continence.

      Source:
      Rorate Caeli blog post 12/02/17

      Reply
    • It takes a long time for stuff to get into the AAS – in this case over a year. It is only when a document is published in the AAS (oftentimes after revision/correction) that it can be considred formal teaching of the Church – at least at the level of “authentic Magisterium.”

      However, I can’t see much that is “authentic” about this pile of manure. The paper produced by the Argentinian bishops is an ambiguous commentary on an ambiguous Apostolic Exhortation, and the pope’s letter to them confirms that their ambiguous interpreatation of his ambiguous Apostolic Exhortation is correct. It does not specify how or why their ambiguous interpretation is correct, so he still maintains his plausible deniability against any charge of formal heresy. But that has always been the way that modernist slimeballs manage to manipulate and corrupt the faith without getting the opprobrium and just penalties that they deserve.

      Reply
  11. So, the guidelines say that if you are not able to stay out of sin, you should receive the sacraments. Also, Pope Francis says that this should be done even if it is not legal (canon law I presume). What a crock! I never figured a Pope would demoralize me.

    Reply
  12. What if the pope’s Buenos Aires letter does eventually appear in the Acta, what then? Well, in this case, basically, nothing. Many, nay most, papal documents appearing in the Acta carry no canonical or disciplinary force, a fact demonstrable by understanding how to assess the various fontes mentioned above.

    From:
    On the appearance of the pope’s ‘Buenos Aires’ letter on the Vatican website
    August 24, 2017
    Edward Peters, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap.
    https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2017/08/24/on-the-appearance-of-the-popes-buenos-aires-letter-on-the-vatican-website/

    Reply
    • Or is it? I would be a little more concerned with their next “Pope of choice” and our resistance today may be TELLING
      in how the “architects” proceed later, empowered or weakened?

      Reply
  13. Dr. John Joy’s response as to why Bergoglio’s letter to the Argentine bishops is still not quite formal heresy may be correct. I am not a theologian.

    But it reminds me vividly of Our Lord’s comments on the legalism of the Pharisees, who said they were not bound by an oath made to the Temple because of hair splitting technicalities. His response was that if they swore by the Temple, then they swore by the One whose Temple it was, and that therefore they were bound by their oaths.

    He gave a few examples of this, and He did not like it. Not at all. You cannot play word games with Christ.

    Reply
  14. Remember to pray for Pope Francis, the cardinals, the bishops, and priests. Advent will be a wonderful time to ask for the Lord’s graces.

    Reply
  15. Calling Professor Fastiggi: How should those Papal Critics feel about Pope Francis’ indirect statements in light of His Direct ones now? Are you disquieted sir? For the sake of your eternal salvation, I hope that you are disquieted indeed.

    It is not a binding act on behalf of the Faithful, but it is damnable one on behalf of it’s author.

    Reply
    • Can you explain why these people continue to spin away for Francis? This is a genuine question. I find it hard to believe they are all credulous or naive.

      Reply
      • I think many of them do so out of Loyalty for the Church and a genuine fear of the terrible harm that they think may come upon the Church if Pope Francis is what he appears to be. Others do so because they hope that Pope Francis is exactly what he appears to be, and that is what they want, so they spin in order to try and keep the faithful quite, complacent and supportive of February revolution.

        Reply
        • “many of them do so out of Loyalty for the Church and a genuine fear of the terrible harm that they think may come upon the Church if Pope Francis is what he appears to be.” – Probably there are such. But then one faithful Catholic MUST ask himself, what kind of Catholic (bishops & cardinals) such people must be, when they after all those dozens of the proofs still are more concern about what would the world say about the Church, than concern what our Lord should say and do because of that. And, do not forget so many deluded, misguided and misdirected entrusted souls. And do not forget all those who are still waiting to hear the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to get a chance to be saved…

          Reply
          • I must say this too. When we are speaking about ‘genuine fear’, it must be clear for every faithful Catholic that there is only one fear which we always MUST have, the fear that we NEVER offend our God.
            As (among many verses from the Holy Scripture) the Book of Sirach that so nicely says:
            “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and was created with the faithful in the womb, it walketh with chosen women, and is known with the just and faithful.”

            How Wonderfully said!
            And then,… one may ask himself; where is THAT fear?
            Subsequently to that, where is the WISDOM, arising from it?
            And last but not least; what kind of ‘just and faithful’ man we get, consequently, by those who lack the fear of God?
            And moreover, as a very negative aggravating circumstance, they have instead, a bad fear which is not from God, which is not good. Not for anyone.

            So, in this case, if we are talking about ‘genuine fear’, which can feels like genuine, we may conclude that such can never be defeated with courage. But just and only with orthodoxy of our Catholic Faith.

        • Father, if they act that way thinking it is better to lie than face the Truth then they are objectively sinning. I cannot judge their personal culpability, but their actions are immoral. They must believe the ends justify the means.

          Reply
  16. I think that one of the reasons Jorge
    Bergoglio is imposing his unorthodox belief system upon us in markedly non-Magisterial ways is that he doesn’t want to be obeyed as pope, but in his own human person. To require of his fellow man religious submission of the intellect and will is of no interest to him, since such submission finds its ultimate anchorage in the Almighty. I am not saying that the rightly configured Catholic conscience ever could acknowledge AL; only that its author doesn’t want us to accept it as free and dignified persons. Evidently he desires not only to mislead us, but to degrade us as well.

    Reply
  17. What’s going on is an exact duplicate of 1968. There was subtle disapproval of Humanae Vitae by many priests. FRS Hesburgh, Curran, Hans Kung, DeChardin,Drinan,Radcliffe and Greeley did tremendous damage to souls.
    The big difference is the pope presenting heresy today! God must be very upset!

    Reply
    • Ted Hesburgh did more damage to Catholicism and Catholic education in America than any pope ever could. For all the talk of VII, that egomaniac stands alone. May God rest his soul.

      I read his autobiography “God, Country, Notre Dame”. After learning more about him it should be renamed “Hesburgh, Hesburgh, Hesburgh”.

      Reply
  18. Haha! His friends are having buyer’s remorse! What a joke: you couldn’t conform to Christ so instead of walking away you tried to tamper with everything. What change did these idiots want? The Church is a granite block, it’s not malleable.

    I don’t wish anybody dead, I just want these liberal idiots gone. The world is not going to accept the Church because it cannot: we are fallen and the world will be diseased until Christ comes back again to create a new Heaven and Earth.

    I would physically assault all these Germans and Cupich and Martin and every other twinkle toes in the hierarchy if I could get access.

    Reply
  19. No Pope has the power to upgrade his personal opinion (cfr. AL, #2 and #4) to the level of authentic magisterium. That’s an abuse of power that turns that rescript null and void.
    Now, let us wait for Bergoglio’s formal correction by Cardinals Brandmüller and Burke (which I suspect he got already); and the next conclave to get the Catholic Church rid of him ASAP.

    Reply
      • It’s an abuse of power, to be sure. It will certainly become formal heresy if Bergoglio won’t recant himself after being *publicly* corrected by the remaining brave Cardinals.

        Reply
        • WHAT remaining ‘brave’ Cardinals?? Hopefully and God willing, there actually ARE some!! Cardinal Burke and Brandmuller should have corrected him by now, and in all actuality should have done it before the other 2 went to their eternal reward!! And just a ‘by the way’……they are not the ONLY Churchmen that can ‘correct’ him……I do believe ANY Bishop can do that! WHERE. ARE. THEY?

          Reply
          • I have reasons to suspect that both Cardinals have already sent the formal correction to Francis. I’m not that patient either, but I do understand why they are taking this long to make the correction public. Francis will become a formal heretic if he will not recant himself after that. If Francis becomes a formal heretic, he will cease to be Pope. After that, it is highly probable that a schism will happen. Both Cardinals are trying the best they can to avoid it. I’m afraid they will fail, but at least no one will pin the schism on them…

          • “schism”? That is wrong-way thinking. A faithful Church cannot be in schism with apostates or heretics!
            Is Christ’s Unam Sanctam Catholicam et Apostolicam Ecclesiam ever been in schism with lutherans, calvinists, or jehowa’s witnesses or any other sect? No!
            Let then apostates end heretics who won’t repent, go away, let them by themselves, by their own wrongdoing, cut off of the mystical Christ’s Body.
            Each part which is so sick that cannot be healed must be removed.
            Otherwise, the whole body stays weak and disease of the body only increases threatening to destroy even more organs.
            So please stop with using of enemies vocabulary, and their way of thinking.
            There cannot be any schism with apostates or heretics.
            The apostates and heretics only can and will just,- fall away!

  20. Bishops who have decisively decided to go along with Pope Francis for better or for worse, have headed out to sea without a compass. Who knows what they will have to sign off on next year?

    Reply
      • I have in mind the big secular movement of our day : the sexual revolution and gender theory. The Vatican is trying very hard to walk alongside this big movement. Apply that to the priesthood and scales may start falling from Catholic eyes.

        Reply
        • Yes well I mentioned careers as a sarcasm.
          But I am pessimistic about any significant awakening from the “catholic masses” though more
          will begin to see and turn back thru outrage but especially thru OUR Prayers.

          Reply
        • I believe you are right, veritas. It looks like we are heading for One World Order in the secular world and quite possibly One World Religion in the religious world. Pope Francis is trying mightily to align the Catholic Church with all the other quasi-Christian denominations. He is much beloved by everyone outside of the Catholic Church — and many within it.

          Reply
          • Your second sentence is THE answer. The narrowness of the view on the whole situation through the years, is common problem of many, even good Catholics. We are participants in the battle on highest level.

          • Precisely, Ivan. Which is why we need to step back and look at the Big Picture and realize that this is all part of the biggest Spiritual Battle yet to come upon the Church. Thankfully, we know Who wins. Our job is to pray….unceasingly pray.

  21. I always thought the “Magisterium” represented the Pope WITH the Cardinals and Bishops. A document can be considered “Magisterial” simply by decision of the Pope? Without confirmation of at least the College of Cardinals?

    How does that work?

    Reply
      • Oh, okay. Under the definition of “rescript” that makes sense. I read CCC 2034 and it still didn’t seem to answer my question. I always thought that unless the Pope declared he was sitting “on the Chair of Peter” and thus infallibly, all “Magisterial” pronouncements had to be done by the Pope in clear union with his Bishops.

        Reply
  22. Could this explain the pope celebrating and almost canonizing Martin Luther?
    If he does leave the papacy, he can become a Lutheran.

    Reply
    • Being a Catholic is hard and it does not always fall within our comfort zones. If you find that you have to protest and disparage our God ordained leader on social media, you are either a troll (someone pretending to be Catholic & trying to bring it down) or someone who needs to find a different path. If you converted to Catholicism, realize it is nothing like Evangelical Christians. We focus on Christ and not our political and social agendas. The pope and the teachings of our church seem to confound you. While you can always find people within the Church who will defile the papacy with their words, know that they are wayward Catholics, sheep lost within their own needs and desires. Sounds like you need a period of discernment. Good luck.

      Reply
  23. A little levity by use of a “reductio ad absurdam”:

    Following Pope Francis’ logic in AL, I want a Traditional Motel Adulterer’s Exemption [TMAE].

    If “divorced and remarried adulterers” [DARA] get a pass to holy communion, then I want a pass for myself and every other red-blooded American male who “struggles with the tendency to fail in marital fidelity”.

    Think about it. There is no logical difference [spiritually] between adultery committed within a second “marriage” and adultery committed the old fashioned way (hurried trysts at the nearest pay-by-the-hour motel, with that co-worker who smiled just right). Even Archbishop Gadecki of Poland agrees with the logic:

    “Admitting the civilly remarried divorcees to Holy Communion would cause great damage not only to family pastoral ministry, but also to the Church’s doctrine of sanctifying grace.
    In fact, the decision to admit them to Holy Communion would open the door to this sacrament for all who live in mortal sin”.

    That’s US! TMA’s unite!

    In fact, let us “reach out in mercy” to our brother “Chronic Porn Masturbators” [CPM’s] and include them in this great ministry. Who needs “LGBTQ”?…Our acronym will be: “TMA/CPM”.
    “Traditional Motel Adulterers” [TMA’s] and “Chronic Porn Masturbators” [CPM’s] have been living in mortal sin long enough! We need MERCY! In fact, we DEMAND MERCY!

    Like [Polish homosexual priest] Fr. Charamsa, we DEMAND it!

    Enough of the discriminatory practice of the Catholic Church admitting only “divorced and remarried adulterers” [DARA] to holy communion! I insist that this discrimination cease immediately. I demand my rights as a “Traditional Motel Adulterer” [TMA] and my brothers’ rights as “Chronic Porn Masturbators” [CPM]. And I insist that the Church recognize that we too “need to be accompanied” on our “life’s path”, out here “on the peripheries” of the Church. We too are some of “the poor” in need of mercy.

    Please join me, and all other TMA/CPM’s, struggling with “being other”, alone and harshly judged by those rigid Catholics and by the world, out here on ‘the periphery’.

    We are judged by the world…Must we be judged and left alone by the Church as well? MERCY!!! Someone!!! MERCY!!!

    Reply
  24. Cannot contribute to my church of nice parish today at the start of new season of advent when PF has formally promulgated a heresy. I have donated instead to 1P5 … calling all faithful Catholics stop donating to the church of nice and only give to orthodox causes… one small way we can take a stand

    Reply
    • I would wait and see if we get a formal correction from the Cardinals and then a response. This also could be the beginning of a process that will make us immensely proud of our Church.

      Reply
      • I haven’t been giving to the Church of nice in ages. The FSSP parish gets it *only* for its capital campaign for building, otherwise it would hand on a portion to our cretinous diocese.

        Reply
  25. How can someone not help themselves but commit adultery? If moral agency needs to be reconsidered vis a vis adultery, why not every sin?

    Reply
  26. Pope Francis has said he “wept” hearing the plight first-hand of Rohingya Muslim refugees in Bangladesh, adding that this meeting was a “condition” set for his trip to Myanmar and Bangladesh.

    The Rohingya meeting was a highly symbolic gesture of solidarity with the Muslim minority fleeing violence in Myanmar, and the pontiff told journalists on his plane flying back to Rome that the refugees cried as well.

    “I knew that I was going to meet the Rohingyas but I did not know where and how, for me it was one of the conditions of the trip,” he said.

    In Bangladesh he addressed the issue head-on, meeting a group of Rohingya refugees from southern Bangladesh in an emotional encounter in Dhaka.
    More than 620,000 Rohingya have crossed into Bangladesh since Muslim militant attacks in late August sparked a national reaction by the Myanmar state.

    “What Bangladesh has done for them is enormous, it’s an example of welcome,” he said.
    “I wept, I tried to do it in a way that it couldn’t be seen,” he said. “They wept too.”

    “I told myself ‘I cannot leave without saying a word to them'”.

    The Pope told the Rohingya: “In the name of all those who have persecuted you, who have harmed you, in the face of the world’s indifference, I ask for your forgiveness.”

    The word (Rohingya) is politically sensitive in mainly Buddhist Myanmar because many there do not consider the Rohingya a distinct ethnic group, regarding them instead as interlopers from Bangladesh.

    “If I had used the word during an official speech I would have slammed the door,” he said, adding: “They already knew what I thought.”

    “For me the most important thing is that the message gets through,” he added.

    The Pope said he was “very satisfied” with his meetings in Myanmar and “hinted” that he expressed his opinion far more freely in private conversations with the country’s leaders than in his public appearances.
    During his tour the Pope led well-attended open-air MASSES in Bangladesh and Myanmar, both of which have small Christian populations.
    No mention of persecuted Christians in Muslim Bangladesh.

    Reply
    • I’m sorry, but I don’t recall ever reading any reports of Pope Francis weeping at the plight of hundreds of thousands of Christians who have been massacred and pushed out of their homes in the Middle East by the likes of ISIS. Women and children sold into slavery, their husbands and fathers killed in front of them. Churches destroyed and desecrated.

      Where oh where is the Pope’s priorities? Mary weeps. Jesus weeps. Why not our Pope?

      Reply
      • Yes yes of course, my post alludes to this, NO mention of Christian persecution in Bangladesh.
        He is as usual on the bandwagon of Mainstream News agenda.

        Reply
    • This is a gem: “I wept, I tried to do it in a way that it couldn’t be seen,” he said. “They wept too.” So, Your Holiness, is it then good form to announce the fact to the world’s press in a widly-covered news conference? I am reminded of the words of a religious authority you probably have respect for, the Muslim Imam Ali, “”Hide your charity, hide your hardships, and hide your illness.”

      Reply
      • It would provoke cynicism and be risible if we were talking about a worldly politician “out to impress”
        and conscious of the electorate but we are talking about the Pope.
        I find it all so fake and can not connect and never did (as a Catholic) with this man.

        Reply
    • How can anyone ask forgiveness and apologize for another’s presumptive faults? We had a lot of this under JPII. As Joe Sobran said, it is the sin of detraction masquerading as the virtue of contrition.

      The government of Myanmar may indeed be acting unjustly toward the Rohingya, but it is fatuous to ask forgiveness on their behalf. This costs nothing and accomplishes nothing. It is virtue-signally of the most reprehensible kind, playing with people’s lives to burnish one’s own image.

      Reply
      • He brings the concept of “animus magnus” to a whole new level…..A magnanimity that will never extend
        to the Church that raised him, educated him, housed him, fed him, nourished his soul with it’s vehicles of Grace, and offered him the consolation of the Truth in this valley of tears.

        Reply
  27. I predict that Francis will soon explain why Judaism was never abrogated by Our Lord. He may tell us that a future politician coming out of Israel is Christ.

    Reply
    • Hard to know for sure but he continues to tick those boxes, maybe he is a herald for such.
      Shocking to even consider such possibilities but critical thinking and historical evidence points
      to great alarm at his behavior and ecclesiastic agenda.

      Reply
  28. I see that now Francis is weighing in on the proper number of nuclear weapons nations should have, about what is moral and immoral concerning the matter. (https://www.wsj.com/articles/pope-francis-calls-nuclear-arms-race-irrational-and-immoral-1512264821) Of course, once again, this is NOT doctrine but his personal opinion, as he is quick to add. He is indeed the man for all seasons and for all areas of specialized knowledge: theologian, liturgist, political pundit, sociologist, economist, climate scientist, and now weapons analyst.

    Reply
  29. And those living without benefit of marriage, the pope has said, may have the ‘grace of marriage’ because of ‘fidelity’ and then also many marriages are not valid or so he has said. The attack on marriage and family goes to the top and is being imposed. Do we follow this new way, this new protestant church????

    Reply
  30. Church Militant TV is finally seeing sense. The comment moderators over there have given up the fight. They have closed comments on this news story. I can’t wait to see their video on this one, if they produce a video. The truth is out now, Francis is absolutely endorsing material heresy. Cardinal Burke has been silent too long, he has been shown to be a coward, if he fails to raise the stakes in the next 24 hours, what can we say about him then….?

    Reply
  31. Is it inconceivable to imagine a scenario whereby thousands of Faithful Catholics held a Vigil in
    St.Peter’s Square giving witness to their concern at continual developments with this Papacy?

    The overall costs and expense to physically arrive would prevent many from attending such a spectacle but
    many could…..

    An application of intelligent promotion of such an event could ensure widespread publicity, such
    witness then generating a positive dynamic within the Church….

    Primarily led by laity (I would assume) but would hope for bigger Fish to decide to ally themselves
    especially if momentum gathered….

    Would the risk of a low turn-out undermine the whole endeavor and “comfort” our enemies…..

    A solemn and dignified Vigil over a couple of days in candlelight, in prayer, in invocation of Our Lady
    the Mother of the Church….

    To be physically present coupled with the prayer of those who are unable to attend would be both
    efficacious for our Church and a signal event…

    Thoughts…?

    Reply
    • Yes, that would make a statement, but is it really that most bishops are afraid to stand with the Truth or rather is it that they do not accept the Truth and agree with Francis?

      Reply
      • It’s a bit of both, but we don’t “need” Bishops to successfully apply the enterprise suggested in my post.
        We need grass-roots engagement using all available agencies of Catholic concern to light it up.

        Reply
  32. The most disturbing fact to all should be that, once the man at the top, (the Pope), was in the camp of the modernist faction, there are not enough Cardinals and Bishops left willing to express the orthodox Catholic Faith to hold a small tea party. Also, the obsession with “clarify” and “official” is absurd. If I ask you if you support abortion and you then send a donation to Planned Parenthood, no other answer is needed from you. What next?

    Reply
  33. With Francis the world (the powers and principalities) have toned down their default anti-Catholicism. He is an asset. His papacy is assisting in globalizing and institutionalizing their endgame. Under Francis the utility of the Catholic Church is being retooled by that Deep State, whose final objective is the retooling of Nature, itself, and of God, himself.

    Pope Francis is a willful wielder of that tool. He has laid the Church upon the anvil of the world and is pounding away.

    The Deep State will not permit the removal of Pope Francis without (bloody) consequences.

    Of course, even they would be willing to toss him overboard if his replacement is in his mold – that is, a useful asset, a papal utility. If the wreckage of true religion can be furthered by someone other than Francis, then, go ahead, flip him into the void. Powers and principalities have crawled through the window long ago and, with Francis, have installed themselves on Peter’s Chair. They will not be unseated.

    Not without a bloody fight.

    Reply
  34. Will Cardinal Muller, again, claim the solution is to just deny the obvious and pretend his words are consistent with Church teaching?

    Reply
      • I believe She was mocked, two years ago, on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, with the scandalous laser show on the walls of St. Peter promoting paganism.

        The worst of it for me, is that there were a mere number of Catholics who lamented and then no sooner, it was all forgotten. The pope, at that moment, became an apostate in my eyes and the more I write of this, the more I
        wish I could smack him across the face for that and much more.

        Reply
        • Oh I completely agree with you on all counts. However, whoever mocks our Holy Mother without repenting should be in fear and trembling. He’ll eventually get far more than the smack in the mouth you and I want to give him. It’s too frightening to contemplate. I don’t think there is anyone on earth right now who needs prayers more than he does. The very deepest depths of Hell may well be waiting for someone who risks dragging countless souls down there as well as the offences against the Immaculate Heart. The vision of Don Bosco only tells of the outermost edges and we’re told a bad priest goes all the way down. What about a bad pope? If he should prove to be such. (Don’t all jump down my throat, I’m trying to be charitable. Difficult these days)

          Reply
  35. It’s all over. There will never be clarity again. What can we really have certainty about? Dogma has now changed. It’s everyone’s best guess which is essentially Protestantism.

    Reply
  36. Kiss my Royal Irish Ass, Franciscus.

    It wil make no difference even if Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke does what he has long promised to do.

    It is too late

    Reply
  37. I think if Cardinal Burke were to gather together even as little three other cardinals, call an Imperfect Conclave and elect a new pope, I would be with them. We were never promised the Church would always be big, just that she would prevail. I’d be obliged if someone knowledgeable could put me straight if I’m wrong.

    Reply
    • Regarding video clip:
      “So I will do what I did tonight, I went to Mass, and I fulfilled my obligation by waiting until the Priest’s Communion to leave. I could not, with a good conscience, receive Holy Communion which would imply that I am communion with a known and public heretic. I left after the Priest’s Communion because it would have been too painful to kneel and watch others receive Our Lord, when my loyalty to Him prevents me from doing so.”

      God bless that man but he is confused and foolish to deny himself Communion in this context.

      Reply
  38. Some don’t agree with church’s stances on abortion, communion to gay people, capital punishment, birth control, tax money to the poor, etc. Whereever you look, you find a disgruntled Catholic who wants a new pope, or a pope who makes a stand. Same old thing. Being Catholic is hard. No one said you were going to like everything. Most of us see the continuity in our faith and recognize our own discontinuity. And while we accept our own diversion from the church, we do not, even for a second, try to force it on the church as a whole. If we don’t agree with the church, that’s our problem, not the church’s problem. That being said, if you really have issues with the pope and you need to find a warm and comfy religion that upholds your personal ideas, your personal desires, your personal agendas, they are out there. No sense in clinging to a religion that opposes your core values. Life is too short for that. Remember, no human can judge you. Only God can do that. So our opinions about the pope and the Church have no value to the establishment and are mere wastes of our breath. Our feeling and opinions only affect us. They are outward expressions of what exists inside us. So ask yourselves, why do we wallow in our hatred and malice for others, for the pope. Find a conduit, a way to reach God that fits you. Disparaging the Holy Father on social media is sinful. You can argue that it’s only sinful if you are a true Catholic and I guess you’d be right in some respect. But I believe sin transcends religious boundaries. So in that, I suggest that you be careful.

    Reply
    • We are “judging” the fruits of certain personalities NOT the state of their soul’s before God.
      You drop in and say hello like a “bull in a china shop” and advise US to be careful? We are FULL of care
      full of care for our Church and the abuse and mockery it travails under. Try again.

      Reply
      • I’m not trying to do anything. I am aligned with the teaching of Christ’s Catholic Church. It seems like others here are having issues with their faith. And in that, I feel for them. We all have periods of discernment. This is their period. This is their attempt at trying again to mesh their values with that of the Church.

        Reply
          • The Church is not making a mockery when it opens its arms to all of God’s people. We are sinners and your sins just like mine, bear fruit. No one, not you, not me, not homosexuals, etc, are any different in that way. Those without fruits of sinful acts and personalities can cast the first stone, But I can guarantee you that you wont find anyone on this planet that fits that description.

          • Now it’s my turn not to understand. If you’re enticing me to go rogue on the Church by disparaging the Holy Father in exchange for a bite of the luscious apple of exclusion, I think I’ll pass. I’ll stick with the Holy Father. Thanks anyway.

          • Ha ha, look now, in your post you mentioned sin bearing fruit and it does. Bad fruit has many
            forms and those Shepherds who diminish the Faith of many generations and undermine the teaching of
            Christ are very much like the person in that image I posted.

          • Not so, this is very serious business we all must fight the flesh, and
            I would ask you to pray for guidance to remove what doubts you may have.

          • Your cartoon was cute. I know that your choice of that particular fairy tale depiction had deeper meaning, but you were the one to choose the picture.

          • Perpetual, as in forever? As in you’re married but you’re having an affair with someone else that you expect will continue into the afterlife, perpetually? Haven’t really given it much thought. I would seek the advice of a priest and maybe a counselor.

          • Adultery is a sin, singularly or perpetually. We all know sin intimately, don’t we? We all sin and we all sin repeatedly. I guess you can say we are all perpetual sinners. That is why were are graced with the sacrament of reconciliation. Because God know for us, sin and forgiveness is a revolving door. Just ask any priest. Same old sins, over and over again. We can try to be better. In fact we are called to be better. But God knows we will always come up short. And in that, his grace is he unconditional love.

          • This is a joke of an answer and affront to Christ. His words are clear. As for the counselor, you would ask a counselor about Catholicism and sin? Let me know how that goes.

          • the question is vague, off topic and seemingly personal. Sorry that I took a stab at it. Maybe I should have left it alone for people to ponder its meaning.

          • There is a difference between “disparaging” the Holy Father and simply observing and describing what he says and does and then rationally comparing that to what was taught and modeled by Popes of the past…and commenting on those observations.

          • Have you some of read the comments on this article? Disparaging is a nice way of describing their attitudes toward the pope.

          • Well, there could very well be some disparaging comments. However, we are also witnessing a very grave crisis in the Church, one a number of prelates have described in very, very grave terms. So possibly you should apply the Pope’s reasoning to some of the folks you see posting here and step back and ask yourself and others: “Who am I to judge?”

          • There is no crisis in the church. There is dissent. There has always been dissent. Birth control, climate change, communion for gay people. Take a number. I have yet to meet a Catholic who agrees with every teaching of the church. We all need to take a moment, take a deep breath and look deep into ourselves. The church has been painfully consistent in her teachings. There is a common thread and it comes from Christ. Pope Francis holds tight to the thread, so tight it’s making people nervous. We need to have faith. And we need to work on checking our outward projections of our faithlessness.

            BTW, your final comment on judgment is well taken.

          • Hi, I’m David, nice to meet you. Now you have. 🙂 ALL Catholics must at least consent, even if full understanding is not present, to EVERY infallible Church teaching. To not do so is to make God a liar and puts one out of the Church. What an act of arrogant pride to say, “I know the Church teaches X but I don’t believe that and I don’t care that she does.” Someone who does this makes himself God, and that’s not exaggeration. Being a teacher of RE you must be familiar with the following Act of Faith. I believe all those who enter the Church through RCIA make this profession. It is: “O my God, I firmly believe that you are one God in three divine persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I believe that your divine Son became man and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, ***because you have revealed them***, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.” The part highlighted above is the reason why one makes God to be a liar if he were to obstinately deny ANY ONE truth of the Faith. The Catholic, i.e. true (as opposed to the Protestant one) definition of faith is, briefly, an act of the will to believe what God has revealed to us because we believe in the One who has revealed it. God reveals Himself to us through His Church, namely the one (and only one) that is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. If you want to know the infallible truths that the Church teaches a good list can be found in Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. But I’m sure you know that. It is disturbing that you are a teacher of RE and say that you “agree with the church on most teachings”. So what are some of the things that you, a mere human being soon enough to return to the dust from which you were taken just like the rest of us, think you know better than the Church? Contraception? The True and Substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist? The fact that the commission of one mortal sin cuts us off from God completely and opens wide the gates of hell to us? Any sexual act outside of marriage is a grave sin?

            God bless you and the Holy Virgin protect you

          • There are revered Catholic scholars far more educated in church teaching than you and I and even they continue to diverge on the proper interpretations and applications of Church teachings. The pope grounds his beliefs and actions in the Church’s teachings. He is as righteous in this regard as any religious leader. Some people may disagree with him but it doesn’t make him wrong. Cardinal Burke in not the sole keeper of those teachings and he is not the final arbiter. The opinions of Cardinal Burke stand in opposition to the opinions of other equally educated and revered religious scholars. He is one of many. His opposition to the church’s current application of religious teachings is heard by the pope. No one can deny that. The pope is inundated daily with people who think he is wrong on a whole range of topics. What the pope chooses to do with the Cardinal’s advise or the advise of other dissenters is up to the pope, not you or me… or even Cardinal Burke. What’s that saying? “It’s good to be pope.”

            Personally, I agree with the Vicar of Christ and I stand with the church. I am very happy being Catholic and am proud to serve as a disciple of Christ. I applaud the good works of our learned and much revered pope and support his efforts to bring the love of Christ into the hearts of every man, woman and child. I pray that you too uphold the faith of Jesus Christ and continue to support the pope, our leader, whom Jesus has chosen through the Holy Spirit to guide us along our paths to God. Your prayers are always welcome. Please know that I pray for you as well.

            One last thing, please don’t forget something so fundamental in our faith. Our religion, over time, has grown into a powerful force in the world and that power is an aphrodisiac for many. And the lesser among us hoard and covet that power. They feel that they must show their power by forcing others to submit, to give up their free will in fear that they might lose their soul or go to hell or whatever. We’ve seen this play out in our Church’s history, repeatably, to very disastrous and detrimental effects. Our church is not about forcing people obey/submit or else. It’s about showing them the path of Christ. There is HUGE difference between giving up one’s will and willfully following Christ. Free will is a gift and a shield against people who use God as a power play.

          • “The opinions of Cardinal Burke stand in opposition to the opinions of other equally educated and revered religious scholars.”

            Who?

            Seriously, the naming of these people will give a good idea about their comparative views on many subjects.

          • I noticed either here, in the comment section of this article, or in a similar one, a hit list. A list of those who support the pope’s application of Church teachings. While I would prefer not to add another target on the backs of these faithful men and women, Cardinal Toobin has been outspoken on the inclusion of LGBQT Catholics. And of course, the Council of Cardinals have publicly expressed there support of the pope.

          • Like you I too am a saint unlike all these other commenters here, and I too love to put my saintliness on display so as to attract all kinds of people to the Church 🙂 Except I really don’t enjoy making up lies 🙂

          • Perhaps the fact that you seem to have a need to see many things in terms of power play speaks volumes about you and your own aspirations in that department? Often the best power play is achieved precisely by pretending not to be power play.

            “And the lesser among us hoard and covet that power.” Tell me, are you one of the lesser among us?

          • Some people believe they that the pope is wrong in his mission, wrong in his words, and wrong in his actions, at least in part. They feel powerless in the knowledge that the Church is a not a democracy and they have no say as to its direction. I get your point exactly. It explains why so many people are criticizing the church from within. It can be about abortion, divorced taking communion, birth control, etc. It’s all the same thing. Today’s “crisis” is nothing new for our faith. From the pharisees, to the Roman Empire, through the various schisms, Vatican II backlash, the priest sex scandal. and now with the Amoris Laetitia, we see the dynamic nature of our human faith. Our church has always faced foes from the outside and dissent from within. But in the end, it’s not about a power struggle because no human has power in our faith over the pope. We all just have to honor him, REJOICE in the things we like and ACCEPT the things we do not. There is no power in submission, which we are all called to do.

          • There ‘is’ a crisis in the Church. One of the worst in its history in fact. A Pope is teaching things that are contrary to what his predecessors have always taught. I can point it out to you from the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you don’t believe me. Part of the crisis is that most either do not know or do not believe that there is a crisis. This is the rotten fruit of modernism within the Church. Modernism is the fire that has produced the “smoke of satan”. The Church has gone along with the ‘spiritus mundi’ for more than 50 years now instead of being in a never-ending struggle against it like she is called to be. We have finally reached the absolutely inevitable endpoint of all this. Future generations must learn from our mistakes. The primary lesson to be learned is this: There is to be no compromise with the Spirit of the World.

            Please pray the Rosary for the Pope

          • God may and indeed DOES turn to the good wickedness, and to suggest
            that sin bears fruit is true, wholly rotten fruit.
            “Go and sin no more” remember we welcome all in order to save all. We are called to change and
            be converted. Not enabled and not tolerated where sin is concerned, where sin is ignored, and not fought
            against.

          • Yes,,, you are right. We are all called to change and convert. But we are not called to be God’s police state. Clean up your own house and help others in need. The poor, the sick, the imprisoned, the elderly, the lonely, the depressed, etc. If you have time to condemn the life styles of others, then you must have idle time, time better spent on those in desperate need of God’s helping hands. Do the most good. Disparaging the pope may feel good. God knows we all fall prey to doing things just because they feel good. But ask yourself, how does pouncing on the pope apply to the Sermon on the Mount? How does it apply to the greatest commandment? It doesn’t. It feels good and that’s it. Living the mission is not about what others are doing. It’s about what you are doing. Our best evangelical tool is to live the best way we can in Christ. Taking meals with tax collectors, defending harlots from abuse, forgiving thieves, embracing and loving the unlovable. We can guide people to Christ only thru love. If we chastise them, lock them out of communion, shun them in any way or form, we thwart God and his mission. We should be the sirens that beckon people toward God, not the sirens that strike fear in their hearts,

          • I recall my mother chiding my sibs and I for always whining about not having the coolest toys or clothes or whatever. She would say stuff like “There are millions of people around the world less fortunate than you and you just sit there and whine.” She was complaining about our complaining. I get your point. I’ve become my mother!!!

          • All this is simply noise and confusion. The central issue here in this topic concerns the Pope teaching and leading others into error. It is not about immature desires and solipsism. It is about people righteously angry that the Vicar of Christ is telling others that they may receive communion while in perpetual adultery.

          • I clean up my house by encouraging others to do the same and treating them with the dignity that I
            myself wish to be treated with. But what I will not do is make excuses for my failings or theirs where
            sin is concerned.
            We all have a Cross to carry and that is our ticket to Heaven, anyone who neglects to admonish their
            Brother in sin is an enemy of his soul. Life is tough but Hell is tougher. True love is not about softness
            and tolerance of dangerous habits that wound God and destroy beauty in one’s soul.

          • i had a friend who was very overweight and struggled on her diets. She joined one that seemed to really work. But those of us around her had to suffer thru her daily nutritional tips and her harsh condemnations of our eating habits. We all supported her and just bit the bullet because we wanted her to achieve her goal. I can see that in same thing happening with just about anything. Imagine a guy with struggled with homosexual feelings. He felt he needed to curb those feelings, to disassociate with them. And in doing so, he pounced on anyone who even remotely made it more difficult for him to achieve his goal. Regardless of the example, regardless of our own demons, we should not ask others to pay our price. Our sins are our crosses. We need to carry our own and stop condemning others in an attempt to shift our burden onto them.

          • Hey Barry. I got to get ready for church. I will read whatever final comment you make, but chances are I’m done for the night after that. After church, we are going to dinner. Nice chatting with you. Merry Christmas to you and your family.

          • You said: “But we are not called to be God’s police state”
            Does this mean; everyone is on his own?!
            I can assure you that we are not. And read again the words of God. But read it carefully. And pray if you can before you read the Holy Scripture. Here I give you again some important ‘detail’:

            “For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
            Let no man deceive you with vain words. For because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief.
            Be ye not therefore partakers with them.
            For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk then as children of the light.
            For the fruit of the light is in all goodness, and justice, and truth;
            Proving what is well pleasing to God:
            And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
            (Ephesians 5,5-11)

          • I see. You refuse to discuss Bible verses. But you love shaming and bashing others with Biblical images and analogies.

            Fortunately, everyone here is far too intelligent for your baloney.

          • I could respond with equally opposing bible verses. What would that get us? Nowhere. And it weaponizes the verses. The overall messages of parables, stories, etc are less controversial because they are not so easily taken out of context. People love to shoot off bible versus like bullets from a gun. It’s not the best practice to be engaging in. The word of God is not a weapon. It is a map, a code and a blanket.

          • Respond with your Bible verses. The Church is the final interpreter and She has ruled quite clearly on the topics we are discussing here.

            I apologize if you are a Methodist or a Lutheran or Baptist, as I cannot tell, for none of this would make sense to you. But if you are any of those, I encourage you to find a good, knowledgeable Priest and come to the Church! Her doors are open and Jesus stands ready to welcome you!

            I am myself a convert, and the God that opened the doors of the Church wide enough to let me in and He who entered into my heart has surely knocked them plumb off their hinges for you! Enter Now, as Now is the day of salvation!

            “For he saith: In an accepted time have I heard thee; and in the day of salvation have I helped thee. Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.”

            2 Cor 6:2

          • I agree that the church is the final interpreter and I agree with the church on most teachings. Those teaching that I disagree with, I keep to myself. They are my crosses to work on and discern. Cardinal Burke’s opposition to the pope is something he needs to work on too. i wish he too would bear his crosses alone, but we all have our weaknesses.

            As for you, I hope you continue to build your faith in Christ. Please know that the doors to God’s kingdom have always been to you, wide open. The word “catholic” means universal and our mission is to invite everyone to hear and live the message of Christ. I am glad you found us and wish you all the best on your path.

            And yes, I am a cradle catholic (meaning I’ve been a Catholic all of my life). I teach religion in the US.

          • Cardinal Burke is a shepherd of Christ’s flock. When he see grave error and confusion being sown he is to absolutely stand up and protect the sheep. God help us that you teach RE as I am sure you are adding more confused souls to world, people who will think conscience reigns. I am sure you get right up there and tell them on the points with which you disagree with the Church.

            Funny group, you “reformers”: we can disagree with the Church, with Christ’s own words but cannot disagree with the pope.

          • I love the study of religion and I absolutely love teaching it, especially church history. And I do know that this “crisis” in the church is not really a crisis. We have seen it so many times before. And we will see it again. All I can advise you is to have faith. God has not abandoned your church. We all have difficulties seeing that every now and then. Like I tell my students, faith building is like muscle building. You have to rip some muscle fibers to build stronger ones. If you move away from the church because of issues, disagreements or whatever, you often come back the stronger for it. Discernment is not an easy process, but it is a powerful one. Good luck.

          • I agree and disagree.

            First, I disagree that it isn’t a crisis. Of course it is.

            Some say it is the worst crisis in the history of the Church, but I disagree. The Cross was the “worst crisis” in the history of the Church. And the Apostles, except for one, acted just as their successive bishops are acting today; they fled the scene. I’d call that a crisis that overshadows this one.

            And it took the help of the Blessed virgin to clear that one up, just as I suspect it will take her help today, among others.

            But I do agree that in other times in history the Church has been faced with very significant challenges, many of which were stark and appeared overwhelmingly threatening at the time. Sadly, some ignore that historical reality. Take just one, for example, that in my opinion too few address in comparison to today’s troubles; the Great Schism of the Western Church. What a challenge to one’s understanding of the Church and Pope! And no one had the internet then to enable them to easily and readily decipher official documents.

            But alas, because they didn’t, many hardly knew what was going on, but many DID, and it was a great threat to faith.

            Alas, we must place our faith not in men but in Christ, and in the perennial teachings of His Church, teachings some of which in this particular crisis are being attacked by atheists, “other religionists” including Protestants and worst of all, by many leaders within the Church itself and, as we see, by the Pope as one of them.

          • No, we have a pope stating that teachings of Christ are wrong or too hard or not compassionate. We have prelates joining social movements and denying Church teaching. We haven’t seen THIS before.

            Also, I don’t know a single soul who has come back stronger to the Church. To wit, I don’t know a single person who has left and come back. And the reasons they ultimately leave are almost always the same: they don’t understand the teachings. they don’t try to understand the teachings and find it easier to float along with the prevailing sentiment in society. They are often aided and abetted in this process by cheerleaders who, holding themselves out as teachers and authority figures, tell them it’s okay and acceptable to disagree. It’s not. It’s never acceptable to die in a state of mortal sin, outside of communion.

            That soft-headed sentimentalists continue to peddle these ideas and present it as merciful is frightening. One may not only be sending others to hell but be damning oneself, too.

          • You state clearly and succinctly that you do not agree with some of what the Church teaches, but you chide others for doing what you perceive is the same exact thing. That seems a bit inconsistent, does it not?

          • Re your next-to-last sentence: St. Paul said the opposite in Ephesians 6: 10-17 (footnote included):

            [10] Finally, brethren, be strengthened in the Lord, and in the might of his power.

            [11] Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. [12] For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. [13] Therefore take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all things perfect. [14] Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of justice, [15] And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace:

            [12] “In the high places”: or heavenly places. That is to say, in the air, the lowest of the celestial regions; in which God permits these wicked spirits or fallen angels to wander.

            [16] In all things taking the shield of faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one. [17] And take unto you the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit (which is the word of God).

          • Can you not see that you yourself are weaponizing the Scriptures? And that you also use messages from the Bible as bullets from a gun? And yes, God Himself, speaking in the Scriptures has said that ” the word of God is more piercing than any
            two edged sword”. He does not say it is a map, code, or blanket.

          • ” Taking meals with tax collectors, defending harlots from abuse, forgiving thieves, embracing and loving the unlovable. We can guide people to Christ only thru love. If we chastise them, lock them out of communion…..”

            You had me on your side at the beginning, as my patron Saint is St Hallvard den Heilige.

            But you lost me when you left the teaching of the church behind.

            The Church always HAS in the past and still should bar communion to those living in grave sin simply because it is the charitable and compassionate and right thing to do. Otherwise, the Church would be minimizing the grave consequences expressed by St Paul: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. ” (1 cor 11:29).

            It is impossible for the Church to express true love if She allows those to commune who would thereby in Her knowledge be condemning themselves. (Ezekiel 3:18). I suspect their is much blood on the hands of many prelates who against the constant teaching of the Church have been lax in their responsibilities, both personal and institutional.

          • That’s just it. As a Catholic, unfortunately, you can’t humbly disagree as what I have cited is simply age-old Catholic teaching.

          • But we are not called to be God’s police state. Clean up your own house and help others in need. The poor, the sick, the imprisoned, the elderly, the lonely, the depressed, etc. If you have time to condemn the life styles of others, then you must have idle time, time better spent on those in desperate need of God’s helping hands.

            And what of the call to instruct the ignorant, counsel the doubtful, and admonish the sinners? Do we have your leave to pursue those, too?

          • Please explain ‘all God’s people’? Who are God’s people? And who are than the people of this World?

            But,… before you try to give correct answer, I reminder you on the words of God our Lord Himself:

            “If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” (John 15,19)

            “I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou hast given me out of the world. Thine they were, and to me thou gavest them; and they have kept thy word.” (John 17,6)

            “Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
            By this is the spirit of God known. Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God:
            And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world.
            You are of God, little children, and have overcome him. Because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
            They are of the world: therefore of the world they speak, and the world heareth them.” (1 John 4,1-5)

            I’ll make it easier for you. According to words from 1 John 4, 2-3,…
            How can be possible for anyone who don’t believe that our God Lord Jesus Christ is the only Son of God the Father, to be one of the ‘people of God’?

          • I don’t like using bible verses in discussion like these. It diminishes them somehow. It just doesn’t feel right. Maybe it has something to do with the epic scripture duel between Jesus and Satan. Sorry.

          • I can guarantee you that if you pray to Our Blessed Mother for help, She will bring you some
            peace and encourage you to renounce whatever it is that blocks you from the beauty of the Truth
            and the courage of the Cross. We all need help for satan is a very seductive spirit and seeks to imprison us
            in his net of lies. Pray!

          • People don’t differ in their sinfulness, their level of virtue and vice? All sins are the same? No mortal and venial sins?

            That’s pure Protestantism.

          • Of COURSE the Church should open its doors to all kinds of sinners.

            But the Church has always taught the need for repentance form sin, not the excusing thereof, and I really do not belief you can make a rational case that God’s demand for contrition and rejection of sin is being preached by this pontificate.

          • We are different in that we go to confession, try to amend our lives and do not present ourselves for communion when we are not properly disposed.

          • “No one, not you, not me, not homosexuals, etc, are any different in that way.”

            Actually, that is not what the Church teaches.

            See, as far as the evil of a mortal sin is concerned, you are more or less right.

            But LIVING in mortal sin by choice is completely different. THIS is why practicing homosexuals, adulterers, those in violation of Canon 915, Freemasons, etc are rightfully barred from communion.

            They are NOT the same as those who sin but are then reconciled to god and amend their lives.

        • The people here are intimately involved with their faith. The people you speak of are the variety who go to mass 70% or more of the time but think it’s not a big deal to miss. They certainly don’t believe in confession or the real presence. As my parish priest told me: out of 2000 souls, 40 go to confession every month; 300 make it to the respective annual Advent and Lent Penance masses. Of the 300, 40 are the monthly and 200 go to both. So there approximately 360 out of 2000 who make it to confession once per year. You telling me that this isn’t the same across the country? And that the 85% who do not go to confession are not committing mortal sins?

          You see there is no “my faith, your faith” in the Church. We are all to believe in the same faith, the same dogmas. If you disagree then your not struggling with your faith because you don’t care about it to begin with.

          Reply
        • “I am aligned with the teaching of Christ’s Catholic Church.”

          Actually, you have stated that you do not agree with all the teachings of the Church.

          Reply
    • Your point seems to be that “the teaching of the Catholic Church” is whatever the Pope says on any given Tuesday afternoon–on any subject, too..

      Preposterous.

      Reply
      • Unlike some of his detractors, he knows the teachings of the Church. He’s studied it academically and continues to study it during his private time. He confers with other learned religious scholars. He teaches it and he anchors his mission in it. What else is there.

        Reply
          • I laughed at first. Then I sadly realized he was serious. Thought maybe he was just ignorant or delusional but he’s clearly here to troll.

        • That’s plain nonsense! Francis has an extremely poor command of both Theology and Canon Law. A man who says that “Amoris laetitia” is ‘thomist’ doesn’t know one iota of Aquinas.
          In the meantime, Catholics around the world have become aware of the real person who penned each and every word of “Amoris laetitia”: Bergoglio’s counsellor, Victor Fernandez, S.J..
          That has been confirmed by an indiscretion of Cardinal Schönborn. Stunned by the storm he ignited with “Amoris laetitia”, Francis asked Schönborn whether its contents were orthodox or not.
          Francis will pay dearly his ignorance and irresponsability concerning “Amoris laetitia”. A sensible person always reads what is put in front of him before signing it.

          Reply
        • If you are going to shill for Bergoglio, you will be totally ineffective with laugh-out-loud nonsense like this.

          Bergoglio’s education was just plain rotten. Weak, weak, weak. Speaks Spanish and Italian, and broken English. A rank amateur in philosophy and theology. And a Marxist since his youth.

          Reply
        • But PF has railed against these kinds of people, even saying that they should never be made bishops, and that seminarians should not be trained in this way either. So do you have proof of this religious studiousness on the part of PF? You paint him to be a pharisee, just like the kind that he condemns! Or perhaps you just like to make things up, and say that they are true, or that they are Catholic?

          Reply
        • Nonsense. Bergoglio does not know the Catholic faith, and what little he does know of it he dislikes. He is the opposite of a scholar and if anything’s clear it’s that he’s not interested in being scholarly advice. He is a shabby, shallow ideologue who consorts with other ideologues and a claque of toadies. He is a pious fraud, a bully, a vulgarian and a malicious, treacherous Uriah Heep.

          Reply
    • Please, you’re embarrassing yourself by posting meaningless screeds like this here, all that gibberish concerning “hatred and malice for others, for the pope.” Try addressing the very real problems with what this pope is writing and saying, the kinds of things discussed in the article above. Most people who post here don’t much appreciate invective disguised as pious insights and suggestions.

      Reply
      • Perhaps he is a German Cardinal? He just throws out some Hallmark Card theology and pretends the faith is like a 1970’s TV show .

        Reply
      • Standing up for the pope and my church has never been and never will be embarrassing for me because I am a Catholic. It’s not piousness. it’s faith in God and in his church. The need to go rogue on the Catholic Church by calling for the pope to step down and for corrections to be made is an alluring temptation. We are becoming more polarized in our approaches to all aspects of our lives. The pope’s call for unity and inclusion seem heretical in that environment, something worth opposing with fervor and grit. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ and Cardinal Burke’s role is in service to him and the church. The Cardinal has lost his way in a world dead set on seeing black and white in a world of gray. The pastoral mission of the pope is a boots on the ground, living in reality mission. It’s messy. It’s filled with incremental steps forward, with set backs, with successes and with failures. It is a mission rife with the human condition, as debased and beautiful as it is. And that’s a mission is right out of the NT. Getting down and dirty with the lepers, the sick, the decrepit, the evil doers and the poor. No ivory tower treatment for the faithful anymore. We are all in this God given world together, equal and united in that no man is better than the other. I can see where Cardinal Burke and his followers have a problem with this. it’s a power shift from man to God.

        Reply
        • Cardinal Burke and others have no problem that the pope serves the poor! They as I have a problem that the teaching and the right praxis of teaching is in danger! This is the point – not to speak bad about the pope! And these these are not meanings or only a point of persepective! It is a question of truth! And this is most important! The church is built on truth! The hard question is if we see all this disbalances in this pontificate : Is our pope in very imporant points acting and talking in the whole truth of the church! In the question above it is not according to the teaching of the church what is easily to proove! So let the pope give a wonderful example to serve the poor but not to hurt the truth!

          Reply
        • The superstition you reveal here is called papolatry. This spiritual disease specializes in sanctimonious humbug and a cult of the personality. Its practitioners, you for example, regularly toss blood-curdling anathemata in the direction of their intellectual opponents. It’s not something new to Catholicism and yours is not the first example of it to appear at OnePeterFive, but it is agonizingly boring. We all get your point: if the pope were to suddenly announce that it’s proper to wear your underwear on the outside, we’d find you the next day at Walmart searching out BVDs two sizes bigger than those currently in your wardrobe. If you find this kind of slavish nonsense appealing, then I guess it’s bully for you. As they say, chacun á son goût.

          Reply
        • The Church is particularly vulnerable when he who is assigned to the role of Supreme Pontiff is himself deceived by allegiance to such notions such as ecumania, the “hidden nobility” of secularism, and the superior perspective of the soft sciences.
          You dismiss to our peril the clearly stated constraint provided at the end of “Pastor Aeternus” which defined the doctrine of papal infallibility:
          “The Holy Spirit was not given to the Roman Pontiffs so that they might disclose new doctrine, but so that they might guard and set forth the Deposit of Faith handed down from the Apostles.” It is an indispensable linchpin in the social/ecclesial contract between the Chair of St. Peter and the faithful of all rank and it was quite purposefully included in “Pastor Aeternus” to prevent exactly what is transpiring before our eyes. With supreme power comes supreme submission to the authority of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity – Almighty God – whose revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle, St. John, the Beloved, the Evangelist.
          There are no blank pages in the Gospel written under the inspiration of the
          Most Holy Spirit.
          The pope is the Vicar of Christ, not His replacement. To the extent that any pope does not understand that, or misunderstands that, or deliberately misrepresents that truth he is the one in dissent, he is the one who diminishes the papacy.
          The person who occupies the Chair of St. Peter is consigned to serve the
          perennial Magisterium of his collective predecessors. He is mandated to
          pronounce his communion with that Magisterium. He can go deeper, but he cannot contradict. He can magnify, but he cannot metamorphosise. His vocation is to be articulation of the papacy – the Chair is the locus of unity, its occupant cannot be the source of discord which emerges from dissent from Holy Scripture and the interpretation of the Divine Revelation provided by Apostolic Tradition in the perennial Magisterium. His personality, notions, musings, feelings are only any use if they serve the office of the Chair, otherwise they are useless dust. He is to be the servant of the servants of God. He should do good and
          disappear.
          You take false comfort in the erroneous — papolatry is contrary to the authentic submission, deference and respect due the Vicar of Christ and the successor of St. Peter. Infantilism is no substitute for authentic humility — and even less for the prudence our precious Lord, Jesus Christ admonishes us to practice — be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.
          Rouse yourself from sleep. Pyromania holds the keys and the domus ecclesia is ablaze.

          Reply
        • Marriage and Divorce.
          1* When Jesus* finished these words,* he left Galilee and went to the district of Judea across the Jordan.
          2Great crowds followed him, and he cured them there.
          3a Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him,* saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”
          4* b He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’
          5c
          and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and
          be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
          6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”
          7* d They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?”
          8He said to them, “Because
          of the hardness of