"Amoris Laetitia ...contains serious ambiguities that confuse people and can lead them into error and grave sin" (Cardinal Burke)

Burke

Francis

“My position is that Amoris Laetitia is not Magisterial because it contains serious ambiguities that confuse people and can lead them into error and grave sin. A document with these defects cannot be part of the Church’s perennial teaching. Because that is the case, the Church needs absolute clarity regarding what Pope Francis is teaching and encouraging.

“... I, together with the other three Cardinals, are striving to be loyal to the Holy Father by being loyal to Christ above all. By making public our plea for clarity of doctrine and pastoral practice, we are hoping to make this a discussion for all Catholics, especially our fellow bishops. Every baptized person should be concerned about doctrine and moral practices regarding the Holy Eucharist and Holy Matrimony, and about how we are to identify good and evil actions.  These matters affect all of us.

“Rather than being a matter of disloyalty to the Pope, our action is deeply loyal to everything that the Pope represents and is obliged to defend in his official capacity. Pope Francis has called for candid speech in the Church a number of times, and has asked members of the hierarchy for openness and accountability. We are being candid, with the fullest respect for the office of the Holy Father, and exercising, according to the light of our consciences, the openness and accountability which the Church has the right to expect of us.

“This is my duty as a Cardinal of the Catholic Church. I was not created a Cardinal in order to receive an honorary position. Rather, Pope Benedict XVI made me a Cardinal to assist him and his successors in governing the Church and teaching the Faith. All Cardinals have the duty of working closely with the Pope for the good of souls, and this is precisely what I am doing by raising questions of grave importance regarding faith and morals. I would not be fulfilling my duty as a cardinal, and therefore as counselor to the Pope, if I remained silent on an issue of such serious matter.

“... The issue is not about divorced and remarried couples receiving Holy Communion. It is about sexually active but not validly married couples receiving Holy Communion. ... It would contradict the Faith if any Catholic, including the Pope, said that a person can receive Holy Communion without repenting of grave sin, or that living in a marital way with someone who is not his or her spouse is not a state of grave sin, or that there is no such thing as an act that is always and everywhere evil and can send a person to perdition.

“...I would also like to point out that only the first of our questions to the Holy Father focuses on Holy Matrimony and the Holy Eucharist. Questions two, three, and four are about fundamental issues regarding the moral life: whether intrinsically evil acts exist, whether a person who habitually commits grave evil is in a state of “grave sin”, and whether a grave sin can ever become a good choice because of circumstances or intentions.” (Raymond Cardinal Burke)

Exclusive Interview:
Cardinal Burke Explains
Plea to Pope for Clarity

(First published by Catholic Action on November 14, 2016)

Catholic Action president, Thomas McKenna, was granted the following interview with Raymond Cardinal Burke to further explain the intentions of the four cardinals and the published documents entitled "Seeking Clarity: A Plea to Untie the Knots in Amoris Laetitia": 

Catholic Action: Your Eminence, thank you for taking the time to have this interview with us about what you have published today. The substance of the documents which you and the other Cardinals have made public is called “Dubia.” Can you please explain what Dubia means and what the presentation of Dubia involves?

Cardinal Burke: It is my pleasure to discuss these important matters with you. The title of the document is, “Seeking Clarity: A Plea to Untie the Knots in ‘Amoris Laetitia’.” It has been co-authored by four cardinals: Walter Cardinal Brandmüller, Carlo Cardinal Caffarra, Joachim Cardinal Meisner, and myself. My fellow cardinals and I are publicizing a plea that we have made to the Holy Father, Pope Francis, regarding his recent Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. Portions of the document contain ambiguities and statements that are like knots that cannot be easily untied and are causing great confusion. Sharing the Pope’s devotion to Our Lady, Untier of Knots, we are asking him to clarify these ambiguous statements and, with the help of God, to untie some of the knotty statements of the document for the good of souls. 

Dubia is the plural form of the Latin word, dubium which means a question or a doubt. When, in the Church, an important question or doubt arises about the faith itself or its practice, it is customary for Bishops or priests or the faithful themselves to articulate formally the question or doubt and to present it to the Roman Pontiff and his office which is competent to deal with it. The formulation of an individual question or doubt is called simply a dubium. If more than one question or doubt is articulated, they are called dubia. The Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia has raised a number of questions and doubts in the minds of Bishops, priests and the faithful, many of which have already been presented to the Holy Father and discussed publicly. In the present case, four Cardinals have presented formally to the Holy Father five fundamental questions or doubts regarding faith and morals based on the reading of Amoris Laetitiae.

  

CA: Many people in the Church right now are discussing what is designated as “pastoral.” Can you tell us a little about the document you have published today, and how that relates to being pastoral?

Truth spoken with charity is clear and pastoral. It is never helpful pastorally to leave important matters, in the present case matters touching upon the salvation of souls, in doubt or in confusion. We four Cardinals, as Bishops who are committed to the pastoral care of the universal Church and as Cardinals who have the particular responsibility of assisting the Holy Father in the teaching of the faith and in the fostering of its practice in the universal Church, have judged it our responsibility to make public these questions for the sake of the good of souls.

CA: This co-authored document is actually a number of documents, as the headings indicate. Would you mind explaining why there are different parts, and what they mean?

The core of what we are publishing today is a letter which we four Cardinals initially sent to Pope Francis, along with the dubia – that is, along with a series of formal and serious questions – about Amoris Laetitia. The process of submitting formal questions is a venerable and well-established practice in the Church. When the question concerns a grave matter that affects many of the faithful, the Church responds to these questions with a “yes” or “no”, sometimes with explanation. We also sent a copy of the letter and dubia to Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which has the particular competence regarding such questions. 

In order to provide the background for the letter and our questions about Amoris Laetitia, we are also publishing a brief foreword and an explanatory note, which explain the context of the letter and the dubia or questions along with a commentary on each of the questions themselves.

CA: So you are saying that you are publishing a letter that you sent to the Pope privately. This is extraordinary. Isn’t this action objectionable from a Christian point of view? Our Lord said in the Gospel of Matthew (18:15) that if we have a problem with a brother, we are supposed to talk with him privately, one-on-one, not publicly.

In the same portion of Sacred Scripture to which you refer, Our Lord also said that, after addressing a difficulty to a brother, individually and together with others, without it being resolved, then, for the good of the Church the matter is to be presented to the whole Church. This is precisely what we are doing.

There have been many other statements of concern regarding Amoris Laetitia, all of which have not received an official response from the Pope or his representatives. Therefore, in order to look for clarity on these matters, three other Cardinals and I used the formality of presenting fundamental questions directly to the Holy Father and to the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. No response has been given to these questions either. Therefore, in making public our questions or dubia, we are being faithful to Christ’s mandate to first talk with a person privately, then in a small group, and finally, taking the matter to the Church as a whole.

CA: As you say, Amoris Laetitia has been the subject of much discussion, and even criticism. For example, you have famously stated that you believe it is not a Magisterial document. Could you explain how your current questions to the Holy Father relate to these other analyses of the Apostolic Exhortation?

To understand the present publication, we need to consider what has led up to it.

Just after his election, in his first Sunday Angelus message, Pope Francis praised Cardinal Walter Kasper’s understanding of mercy, which is a fundamental theme in Amoris Laetitia. Only a few months later, the Vatican announced an Extraordinary Synod about Marriage and Family for October 2014.

In preparation for the Synod, I, along with four other Cardinals, an Archbishop, and three theologians, published a book, Remaining in the Truth of Christ. As a member of the Synod, I noted that the mid-term report lacked a solid foundation in Sacred Scripture and the Tradition of the Church. Later, I agreed with other Cardinals that there was manipulation in the running of the Synod itself, and in the writing of the final report of the Synod.

Prior to the 2015 Synod, to which I was not invited, eleven Cardinals contributed to a book about marriage and the family. Although I did not contribute to this book, I read it with great interest. Also prior to the 2015 Ordinary Synod on the Family, over 790,000 Catholics signed a “Filial Appeal” to Pope Francis about the future of the family, asking him to say “a clarifying word” to dissipate the “widespread confusion” about Church teaching. Along with other Cardinals, I was a signatory. During the 2015 session of the Synod, thirteen Cardinal-participants signed a letter to the Pope indicating their concern about the manipulation of the process of the Synod.

In April 2016, Pope Francis published Amoris Laetitia as the fruit of the 2014 and 2015 sessions of the Synod of Bishops. In the summer of 2016, forty-five academics, including some prelates, wrote to the Holy Father and to the College of Cardinals, asking the Pope to repudiate a list of erroneous propositions that can be drawn from portions of Amoris Laetitia. This received no public response.

On 29 August, 2016, I joined many bishops, priests, and lay faithful in signing a Declaration of Fidelity to the Church’s Teaching on Marriage and to Her Uninterrupted Discipline. This also has received no public response.

My position is that Amoris Laetitia is not Magisterial because it contains serious ambiguities that confuse people and can lead them into error and grave sin. A document with these defects cannot be part of the Church’s perennial teaching. Because that is the case, the Church needs absolute clarity regarding what Pope Francis is teaching and encouraging.

CA: Some Catholics may be concerned that your current publication is an act of disloyalty.

I, together with the other three Cardinals, are striving to be loyal to the Holy Father by being loyal to Christ above all. By making public our plea for clarity of doctrine and pastoral practice, we are hoping to make this a discussion for all Catholics, especially our fellow bishops. Every baptized person should be concerned about doctrine and moral practices regarding the Holy Eucharist and Holy Matrimony, and about how we are to identify good and evil actions.  These matters affect all of us.

Rather than being a matter of disloyalty to the Pope, our action is deeply loyal to everything that the Pope represents and is obliged to defend in his official capacity. Pope Francis has called for candid speech in the Church a number of times, and has asked members of the hierarchy for openness and accountability. We are being candid, with the fullest respect for the office of the Holy Father, and exercising, according to the light of our consciences, the openness and accountability which the Church has the right to expect of us.

This is my duty as a Cardinal of the Catholic Church. I was not created a Cardinal in order to receive an honorary position. Rather, Pope Benedict XVI made me a Cardinal to assist him and his successors in governing the Church and teaching the Faith. All Cardinals have the duty of working closely with the Pope for the good of souls, and this is precisely what I am doing by raising questions of grave importance regarding faith and morals. I would not be fulfilling my duty as a cardinal, and therefore as counselor to the Pope, if I remained silent on an issue of such serious matter.

CA: If I may, I would like to continue this line of thought. It is unclear how your publication is being docile to the Pope’s desire for greater pastoral sensitivity and creativeness in the Church. Hasn’t the Pope indicated his position in a letter to the Argentine Bishops? Other Cardinals have said that the proper way to read Amoris Laetitia is that it allows divorced-and-remarried couples to receive communion in certain circumstances. In that light, one could argue that your document is creating more confusion.

First, a point of clarification. The issue is not about divorced and remarried couples receiving Holy Communion. It is about sexually active but not validly married couples receiving Holy Communion. When a couple obtains a civil divorce and a canonical declaration that they were never validly married, then they are free to marry in the Church and receive Holy Communion, when they are properly disposed to receive. The Kasper proposal is to allow a person to receive Holy Communion when he or she has validly pronounced marriage vows but is no longer living with his or her spouse and now lives with another person with whom he or she is sexually active. In reality, this proposal opens the door for anyone committing any sin to receive Holy Communion without repenting of the sin.

I would also like to point out that only the first of our questions to the Holy Father focuses on Holy Matrimony and the Holy Eucharist. Questions two, three, and four are about fundamental issues regarding the moral life: whether intrinsically evil acts exist, whether a person who habitually commits grave evil is in a state of “grave sin”, and whether a grave sin can ever become a good choice because of circumstances or intentions.

It is true that the Holy Father wrote a letter to the Argentinian Bishops, and that some Cardinals have proposed the interpretations of Amoris Laetitia that you have mentioned. However, the Holy Father himself has not clarified some of the “knotty” issues. It would contradict the Faith if any Catholic, including the Pope, said that a person can receive Holy Communion without repenting of grave sin, or that living in a marital way with someone who is not his or her spouse is not a state of grave sin, or that there is no such thing as an act that is always and everywhere evil and can send a person to perdition. Thus, I join my brother Cardinals in making a plea for an unmistakable clarification from Pope Francis himself. His voice, the voice of the Successor of Saint Peter, can dispel any questions about the issue.

Related article: Dubia: It seems Cardinal Hummes rightly stated that “The Whole College of Cardinals is With him” (Francis)

Dubia: It seems Cardinal Hummes rightly stated that “The Whole College of Cardinals is With him” (Francis)

  by Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi 

   Hummes

In Chapter VIII of his scandalous Amoris Laetitia, Anti-Pope Francis approves what the Catholic Church regards as simply ADULTERY. He asserts that in certain circumstances a divorced-and-remarried Catholic should be allowed to consider his/her second marriage a true marriage. In other words, this divorced and remarried Catholic should be free to have sinless sexual relations with his/her spouse and should be free to receive Holy Communion.

This simply contradicts the plain words of Jesus Christ, who said that a married person who marries again while his/her first spouse is living commits adultery. Hear Him: 

“And I say to you that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery”. (Matthew. 19:9).

Greek: “λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται, καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμμένην γαμῶν μοιχᾶται.”

Latin: “Dico autem vobis, quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, nisi ob fornicationem et aliam duxerit, moechatur: et qui dimissam duxerit, moechatur.”

So Anti-Pope Francis is condoning, “in certain circumstances”, what Jesus Himself calls adultery. Interesting to notice also that the only “circumstance” Our Lord considers (in the case of divorce which the anti-pope also champions subtly) is “fornication”!: “...except it be for fornication”, “...nisi ob fornicationem”, “...μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ”.

Is it not amazing—and indeed mysterious—that up till now not a single cardinal (among the 228 of them worldwide!) has come out publicly to support the Four Cardinals and their Dubia concerning the erroneous Amoris Laetitia of “Pope” Francis?

In fact, on the contrary what we've seen so far are some “cardinals” who come out publicly to support Francis who is merely voicing out their opinion, and other “courageous cardinals” who even oppose the Four Cardinals publicly for daring to ask questions.

For those of us who are still expecting an answer from Francis concerning the Dubia, well Italian Catholic historian Roberto de Mattei has stated rightly that Francis’ refusal to answer questions by the four Cardinals about whether Amoris Laetitia conforms to Catholic teaching is itself “already an answer,” the implications of which, he says, indicates that the Catholic Church has entered into a “religious civil war.”

Robert  de Mattei

“This situation is so grave that a neutral position is no longer possible. Today we are in a war, a religious civil war," de Mattei told LifeSiteNews in an exclusive interview in Rome last month. 

“It is important to comprehend that today there is a clear choice between fidelity to the Church, to the perennial Magisterium, or infidelity, which means errors, heresy, and apostasy,” he said. 

De Mattei, a professor at the European University of Rome and the president of the Lepanto Foundation, stated that there is “tremendous confusion inside the Church” caused by Francis’ ambiguous moral teaching, especially as found in his April exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which he said has caused “division” and  “fragmentation” among bishops, priests, and the faithful.

Well, it is a war that has been on for about 60 years now and we only have to thank God for the "election" of "Pope" Francis who has made everything very clear to all. The foundation of what we‘re witnessing now had long been laid by Benedict XVI, John Paul II and other extremely bad (V2) popes. They started filling the College of Cardinals with evil men—those ready to embrace Vatican II reforms—until it reached the present stage under Francis. That’s why almost all the present cardinals are, put simply, evil men.

Benedict XVI and Francis

Now on the high-profile churchmen who support Francis, first we have Benedict XVI himself whose profound silence on the Dubia issue—and indeed on all of Francis’ heresies—speaks volumes. (See: Benedict XVI Supporting Francis and his disastrous "pontificate").

We have the infidel “Cardinal” Cupich who publicly defends Francis by stating that “Life is full of ambiguity”, but the “important thing is to bring an attitude of discernment to a situation.” He then referred to a “wonderful article” by Professor Rocco Buttiglione in L’Osservatore Romano some months ago, “who situated historically that document (i.e. AL) in terms of the ongoing development of the teaching of the Church.” (Professor Buttiglione’s essay has since been refuted). “There are enough voices out there in which the Holy Father doesn’t have to in any way have to defend a teaching document of the Church. It’s up to those who have doubts and questions to have conversion in their lives,” Cupich said.

Cupich

In fact, Cupich has made it clear that his support of Communion for the divorced and remarried is the same position as that of Francis, the bishops of Argentina, and Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, (another infidel cardinal supporting Francis on the matter).

Farrell 

We have the infidel Kevin Farrell who was recently appointed both as a “cardinal” and the head of the Vatican's new centralised office for laypeople saying he considers Francis’ scandalous Amoris Laetitia “inspired by the Holy Spirit” and plans to make it his department's guiding document. On Amoris Laetitia (and particularly on giving Holy Communion to the divorced and remarried) Farrell said: "I firmly believe this is the teaching of the Church. This is a pastoral document telling us how we should proceed. I believe we should take it as it is" (See: New Cardinal Farrell: Amoris Laetitia is 'the Holy Spirit speaking').

                                

We have the Brazilian Cardinal Cláudio Hummes—who is a close friend of Francis—also supporting the infidel and opposing the Dubia of the Four Cardinals. Cardinal Hummes, an infidel as well, is also the prominent promoter of the slackening of the priestly celibacy. And he also has been under critique for questioning whether Jesus Christ really was opposed to homosexuality.

On 25 November, 2016, Hummes gave an interview to the Spanish news website Religion Digital. In this interview, Hummes commented also on the recent Dubia published by the Four Cardinals concerning Amoris Laetitia. Hummes makes it look as if the resistance of the Four Cardinals is insignificant and of very little weight. He says:

“Without wishing to relativize this fact [of the Dubia] …. but these are only four cardinals. In the Church, we are more than 200 [cardinals].”

Hummes continues his defence of Francis with the startling remark that “the whole College of Cardinals is with him [Francis].”  

If you think he’s joking then remember it was the same College of Cardinals that elected Frrancis in the first place—and they certainly didn’t elect someone they didn’t know. They certainly elected him for a purpose—and the man has exactly been fulfilling that purpose.  

When speaking about the importance of “accepting diversity while keeping unity” within the Church, Hummes first adds:

“This diversity is being delegitimized when the unity is threatened by divisions. The division is really an evil, not the diversity. The Church wants to be open to all sensibilities [sic]. The pope says that we should walk together and that we should not exclude anyone.  […] If someone wants to cut himself off, that is another case.”

After rejecting the idea of a homogenous uniformity the infidel cardinal then adds the following incomparably stunning remarks about the four cardinals themselves and their “divisive” Dubia:

“The pope could be wounded by the motives which led these four persons [sic!] to go so far as to want to correct him. But, he is very calm [sic!], relaxed, and moves forward. He knows which is the right path that one has to follow. And the College of Cardinals is with him, without any larger problems. The whole College of Cardinals is with him.”

You think he’s joking?

Early this month, “Cardinal” Gerhard Ludwig Müller, the Church’s (supposed) Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (“formerly” the Inquisition), the highest authority on doctrinal matters besides the pope, said his “Congregation” will not answer the four Cardinals who have “formulated their doubts” (dubia) regarding Amoris Laetitia until further notice.

Müller

Müller, a perfect comedian and a real mockery of the Holy Office, explained in an interview with Kathpress that his congregation “acts and speaks” with the “authority of the Pope” and cannot take part “in a difference of opinion.” Müller—himself a supporter of Masonic “Francis” on the error in question—argues that the letter with the five dubia had been written to the “Pope” directly – before its publication – and “Pope” Francis—the very evil man whose error is being tackled!—could still give the CDF the commission to resolve the tension! (Note: The CDF is in charge of all matters regarding the faith in the Catholic Church and is highest authority therein. In fact, resolving issues such as the Dubia of the Four Cardinals is the very reason why the CDF exists, in the first place).

“At the moment it is important for each one of us to stay focused and objective and not to be driven into polemics, much less create them,” Müller said. Regarding the passages of Amoris Laetitia that created confusion he does not comment!

“He ["Cardinal" Müller] was told by the Pope that he was not to respond to the Dubia and that there would be no response to them," said Cardinal Burke.

Hummes

Again, if you think that Hummes was joking (by saying that the whole college of cardinals is with Francis), then I ask you just two simple questions: How many cardinals have come out publicly to defend the Four Cardinals? None! And how many have come out publicly to attack them? Many!

Vito (Freemason)

Then come the innumerable others out there—many of them occupying important positions—such as the Freemason Msgr. Vito Pinto who called the dubia a “very serious scandal”. Some journalists reported him saying the cardinals could lose their red hats following their publication of the Dubia. (See: Top Vatican judge doubles down against four Cardinals: ‘They gave the Pope a slap in the face’). And the infidel Father Spadaro, S.J., and so on.

Spadaro and Francis

Sometimes when we hear some Catholics—the Sedes in particular—saying that the Church’s hierarchy no longer exists it sounds as if they’re really going crazy. But they are not. The fact is that they are trying to say something they are observing but they don’t know how to say it. And what is that? It is that the Church in our days has been invaded by worldly men and is almost completely destroyed by them. But—unknown to the Sedes who unknowingly believe in a Church that can fail—no one can really defeat the Church because the Church is Divine.

“When Christ preached 2,000 years ago, the culture and reigning spirit were radically opposed to Him. Concretely religious syncretism ruled, also Gnosticism among the intelligent leaders, as well as permissibilism among the masses — especially regarding the institution of matrimony. […] The sole purpose of the Son of God was to reveal the truth to the world.”

With these words, Bishop Athanasius Schneider—one of the few bishops who oppose the errors of "Pope" Francis but haven’t considered that Francis as a manifest heretic is not really a true pope—opened his recent presentation in the presence of Cardinals Raymond Burke and Walter Brandmüller and Auxiliary Bishop Andreas Laun of Salzburg, Austria.

Athanasius Schneider

“The formulation of dubia, as the Cardinals here have expressed in their own terms, has been a common practice in the Church,” he explained. “We need to be able to ask questions openly without being afraid of repressions.”

Bishop Schneider referred to the numerous attacks that the Four Cardinals have suffered after their dubia was published:

“The reaction to the dubia is a proof of the climate in which we actually live in the Church right now,” he said. “We live in a climate of threats and of denial of dialogue towards a specific group.”

Bishop Schneider went on to say that “dialogue seems to be accepted only if you think like everyone else – that is practically like a regime.”

He brought up his experience in Russia, where he was born in the time of the Soviet Union. Athanasius Schneider’s parents were sent by Stalin to work camps, or “Gulags,” after the Second World War. “If you didn’t follow the line of the party, or you questioned it, you couldn’t even ask. That is for me a very clear parallel to what is happening now in the reactions to the dubia—questions—of the Cardinals,” he said.

“This is a very sad experience especially since everybody is speaking about a ‘dialogue of culture’ after the Second Vatican Council. While bishops openly teach heresies and nothing happens to them, that is truly a grave injustice and very sad,” Bishop Schneider added.

He speculated about what might happen in the near future. “In Church history, we say that in an extreme case in which the bonum commune of the faith is threatened, then the bishops as members of the college of bishops, and in a truly collegial relation to the Pope with a brotherly obedience to him, must ask him publicly to renounce the misdeed of giving Communion to remarried divorced Catholics, as it is already being done in many dioceses.”

And who are and where are the bishops who can do that—apart from Athanasius Schneider himself and his insignificantly few like minds?

Related article: 94% of Synod Fathers voted to undermine parental rights at Synod, observes Voice of the Family

Turkey Has Declared War On Syria – Does This Mean That World War 3 Is About To Erupt In The Middle East?

by MICHAEL SNYDER       

Erdogan

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has just announced that the only reason Turkish military forces have entered northern Syria is to “end the rule of the tyrant al-Assad”.  By publicly proclaiming that Turkey intends to use military force to overthrow the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Erdogan has essentially declared war on the Syrian government.  Of course this puts a member of NATO in direct military conflict with Russia, since Russia is working very hard to prop up the Assad regime.  If all-out war breaks out between Turkey and Russia, could that be the spark that causes World War 3 to erupt in the Middle East?  And once Turkey and Russia start fighting, would the United States and the rest of NATO be dragged into the conflict?

The big mainstream news networks in the western world are almost completely ignoring what Erdogan said on Tuesday, but without a doubt this is major news.  The following comes from a Turkish news source…

The Turkish military launched its operations in Syria to end the rule of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said Nov. 29.

“In my estimation, nearly 1 million people have died in Syria. These deaths are still continuing without exception for children, women and men. Where is the United Nations? What is it doing? Is it in Iraq? No. We preached patience but could not endure in the end and had to enter Syria together with the Free Syrian Army [FSA],” Erdoğan said at the first Inter-Parliamentary Jerusalem Platform Symposium in Istanbul.

Turkish military forces initially invaded northern Syria on August 24th, and at the time we were all told that the purpose of the invasion was to “fight ISIS”, but now Erdogan is telling us something completely different.

Breitbart is one of the few U.S. news outlets that is reporting on this story, and I want you to read the following quotes from Erdogan that come from a Breitbart article that was posted on Tuesday very, very carefully…

“Why did we enter? We do not have an eye on Syrian soil. The issue is to provide lands to their real owners. That is to say we are there for the establishment of justice. We entered there to end the rule of the tyrant al-Assad who terrorizes with state terror,” Erdogan continued, insisting his forces were not in Syria for “any other reason.”

The Daily Sabah notes that Erdogan spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin about Syria during two telephone calls last week. Since Russia launched a massive military operation to secure Bashar Assad in power, Putin would presumably have been interested in anything Erdogan had to say about toppling the regime in Damascus, and probably would not have kept quiet about it.

If the Turkish military is only in Syria to end the Assad regime, then presumably they will stay there until the job is done.

And this puts Turkey into a direct military conflict with Russia, Iran and Hezbollah since all three of them are already fighting very hard to help the Assad regime.

Of course there is another reason why Turkey is in northern Syria, and that is to fight the Kurds.  In fact, the Kurds and Turkey are both rushing to capture a little city northeast of Aleppo called al-Bab which is currently controlled by the Islamic State…

Their immediate challenge is securing al-Bab, an Islamic State-held city northeast of Aleppo which Kurdish-led fighters are racing to take, and which lies close to the front lines of Assad’s allies.

Turkish-backed forces have made rapid gains since August, but largely through less heavily populated areas. Urban warfare around al-Bab is already taking a heavier toll. Five Turkish soldiers have been killed in the past week alone, three of them in a suspected Syrian government air strike.

“Right now the question is whether Russia will allow Turkey to seize al-Bab,” said the Muntasir Billah Brigade official.

But most people in the western world don’t know that Turkish soldiers are already dying in Syria.

Here in the United States, tens of millions of Americans are hailing a new era of “peace and prosperity” now that Donald Trump has won the election, but the truth is that one false move in Syria could easily raise tensions between the United States and Russia to the highest level that we have seen since the Cuban missile crisis back in the 1960s.

If Erdogan would have just stayed out of Syria we wouldn’t be in such a precarious situation.  Unfortunately, the president of Turkey is a narcissistic lunatic, and he dreams of a day when the old Ottoman Empire will once again be restored.

But his delusions of greatness threaten to make the Middle East even more unstable than it already has been.  In addition to his remarks above, on Tuesday Erdogan also called on all Muslims globally “to embrace the Palestinian cause and protect Jerusalem”…

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has urged Muslims to defend the Palestinian cause, striking a tough stance on Israel despite improved ties between the two nations.

The president of majority Muslim Turkey said Tuesday that “it is the common duty of all Muslims to embrace the Palestinian cause and protect Jerusalem” and that safeguarding the Al-Aqsa Mosque should not be left to children armed with nothing but stones. Located in the Old City of Jerusalem, the hilltop compound is sacred to Muslims and Jews.

Most people in the western world pay very little attention to Erdogan, but the truth is that he is a madman that is often referred to as “Turkey’s version of Adolf Hitler”.  He is extremely ambitious, extremely nationalistic, and he is a warmonger.  That is a very dangerous combination, and I believe that it is only a matter of time before he starts a major war in the Middle East.

Somebody needs to get this guy under control, but unfortunately the Obama administration has been very hesitant to confront Erdogan about his outrageous behaviour.

When Erdogan openly stated that the Turkish military is in Syria to overthrow the Assad regime on Tuesday, that was like lighting a match in a room that has already been doused with propane.

He needs to immediately retract those comments, because his unique brand of lunacy has now brought us dangerously close to the start of World War 3.

—Red Flag

Related: BREAKING: PUTIN JUST GAVE OBAMA 24 HOURS OR HIS SHIPS WILL OPEN FIRE

Staunch Dubia Opponent Father Pinto on Famous List of Freemasons

by Steve Skojec

"...Almost sixty years ago, “Padre Pio first met Father Luigi Villa, whom he entreated to devote his entire life to fight Ecclesiastical Freemasonry. Padre Pio told Father Villa that Our Lord had designs upon him and had chosen him to be educated and trained to fight Freemasonry within the Church. The Saint spelled out this task in three meetings with Father Villa, which took place in the last fifteen years of life of Padre Pio. At the close of the second meeting [second half of 1963], Padre Pio embraced Father Villa three times, saying to him: ‘Be brave, now…for the Church has already been invaded by Freemasonry!’ and then stated: ‘Freemasonry has already made it into the loafers (shoes) of the Pope!’ At the time, the reigning Pope was Paul VI."

I don’t know about you, but I just love a good Freemasonic conspiracy.

Let’s face it: Freemasons have been trying to infiltrate the Church for over a century. They even announced their intentions in the mid 1800s, and were condemned by several popes who had no qualms about expressing the danger they represented to the Faith.

The ubiquity of the threat, however, began to numb most Catholics to its reality. The subtlety of their work makes them appear innocuous, and this is by design. Their method of infiltration was laid out in a document known as The Permanent Instruction on the Alta Vendita, written in 19th Century. In it, they proclaimed their grand designs in a way that, in hindsight, can be seen to have been marvelously effective:

                                        

“The Pope, whoever he may be, will never come to the secret societies. It is for the secret societies to come to the Church… The work we have undertaken is not the work of a day, nor of a month, nor of a year. It may last many years, a century perhaps, but in our ranks the soldier dies and the fight continues… Now then, in order to secure to us a Pope in the manner required, it is necessary to fashion for that Pope a generation worthy of the reign of which we dream. Leave on one side old age and middle life, go to the youth, and, if possible, even to the infancy. Never speak in their presence a word of impiety or impurity. Maxima debetur puero reverentia. Never forget these words of the poet for they will preserve you from licenses which it is absolutely essential to guard against for the good of the cause. In order to reap profit at the home of each family, in order to give yourself the right of asylum at the domestic hearth, you ought to present yourself with all the appearance of a man grave and moral. Once your reputation is established in the colleges…and in the seminaries – once you shall have captivated the confidence of professors and students, act so that those who are engaged in the ecclesiastic state should love to seek your conversation…then little by little you will bring your disciples to the degree of cooking desired. When upon all the points of ecclesiastical state at once, this daily work shall have spread our ideas as light, then you will appreciate the wisdom of the counsel in which we take the initiative… That reputation will open the way for our doctrines to pass to the bosoms of the young clergy, and go even to the depths of convents. In a few years the young clergy will have, by force of events, invaded all the functions. They will govern, administer, and judge. They will form the council of the Sovereign. They will be called upon to choose the Pontiff who will reign; and that Pontiff, like the greater part of his contemporaries, will be necessarily imbued with the…humanitarian principles which we are about to put into circulation… Let the clergy march under your banner in the belief always that they march under the banner of the Apostolic Keys. You wish to cause the last vestige of tyranny and of oppression to disappear? Lay your nets like Simon Barjona. Lay them in the depths of sacristies, seminaries, and convents, rather than in the depth of the sea… You will bring yourselves as friends around the Apostolic Chair.”

With this in mind, I found it really quite interesting that more than one of our readers has pointed out that Father Pio Vito Pinto — Dean of the Roman Rota and perhaps now the loudest of the critics of the Four Cardinals — is to be found on the famous “Lista Pecorelli” — a list of alleged Freemasons within the Church.

I say “famous” because many people know about it. I didn’t. But the list has been around since the 1970s, compiled by the Italian investigative journalist — later murdered — who gave it its name: Carmine “Mino” Pecorelli.

In a comment on the 1P5 Facebook page, reader Andrew Guernsey writes:

“Here is a high quality version of the original Pecorelli list, which famously includes Bugnini, the architect of the New Mass https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B65x5F_RAFfwQVRjSUVGRUdaWmM/view

Investigative journalist and a member of the elite Propaganda Due (P2) Lodge, Carmine “Mino” Pecorelli, Director of L’Osservatorio Politico, a press agency specializing in political scandals and crimes, was murdered on March 20, 1979. Prior to his death he published what became known as “Pecorelli’s List.” It contained the names (code names and card names as well) of alleged Freemasons in high level Vatican offices during the reign of Paul VI. Among the prominent prelates identified as Freemasons were Jean Cardinal Villo, whose family is believed to have historic ties to the Rosicrucian Lodge; Agostino Cardinal Casaroli; Ugo Cardinal Poletti; Sebastiano Cardinal Baggio; Joseph Cardinal Suenens; and Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, C.M.; and Archbishop Paul Casimir Marcinkus, to name a few.”

A priest who worked for Cardinal Ottaviani investigating Modernists in the curia speaks of the authenticity of Pecorelli’s List:

http://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/…/Paul_VI.._beatified…

The principal “list” appeared on “OP” (Osservatorio Politico Internazionale) Magazine of September 12, 1978, the magazine of lawyer Mino Pecorelli, during the brief pontificate of JP1, thus subsequent to that which came out on “Panorama” Magazine of August 10, 1976.”

And sure enough, Father Pinto’s name is there:

The book Guernsey links is Paul VI Beatified?, by Fr. Luigi Villa. This is where, to the uninitiated, the rabbit hole gets deep. I’ve never had the time or the patience to go through the voluminous materials about Freemasonry and the Church. I have no doubt of the designs of the Masons, nor of the Church’s reasons for condemning them. But I am woefully ignorant of many of the facts on the ground. Of Fr. Villa, the website padrepioandchiesaviva.com says:

“Almost sixty years ago, “Padre Pio first met Father Luigi Villa, whom he entreated to devote his entire life to fight Ecclesiastical Freemasonry. Padre Pio told Father Villa that Our Lord had designs upon him and had chosen him to be educated and trained to fight Freemasonry within the Church. The Saint spelled out this task in three meetings with Father Villa, which took place in the last fifteen years of life of Padre Pio. At the close of the second meeting [second half of 1963], Padre Pio embraced Father Villa three times, saying to him: ‘Be brave, now…for the Church has already been invaded by Freemasonry!’ and then stated: ‘Freemasonry has already made it into the loafers (shoes) of the Pope!’ At the time, the reigning Pope was Paul VI.

“The mission entrusted to Father Luigi Villa by Padre Pio to fight Freemasonry within the Catholic Church was approved by Pope Pius XII who gave a Papal Mandate for his work. Pope Pius XII’s Secretary of State, Cardinal Tardini, gave Father Villa three Cardinals to work with and to act as his own personal ‘guardian angels’:

Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Parente and Cardinal Palazzini. Father Villa worked with these three cardinals until their deaths.”

In order to fight this battle, in 1971 Fr. Villa founded his magazine, “Chiesa viva” with correspondents and collaborators in every continent.  It was immediately attacked by the upper echelon of the Catholic Church: the magazine was ostracized among the clergy and its collaborators were gradually forced to leave.  Then they isolated its Director and his few remaining collaborators.  The efforts to silence “Chiesa viva” once and for all also included seven assassination attempts on Fr. Villa!”

I do not vouch for this information, because I have not verified it. (Readers here have mentioned Fr. Villa on numerous occasions, and have done so favorably.) But I present it to you nevertheless, because it is an interesting piece of the puzzle.

Of the alleged Freemasons on Pecorelli’s list, Fr. Villa writes:

“Pecorelli’s List” found credit even in the Vatican, where a young employee – nephew of a (well known) ecclesiastic (Father P. E.) – had handed a series of delicate “documents” to Monsignor Benelli, then Substitute of the Secretary of State, who made him swear «that he was not lying about so grave a matter». Some photocopies of those “documents” were also in the possession of Cardinal Staffa.

I had “assurance” of this “fact” from a cardinal of the Curia, who later also gave me some photocopies of those same “documents”.

3rd – The “Card Numbers”, reported on the “Pecorelli’s List”, confer a more than credible spin, since Pecorelli was a member of the P2 Lodge (and thus in the know of “secret things”), but also for the reason that, with that list, he had just invited the scarcely elected Pope Luciani to a rigorous control, with the intention of offering a valid contribution to the transparency of the Catholic Church Herself.

In any case, that “list” should have sparked off either a shower of denials or a purge in the ecclesial ranks. On the contrary, not a single “denial” was to be had. As for “purges”, besides, the newly elected Pontiff did not even have the time, perhaps even “because” Pope Luciani, “who had manifested the intention of having a hand in the issue of the IOR and shed a light as to the list of alleged Prelates affiliated to Freemasonry”, He, too, passed away in circumstances and ways as yet unknown. What is more, Mino Pecorelli, the author of that “list”, was gunned down a few months later, on March 20, 1979; hence, with him, were buried all of the other “secrets” concerning that Masonic sect in his possession.

Now, one could ask oneself: why is it that all of the “listed” in that “Masonic list” have never come together in order to deny that public denunciation, complete with detailed “entries” (Affiliation, Registration, Monogram), asking the courts for a clarifying investigation, at least on the graphological analysis of the acronyms at the foot of the documents? How not to recognize, then, that that lack of denials and that prolonged silence are more than eloquent as they take on the value of circumstantial evidence of the greatest import?

The only one to be removed from office was – as we noted – Monsignor Bugnini, the main author of that revolutionary liturgical reform that upset, in a Lutheran form, the bi-millennial rite of the Holy Mass, but it was only after the presentation to Paul VI of the “evidence” of his belonging to the Masonic sect, that he was sent away from Rome and dispatched as a “pro-Nuncio” to Iran. […]

The buzz about these people had been around since 1970. Let it be no doubt about it: it was not mere talk; it was “confidential information” we at the top of Italian Freemasonry used to pass on to one another”.

St. Maximilian Kolbe had his own take on the matter. He is famously quoted as saying:

“Satan Must Reign in the Vatican. The Pope Will Be His Slave. 

According to Michael Hitchborn at The Lepanto Institute, this bold proclamation

“was personally witnessed by St. Maximilian Kolbe, who watched Freemasons celebrate their bicentennial in St. Peter’s Square in 1917. St. Maximilian Kolbe saw banners bearing these words amidst the revelry. It’s a jarring and shocking statement, but it is totally in keeping with the aims of Freemasonry and it bears a great deal of significance for us today.”

Hichborn also notes the plans laid out in the Alta Vendita:

“According to these documents, the Alta Vendita lodge of Freemasonry openly declared that its “ultimate end is that of Voltaire and of the French Revolution – the final destruction forever of Catholicism, and even of the Christian idea.” […]

St. Maximilian Kolbe expounded on this plan at the founding of the Militia of the Immaculata. On October 16, just three days after the miracle of Fatima, the saint wrote:

“These men without God find themselves in a tragic situation. Such implacable hatred for the Church and the ambassadors of Christ on Earth is not in the power of individual persons, but of a systematic activity stemming in the final analysis from Freemasonry. In particular, it aims to destroy the Catholic religion. Their decrees have been spread throughout the world, in different disguises. But with the same goal – religious indifference and weakening of moral forces, according to their basic principle – ‘We will conquer the Catholic Church not by argumentation, but rather with moral corruption.‘”

There is no question that religious indifference and moral corruption are the hallmarks of our present ecclesiastical crisis. The two most scandalous issues facing the Catholic Church of 2016 are the twin pillars of the capitulation to Lutheranism as witnessed by the pope’s pro-Luther statements at the commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation in Lund, and the deconstruction of the Divine teaching on marriage, sexuality, family, and the Sacraments as launched by the synods of 2014 and 2015 and the exortation they led to: Amoris Laetitia. 

And what of Francis? If Fr. Pinto — one of the pittbulls he has unleashed against the Four Cardinals — is a Freemason, does that tie Francis to the secret society? It is well known that Buenos Aires is a stronghold of Freemasonry in Latin America:

“Freemasonry is no stranger to Argentina, as the society has been present here for more than 150 years and has in many ways helped shape its history. Many of the Argentine forefathers, including Jose de San Martín, Manuel Belgrano and Domingo F. Sarmiento were freemasons, as well as many Argentine presidents. There are currently 130 active Masonic lodges in Argentina, 60 of them in the city of Buenos Aires alone, and if you do a little research, you’ll find their symbology present on many buildings, monuments and even in cemeteries.”

When I read this, my mind immediately called up an image of a captioned statement Francis made in a meeting with Fernando Solanas, an Argentine politician, environmentalist, and film director. During the filmed conversation, he quipped:

In a statement on the occasion of the bicentennary of Argentina’s independence, he explained further:

“We are celebrating 200 years along the road of a homeland which, in its desires and anxieties for brotherhood, projects itself beyond the boundaries of this country towards the Greater Fatherland of which José de San Martín and Simón Bolívar dreamed. This reality unites us in a family of broad horizons and fraternal loyalty. That Greater Fatherland should also be included in our prayers during our celebrations — may the Lord look after it, making it stronger and more beautiful, defending it from every kind of colonization.”

“Fraternal loyalty.” Sounds like something a good Mason would say. “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Solidarity.” Solidarity…

It’s probably nothing.

Although the notion of Fraternity and Fatherland appear in the Manifesto of the Freemasons.

“Masonry preaches peace among men, and in the name of humanity proclaims the inviolability of human life. Masonry curses all wars; it wails over civil wars. It has the duty and the right to come among you and say: IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY, IN THE NAME OF FRATERNITY, IN THE NAME OF THE DEVASTATED FATHERLAND, stop the spilling of blood. We ask this of you, we beg you to hear our appeal.”

I’m not going to even to bother making the connection between “cursing all wars” and a certain someone who is always…cursing all wars.

It’s probably all just a coincidence.

Just like the fact that Francis was lauded by the Freemasons upon his election. The Masonic Press Agency (MPA) — self described as “the first structure providing Masonic news and information designated as such” — ran a story upon the election of Francis under the headline, “Jorge Mario Bergoglio elected Pope Francis I at 187 years since the issuance of Quo Graviora Papal Bull against Freemasonry”. The story itself is brief – just two paragraphs long – and it is simply noted without further explanation that his election took place 187 years to the day since Pope Leo XIII issued the papal bull Quo Graviora against Freemasonry.

In two separate stories in the MPA upon the occasion of his election, we were given yet another glimpse of the odd acceptance of the secret society for Pope Francis. In one, we learn:

“Grand Lodge of Argentina officially welcomed the election of Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio as the Pope of the Catholic Church and Sovereign of the Vatican. Argentinian Grand Master Angel Jorge Clavero considers that this appointment brought recognition to Argentine nation.

“In the last week several Grand Lodges in Latin America, Europe and Asia (Lebanon) welcomed the election of the new Catholic Pope.”

In the other, a stronger but more cryptic statement:

“The Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy expressed his joy regarding the election of Pope Francis. Raffi stated that: “With the election of Pope Francis nothing will ever be the same again.” [emphasis in original]

A truer statement has likely not been issued by a Freemason since the publication of the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita. Maybe they got their man after all. 

—1P5

Related article: Grand Lodge of Masons Buy Full Page Newspaper Ad to Welcome Pope Francis