Manifest reprobate “Pope” Francis tells Lutheran woman to 'talk to the Lord' in discerning whether or not to participate in Communion

       By Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi

Francis prays with the "Rev" Jens-Martin Kruse
 during a visit to the Lutheran "church"

Apostate Francis has caused another “controversy”—among Novus Ordites—by appearing to suggest that a Lutheran wife of a Catholic husband could receive holy Communion based on the fact that she is baptized and in accordance with her conscience. During a question and answer session at an evening prayer service held last Sunday in Rome’s heretical “Evangelical Lutheran Church”, Bergoglio was asked whether a Lutheran and Catholic married couple might “finally participate together in Communion”. The questioner referred to “the hurt we’ve felt together due to [our] difference of faith”. Francis cunningly said it was “not my competence” to give permission to do this, but quickly admitted: “I ask myself and don’t know how to respond – what you’re asking me, I ask myself the [same] question.” He then urged the Lutheran woman, Anke de Bernardinis,  to "talk to the Lord" about receiving holy Communion "and then go forward"...

Francis stressed the role of personal discernment rather than repeating Vatican II(heretical) Church teaching that Protestant spouses can only receive Holy Communion if they do not “have recourse for the sacrament” at their own “church”. He said: “There are questions that only if one is sincere with oneself and the little theological light one has, must be responded to on one’s own.”

Francis referred to a "bishop", the Protestant "Bishop" Jerónimo Podestá, who “went a little wrong – 48 years old, he married, [and then had] two children”. Francis suggested that the "bishop" had been helped in his moral journey by accompanying his family to Mass.

Rocco Palmo, on his blog, Whispers in the Loggia, said Bergoglio’s remarks “quite possibly show his hand on his intended course” on his post-synod document. A proposal to allow Anglican spouses of Catholics to receive Holy Communion had been included in the Instrumentum Laboris of the evil synod.

Indeed, it remains a mystery how millions of Catholics all over the world have not—even up till now—realised, as Father Kramer pointed out, that “Jorge Bergoglio is the Public Enemy No. 1 of the Catholic religion”. Why haven’t they if not because—just like their Papa Bergoglio—millions have equally lost the Faith?

It should be noted, however, that the abominable practice of giving Holy Communion to heretics did not originate from Bergoglio. Notorious heretics John Paul II and Benedict XVI did exactly the same thing and currently Francis is merely perfecting their evil work. For instance, John Paul II was seen publicly giving Holy Communion to the Protestant Tony Blair. On March 21, 2003 the Catholic Herald stated that John Paul II had personally given Tony Blair Holy Communion—the first time in history that a British prime minister had received the sacrament from the hands of the pontiff. The story was followed by such a flurry of denials that the newspaper was forced to withdraw the “claim” in its next issue. Yet, it was perfectly true, as the Pope's biographer Garry O'Connor discovered from several sources, including the papal chamberlain's office. Did John Paul II break “his own rules” by administering communion to an Anglican? Not quite: there was, at the time, a provision that non-Catholics could ask to receive communion "on a unique occasion for joy or for sorrow in the life of a family". Tony Blair presumably made such a request! Ironically, only two weeks after Tony Blair took communion from the heretical Pope, the Roman Curia issued fierce guidelines imposing a virtual ban on distributing communion to non-Catholics! Ah! A ban? But—two years after—during John Paul II’s burial, Benedict XVI was also seen giving Communion to the heretic brother Roger! (See the photo below).

Now the very background of all these errors can be found in the 1983 Code of Canon Law of John Paul II, which "abrogated" the 1917 Code of Canon Law of Pope Benedict XV. 844 §3 reads: 

“Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches”.

Indeed, "Canon"  844 §2 is simply terrible! It reads:

“Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid”.

Now don’t be fooled by the “danger of error or indifferentism” rhetoric. Here, Ladies and Gentlemen, we are simply unambiguously told that “sacraments” administered in some Protestant (or simply non-Catholic) “Churches” are valid!

Joseph Ratzinger giving communion to a Protestant heretic
 during John Paul II's funeral in 2005.

Now back to Francis. On October 7, 2013, the Anglican Communion News Service published a report by the Church of Ireland Gazette according to which the Novus Ordo Archbishop of Birmingham, Bernard Longley, stated that since the 1983 Novus Ordo Code of Canon Law changed the pre-Vatican II blanket prohibition against non-Catholics receiving Holy Communion and thus allowed a Protestant reception in principle, he could envision that in the future, the Vatican would expand the limited circumstances to allow a more frequent reception by heretics. Longley said:

“Given that that represents a change, and a very significant shift away from the impossibility to the limited possibility, then I could imagine and foresee one of the fruits of our ecumenical engagement as moving towards a deeper understanding of communion and a deeper sharing, a deeper communion between our Churches which perhaps would lead to reconsideration of some of the circumstances”. (Church of Ireland Gazette, "Vatican's Rules on Eucharistic Sharing Could Be Further Relaxed", published at Anglican Communion News Service, Oct. 7, 2013).

These comments came at a time when "Pope" Francis  announced an extraordinary synod of bishops for October 5-19, 2014, to discuss further "reforms" in the Vatican II Church (meaning further destruction of any resemblance to the Roman Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII), specifically regarding "communion" for people in adulterous relationships, and laws governing marriage annulments. They also coincide with a decision of the German Archdiocese of Freiburg to allow public adulterers to receive their putative “sacraments”.

The Catholic Church forbids non-Catholics—let alone public heretics—from receiving Holy Communion. Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829: “Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum divinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835: “… whoever dares to depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer shares in the divine mystery…‘Whoever eats the Lamb outside of this house is unholy.’”

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862: “… whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned.”

The full text of Bergoglio’s present remarks are available at Whispers in the Loggia.

WHY WOMEN ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED TO WEAR HEAD COVERINGS DURING NOVUS ORDO MASSES!

 Novus Ordo Mass where women have been enslaved!

    Catholic Tridentine Mass where women still veil (though often imperfectly)      

By Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi

Throughout history—even among the pagans and other worshippers of false gods—it has been common for women to wear head coverings during worship and even beyond that, something that has precedent in St. Paul’s epistles. “You yourselves judge:” says the holy apostle, “doth it become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered?” (See 1 Cor. 11: 2-16).   

A perfect way of veiling. 

Head covering was mandated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.   Canon 1262 states:

1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.

2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.

This pious custom fell gradually into disuse even as modernists invaded our holy church!

In the 1970s, after the Novus Ordo mass was imposed on Catholics there was a judgment issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a document entitled Inter Insigniores, which basically diabolically stated that since chapel veils were “not a matter of faith”, it was no longer mandatory for women to wear them.

In paragraph 4 it states:

"It must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor. 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value."

Here we see anti-Catholics in action! The inspired writings of St. Paul have now become mere “ordinances probably inspired by the customs of the period”, mere “requirements” which “no longer have a normative value”! Indeed, how dangerous this new religion can be! You can read the whole evil document here.

In the 1983 Code of Canon Law of the heretic John Paul II—the one in effect today, an evil Canon which even permits a priest to give Holy Communion to a Protestant, something which John Paul II and Benedict XVI themselves practised—the canon about head coverings was not re-issued. Now, you might be thinking, “Well, just because they didn’t reissue it doesn’t mean that it’s not still in effect, right?” Wrong!

Canon 6 of the current code states that all subsequent laws that are not reissued in the new code are abrogated:

Can. 61. When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated:

1. the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

2. other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescriptions of this Code, unless particular laws are otherwise expressly provided for;

3. any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code;

4. other universal disciplinary laws dealing with a matter which is regulated ex integro by this Code.

We see then the source of the scandal witnessed all over the Catholic world today! We see then how modern Catholic women have been enslaved by the devil, using wolves who masquerade as Catholic bishops, cardinals and even popes! 

Indeed the Society of St. Pius X must be 24 hours vigilant because this current unchristian attitude has simply gone viral. As one "traditional" priest (not SSPX) puts it, “But even at the Latin Masses I offer, women exhibit diversity in this matter. Some wear the longer veil (mantilla) others a short veil. Others  wear hats. Still others wear no head covering at all" And he allows it! Indeed, lawlessness!

As I wrote in my piece, ‘A Feminized Catholic Church?’ , “St. Augustine, the great theologian, describes any failure in the veil to conceal all the hair, even a minor one, as a violation of chastity. St. Ambrose of Milan says: “Is anything so conducive to lust as with unseemly movements thus to expose in nakedness those parts of the body which either nature has hidden or custom has veiled, to sport with the looks, to turn the neck, to loosen the hair? Fitly was the next step an offence against God. For what modesty can there be? ”

Related:

• A “Feminized” Catholic Church?
• For the 1917 Code of Canon Law, here: http://www.canonlaw.info/masterpage1917.htm

Australia investigating archbishop for distributing pamphlet defending true marriage

By Pete Baklinski 

Archbishop Julian Porteous

An Australian Catholic archbishop is facing legal action after recently distributing a pamphlet to local Catholic school children that supported Catholic teaching on marriage being between a man and woman.

“Dear Friends, I have received notification from the Office of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner that a complaint made about me has been viewed as a possible breach of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas),” Archbishop Julian Porteous from the Archdiocese of Hobart in Tasmania posted yesterday to Facebook about the allegations of discrimination against him.

The 18-page pamphlet titled “Don’t Mess With Marriage” was put out by the country’s bishops and details the Church’s teaching on sexuality and marriage. The pamphlet states that it is “gravely unjust” to children, adults, and society to redefine marriage to allow for homosexual partnerships to be called “marriage.”

“The Catholic Church cares deeply about marriage because it is a fundamental good in itself, a foundation of human existence and flourishing, and a blessing from God,” states the pamphlet.

Martine Delaney, the homosexual activist behind the complaint, says the pamphlet “offends and humiliates” same-sex partners and the children they look after by indicating that “same-sex relationships are [merely] friendships,” that “same-sex attracted people are not whole,” and that the “children of same-sex couples are not healthy or virtuous.” Delaney’s complaint to the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner was lodged September 15.

The archbishop went on in his Facebook post to “state for the record” his motives for distributing the pamphlet.

“In distributing the Pastoral Letter, ‘Don’t Mess With Marriage’, my aim was to assist the Catholic community in understanding the teaching of the Catholic Church, at a time when debate on this matter was widespread within the community.”

“The intention was to inform the debate as leader of the Catholic Church in Tasmania, to ensure the Catholic community understood where we stand on the issue of marriage.”

“It was not my intention to offend, rather, it was and is, to express the teaching of the Catholic Church. I regret if offence has been taken by individuals, and will work with the Commission to resolve this matter,” he said.

In 2011 Archbishop Porteous wrote a column in which he argued that discrimination, though cast in a negative light in modern society, can be an important quality, and even a virtue that reflects wisdom and prudence.

“[Discrimination used to be] considered a natural process to make decisions, judgements and distinctions on the basis of distinguishing between objective good and evil, between right and wrong,” he wrote at that time. The bishop’s words reflect a passage in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that calls for an end to “unjust discrimination” against homosexuals, implying that there can be a “just discrimination.”

It’s “ironic,” he wrote, that efforts to eliminate discrimination “run the risk of proposing an unjust discrimination against religion.”

“The future of our society depends upon our ability to discriminate between good and evil, right and wrong and what is or is not acceptable behaviour for our society,” he wrote.

In 2013 the Archbishop faced accusations from the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner that he may be found to have violated state law if he restricted altar serving to boys.

Source: LifeSiteNews

Letter of Father Nicholas Gruner, March 12, 2015

Fr. Nicholas Gruner was born May 4, 1942 and he passed away on April 29, 2015. He was ordained to the Holy Priesthood in Avellino, Italy on August 22, 1976 and, in 1978, he launched The Fatima Crusader, a magazine dedicated to Our Lady of Fatima. Over the next 37 years, he and his apostolate, The Fatima Center, promoted the complete Fatima message worldwide through books and other literature, conferences, Rosary rallies, television programs, websites, and the distribution of millions of Rosaries and Scapulars. He worked--to his last breath--to convince the V-II popes to release the entire Third Secret of Fatima and to Consecrate Russia to The Immaculate Heart of Mary together with all the Bishops of the World. But he was ignored.

Fr. Gruner was an acquaintance of Fr. Gabriel Amorth, a Famous Exorcist who resides in Rome. One of Fr. Gruner’s final letters was regarding a dialogue between himself and Fr. Amorth; it was written on Thursday, March 12, 2015, which was the feast day of St. Gregory the Great. The letter follows:

“Catholicism can and must change”, apostate Francis insists

by Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi

Francis I

Apostate Francis has strongly outlined anew his vision for the future of his “Catholic church”, forcefully telling an emblematic meeting of the entire Italian church community on Tuesday that “our times require a deeply merciful Catholicism that is unafraid of change”. In a 49-minute speech to a decennial national conference of the Italian church—which is bringing together some 2,200 people from 220 dioceses to the historic renaissance city for five days—Francis said Catholics must realise that "We are not living an era of change but a change of era”. He said: “Before the problems of the church it is not useful to search for solutions in conservatism or fundamentalism, in the restoration of obsolete conduct and forms that no longer have the capacity of being significant culturally...Christian doctrine is not a closed system incapable of generating questions, doubts, interrogatives....It has a face that is not rigid, it has a body that moves and grows, it has a soft flesh...”

Outlining his “three aspects of Christian humanism”, Francis asked the Italians to adopt an outlook of “humility”, disinterest in personal praise or power, and of living a life of the beatitudes.

Francis also said there were two specific “temptations” he wanted to warn the national church against, likening—though in a very subtle manner—Catholic conservatism to two ancient heresies that attacked the early Church: Pelagianism and Gnosticism.

On  Pelagianism, which holds that humans can achieve salvation on their own without divine help, Francis said that in the modern day it "brings us to have trust in structures, in organizations, in perfect plans, however abstract."

"Often it brings us to assume a style of control, of hardness, of normalcy," he said. "The norm gives to the Pelagian the security of feeling superior, of having a precise orientation. In this is found its force, not in the lightness of the breath of the Spirit.”

Here apostate Francis is attacking Catholic conservatives, who insist that the Church, being not only human but also divine, doesn’t change her doctrines. Only Catholics worship the true God, hence they rightly feel superior to all other people in the world who worship in false religions. True Catholics believe that in order to be saved all who worship in false religions must be converted to the Catholic Church. Francis doesn’t believe this. He doesn’t identify with Catholics because he believes that all religions are the same. Hence: “The norm gives to the Pelagian the security of feeling superior”.

Pelagianism, Francis told the “faithful” gathered in Florence cathedral, “prompts the Church not to be humble, selfless and blessed. And it does so with the appearance of being a good...it leads us also to take a controlling, hard, regulatory style,” he said. “The law gives to the Pelagian security to feel superior, to have a precise orientation. This is its strength, not the light of the breath of the Spirit.”

Notice how evil the man is: Pelagianism was an ancient heresy condemned by the Church. Pelagians were followers of Pelagius, a monk. The group exalted the human will over divine grace. They taught that salvation could be attained by anyone through their own free will. They taught that human nature was not damaged by original sin; that sin was a personal sin of Adam and Eve and had not been transmitted to his descendants. St. Augustine, the most powerful opponent of the group, responded to them with the words of Our Lord: “Without me you can do nothing”(John 15: 5). Eventually Pelagianism was condemned by Pope Celestine (AD 432), who taught that “Every holy thought and movement of the will comes from God”.

Of course as a monk—and just like all Catholic monks—Pelagius had been a conservative Catholic before the eruption of his heresies, and after becoming a heretic he was still practicing his conservatism but in a wrong way. Now apostate Francis likens Catholic conservatism to Pelagianism simply because it is opposed to changes! “In facing evils or the problems of the Church,” he went on, “it is useless to look for solutions in conservatism and fundamentalism, in the restoration of practices and outdated forms that aren’t even able to be culturally meaningful.” Can the devil himself even speak like this?

Again, “The Italian church should let itself be carried by [the Spirit's] powerful breath and for this, sometimes, be settled,” he continued, after his words that “the church” is always in reform. “Assume always the Spirit of the great explorers, that on the sea were passionate for navigation in open waters and were not frightened by borders and of storms,” he told the Italians. “May it be a free church and open to the challenges of the present, never in defence for fear of losing something.”

Here he is attacking those who strive to defend the Church against modern errors. Francis doesn’t believe that there is anything like “modern error”. For him, the only error that really exists is simply Catholic conservatism.

Matthew Karmel writes:

“In the 500 years since its inception, the Protestant revolt has evolved from the erroneous opinions of a single mad monk into a thousand-headed hydra of heresy, with each head snapping at the other almost as frequently as at the Catholic Church itself. Nonetheless, the many heads have remained joined at one common point—a point which Protestant theologians such as Paul Tillich and Dietrich Bonhoeffer desired to see writ large on the flag of modern Protestantism: Ecclesia semper reformanda est, i.e. “The Church is always to be reformed.”

“Today, speaking to bishops and faithful gathered in Florence, Pope Francis made this profoundly Protestant thesis his own, quoting it verbatim.

“...Of course, we’ve heard Pope Francis speak on the subject of Pelagianism before. In fact, his barbed quip “self-absorbed promethean neopelagians”—aimed squarely at faithful Catholics of the traditional sort—has become something of a defiant self-appellation among the same. And that Pope Francis frowns upon any effort to restore the time-honoured traditions of the Church—including her ancient liturgy—is not exactly news. So, what’s so unsettling about this speech?

“A combination of context and historical precedent.

“It was none other than Martin Luther himself who leveled the charge of “Pelagianism” against the Catholic Church on the eve of his own revolution. In his monograph entitled Augustine of Hippo and Martin Luther on Original Sin and Justification of the Sinner, Jairzinho Lopes Pereira of the University of Helsinki explains (p. 312):

Complaints against the Pelagian trend of theology of his own time is recurrent in young Luther. One of the most striking is found in Operationes in Psalmos(1519-1521). What is worse, he stressed in this work, is the fact that there was a new form of Pelagianism; the one he was fighting. It was worse than any other because it was not declared. It was Pelagianism disguised as an orthodox doctrine. The Reformer regarded Pelagianism as the most dangerous and pernicious of heresies (Inter omnes autem gladios imiorum maximum et nocentissimum meo iuditio merito pelagianam impietatem censebimus) and the source of all sorts of idolatries (hic error fons est universae idolatriae). Not surprisingly, he identified it with the very human tendency to state human righteousness (iustitia hominis) to the detriment of that of faith (iusitia fidei).

“Augustine, Luther pointed out, fought Pelagians as declared heretics. He himself was fighting the very same heretical trend in men protected by the Church, under the skin of orthodox theologians. So Pelagianism, Luther stressed, is a timeless threat to Christian faith. […] After Augustine’s death the heresy rose; it not only did not find opposition, but also was openly allowed to rule within the Roman Church and universities. Nothing can be more dangerous, yet it remained in the Church, Luther claimed (pelagianos error vere omnium saeculorum error est, saepius opressus quidem, sed nunquam extinctus)”.

“Sound familiar?”

Again, subtly bombarding his victims with his Liberation Theology, Francis craftily “attacked” Gnosticism, another ancient heresy condemned by the Catholic Church. And why this attack? Gnosticism widely held that people should shun the material world in favour of the spiritual realm. This is quite contrary to Liberation Theology of Francis, which crazily seeks enjoyment in this world at all costs. 

Liberationists wrote as though God had granted them a new revelation—a new revelation which has nothing to do with the spiritual side of man but with purely the material side. It seeks for a radical revision of Catholic teaching that incorporates the "insights" of Karl Marx. Liberationists ridicule "non-transformative" modes of traditional charity, and maintain that in order to truly liberate "the poor", it is necessary to radically change society's fundamental structures—with violence, if necessary—and we can see Francis doing exactly that. 

Again, notice how evil the man is. The Church condemned Gnosticism because its vision of the material as well as spiritual world is fundamentally erroneous, but Francis is against Gnosticism not because it was a heresy condemned by the Church, but because it shuns the material world which Francis only believes in. He rather rashly likens Catholic conservatism to Gnosticism simply because it is essentially about redeeming the soul of man, against his Liberation theology which, at the cost of man’s salvation, is about the enjoyment of the present world at all costs.  

Precisely, a main feature of the varied strands of Gnostic teaching—which ranged from beliefs which were elaborated in philosophical terms to others which incorporated astrology and a complex mythology—was that this world, the material world which man inhabited, was evil, and was antagonistic towards the higher good. However, among some men, some “spiritual men”, there existed a divine spark; and, such men, by turning away from the evil world of matter, could ascend to the divine source from which they ultimately had their being. But others were trapped in the bonds of matter. These were the fleshy men, the worldly men who had been entangled in the evil world of matter.

  

The Gnostics, in order to explain the evil nature of the world, and, at the same time, to account for the difference between their doctrine and that of the Old Testament, made a distinction between a Divine Being and a lower Creator—the Demiurge, who emanated from the former. The Demiurge was implicated in a cosmic fall, and so the world he created was infected with evil. He was the being whom the Old Testament writers referred to as Yahweh. The Gnostics believed that the God of the Old Testament was cruel and capricious—never to be identified with the loving Father, the Abba Father whom Christ spoke about. Thus Jesus Christ, they held, was sent into this world to enable “spiritual men” turn back to the divine source, the original source—although they equally held that the man Jesus was just an appearance projected into the stage of human history, never a fleshy incarnate Son of a Divine Being. The way to gnosis, that is, to the supernatural knowledge and union with the Divine Being, they taught, was through an ascetic life and withdrawal from the material world. But some of their groups turned in the opposite direction, believing that the “spiritual man” rises “beyond good and evil”. These groups set up orgiastic cults through which the adherents gave expression to their superiority to the moral law. The asceticism of the Gnostics pointed clearly to the mystical and contemplative nature of the experience at which they aimed, but their mysticism was never properly integrated either with belief in Jesus Christ or with the worship of a personal creator; for the creator, as pointed out above, was demoted to the status of an evil Demiurge, and hence, the insights of prophetic monotheism were submerged. As for Jesus Christ, He played an unreal role in the cosmic drama. Thus Gnosticism attacked the very roots of the Christian faith. It was unanimously condemned by the early Church Fathers. The last words of the aged St. Paul in his First Epistle to Timothy are also usually taken as referring to Gnosticism, which is described as “Profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called [antitheseis tes pseudonomou gnoseos—the antitheses of so-called Gnosis] which some professing have erred concerning the faith”.

Now Francis’ likening of Catholic conservatism to Gnosticism speaks volumes about his ardent hatred of Catholic religion, a hatred simply unparalleled in the entire history of the Church!

And what was the reaction of those listening to him while he vomited all these? “As the pontiff spoke in Florence's artistically renowned cathedral, he was interrupted about a dozen times for applause”, said National Catholic Reporter.

Against the Spirit of Modernism

                            Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi

Pope Benedict XV

I remember a Franciscan priest telling me in 2005, shortly after the election of Benedict XVI: “...He will condemn many errors...You wait and see...watch out for his first encyclical”. 

I did watch out, indeed with all hope and eagerness, but when the so-called first encyclical came out, there was nothing like that! On the contrary, it was full of errors!

Pope Benedict XV, who succeeded the great Pius X, is radically different from Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI)—at least as far as Modernism is concerned.

Against the Spirit of Modernism was published by Liturgy Guy. It reads:

Less than sixty days into his papacy, Pope Benedict XV released his first encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, on November 1, 1914. As the opening salvos of the First World War had just been fired, Pope Benedict made an appeal for peace with this, his first encyclical to the Church.

While much of the document understandably focuses on civil governments and warring nations, Benedict also directs his attention to the discord and conflict raging within the Church. In “Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum” the Holy Father, at the very outset of his papacy, immediately condemns the “monstrous errors of Modernism”, just as his three predecessors had done. Though written over one hundred years ago, his prophetic words still speak to the Church today.

  

Pope Benedict XV Against the Spirit of Modernism

“Besides, the Church demands from those who have devoted themselves to furthering her interests, something very different from the dwelling upon profitless questions; she demands that they should devote the whole of their energy to preserve the faith intact and unsullied by any breath of error, and follow most closely him whom Christ has appointed to be the guardian and interpreter of the truth. There are to be found today, and in no small numbers, men, of whom the Apostle says that: “having itching ears, they will not endure sound doctrine: but according to their own desires they will heap up to themselves teachers, and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables” (II Tim. iv. 34). Infatuated and carried away by a lofty idea of the human intellect, by which God’s good gift has certainly made incredible progress in the study of nature, confident in their own judgment, and contemptuous of the authority of the Church, they have reached such a degree of rashness as not to hesitate to measure by the standard of their own mind even the hidden things of God and all that God has revealed to men. Hence arose the monstrous errors of “Modernism,” which Our Predecessor rightly declared to be “the synthesis of all heresies,” and solemnly condemned…”

“Nor do We merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies or what is called the spirit of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety. Therefore it is Our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: “Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down.” In matters of faith that must be inviolably adhered to as the law; it may however also serve as a guide even in matters subject to change, but even in such cases the rule would hold: “Old things, but in a new way.”

Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum (November 1, 1914) | BENEDICT XV. Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Web.

Source:Liturgy Guy 

Vatican Fulfils Biblical Prophecy (Rev 13, 17 and 18) – The False Prophet

By Anton Bosch

Note: Posting this piece here does not imply our endorsement of the author, their website, ministry or any links therein. Readers are cautioned to use discernment at all times and test everything by the Word of God and the teachings of the Church. It is interesting to note that the piece was written during the pontificate of Benedict XVI and not that of Francis I.

 

The Bible paints quite a clear picture of the major events that precede the return of the Lord Jesus Christ to the earth. Many of the smaller details may be difficult to interpret but the major events concerning the world’s religious, economic and political future are clearly spelled out in Revelation 13, 17 and 18:

A world religious figure will rise to prominence. He unites all the world’s religions into one universal religion. This religious leader looks like a man of God. He performs miracles and even looks similar to Jesus Christ (Revelation 13:11; 5:6). But, he receives his power from the Antichrist and, ultimately from Satan. He is known as the False Prophet (Revelation 19:20).

A second figure comes on the scene. Whereas the first world leader is religious and unites all people under a single world religion, the second man is political and unites all the world’s people under a single world government. We commonly know him as the Antichrist. The Antichrist does not only unite the world under one political system, but he establishes a single world monetary system which abolishes all private or individual business transactions that are not part of the global system (Revelation 13:17).

The relationship between the False Prophet and the Antichrist is an interesting one. The Antichrist (political) empowers the False Prophet (religious). But ultimately the False Prophet causes the whole world to worship the Antichrist (Revelation 13:12). The False Prophet also encourages the people of the world to subscribe to the world financial and economic system and to receive the mark of the Beast (Antichrist) which gives them access to the financial system. Thus the global economy, global political authority and global religion become intertwined. This all happens in the name of unity which sounds good but is not. It is a bad unity because it is man-centred and is a unity against the Lord and His Christ.

How do we move from a world of many separate economies, religions and governments to a single system? This will not happen by military might, but individual governments willingly become part of the world government. This comes about because of two factors: First the nations are deceived into believing that the Antichrist has the answers to the world’s political and financial problems. Second, it is part of God’s plan: “For God has put it into their hearts to fulfil His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.” (Revelation 17:17).

Practically, the world’s leaders will realize that their individual economies are so intertwined and the only way to solve the ever-increasing financial crises is to bring all the separate economies under one roof. Those who stay abreast of world affairs will recognize that there is an ever-increasing number of influential leaders who have begun to promote the idea of a global economy. The most significant of these is the G20 which in recent years has made several statements advocating such a global economy.

But the most startling statements were recently made by the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace in a 41 page “note”. It was published on October 24, 2011 in several languages. The Council speaks for the Pope and is filled with legal verbiage and complicated language, but is one of the most amazing documents I have ever read. It is amazing because it calls for a word-for-word fulfilment of the prophecies of Revelation 13, 17 and 18 and places Rome at the centre of the drama![1]

The first half of the note deals with background and related philosophical issues. But the second half (points 3 and 4) calls for a single world government (point 3) and for a single world financial system (point 4)! Had I not read and studied the document, I would not have believed the statements made in it. I hope in the following few lines to summarize this document:[2]

They quote several recent Popes to show that support for a single world ruler is very much part of the core philosophy of Rome. For instance John XXIII “…also expressed the hope that one day “a true world political authority” would be created”. In the context of the document this means that John XXIII wanted to see a single world government. The document continues to state that today this teaching (of a single world government) is “even more vital and worthy of urgent implementation”

They continue to say of the current Pope that “Benedict XVI himself expressed the need to create a world political authority”. In the same paragraph they list all the reasons why a single world government is desirable. Things like peace and security, disarmament and arms control, the protection of human rights, the protection of the environment, the management of the (world’s) economy, the “universal common good”, the protection of weaker nations from the power of stronger nations etc.

John XXIII is further quoted as saying that in order for such a world government to be effective “it should be endowed with structures and adequate, effective mechanisms equal to its mission”. This simply means it has to be a real government with “teeth” and real authority over the world’s peoples rather than a United Nations type organization with little ability to enforce its will. They concede that the United Nations is the agency to bring this world government about, but at the same time, it needs to be a real government unlike the UN which is simply a committee.

They continue to say that such an Authority must have “global reach”, not by “force, coercion and violence but should be the outcome of free and shared agreement…”. Revelation 17:17 says that the world’s nations will willingly hand over all their authority to the Antichrist. Note their use of the word “Authority” with a capital letter. This is their term for what the Bible calls the Antichrist. They alternatively use the terms “Authority”, “world Authority”, “world public Authority” and “global Authority” – always with a capital “A”.  Revelation 13 and 17 speaks seven times about the Antichrist having “authority”.

The document speaks about the need for all nations to be part of this system and that none should be excluded: “…the world Authority should consistently involve all peoples…”. Revelation 13:7 says “…And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation”. The note says that policies must be binding on all and that the Authority should have “universal jurisdiction”.

In the fourth section that deals with a global economy they say there is a need for “…the commitment to create some form of global monetary management” and “one can see an emerging requirement for a body that will carry out the functions of a kind of “central world bank” that regulates the flow and system of monetary exchanges…” They then speak of the need for such a world economy to be under the control of the world government. Revelation 13:16-17 says that the False Prophet “…causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” In this document, The Vatican has pledged its commitment to fulfill this prophecy to the letter!

Before continuing with the closing comments of this document, let me remind you that Revelation 17:5 refers to “Babylon the great, the mother of harlots”. In the past many have believed that this is an unequivocal reference to the church of Rome (the mother of harlots) and that the “daughter harlots” are the rest of the false religions. I used to hold that Babylon is not necessarily a reference to Rome alone but to all forms of false religion. However, this document is causing me to reconsider my view. Had I not verified that this document indeed was produced in the Vatican at the very highest levels, I would have discounted it as a fake. It seems simply too surreal that the note calls for the implementation of prophecy in such minute detail. I must assume that the Pontifical Council knows what Revelation teaches on this subject and yet, is willing to identify itself intimately with the False Prophet, the Great Harlot and Babylon the Great.

May I also remind you that the tower of Babel was man’s attempt at “global” unification entered on man, and against God, and that the Lord was so displeased that He made them speak different languages and so cause division and the scattering of mankind. God is all for unity, but it has to be a godly unity centred on the Lord Jesus Christ. God is against unity that has man as the focus, especially when that unity is used to oppose God as they did at Babel and as they will in the last days. Babel is the Hebrew name for Babylon – they are the same place, but more than a place, it is a philosophy and a spirit. The Babylon(s) of Revelation 17 and 18 are a revival of the Babel of Genesis 11 and represent the same anti-God and man-centred philosophy. Both are the pinnacle of all anti-God and Antichrist structures (puns intended).

The Vatican document concludes with the following lesson: Quoting the tower of Babel and Genesis 11, they say that Babel warns us that diversity (as opposed to unity) is as a result of selfishness and leads to division. It further states that Babel is a warning of what happens when we don’t stick together and when nations choose to separate. The document very clearly calls for mankind to reverse the effects of Babel and to return to the process of building a unifying (and God-defying) structure. I do believe I sum this up correctly by saying they are literally calling for the rebuilding of Babylon (not the physical but the spiritual, political, religious and financial Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18)!

I will quote the final sentence of the document verbatim: “Only a spirit of concord that rises above divisions and conflicts will allow humanity to be authentically one family and to conceive of a new world with the creation of a world public Authority at the service of the common good.” (Emphasis mine).

Allow me to remind you that what this document calls for is not a pipe dream. It will come to pass, exactly as they are envisioning it and precisely as the Bible has predicted. Let me also remind you that Rome is not isolated from the rest of the world’s religions. In The Berean Call of November 2011, Dave Hunt provides detailed evidence that the most influential evangelical leaders in America all support and endorse Rome and its leaders.

All this tells me that the end is closer than we like to think and that everything is ready for the fulfillment of the final end-time prophecies. “And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her (Babylon), my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues.” (Revelation 18:4).

“And he cried mightily with a loud voice, saying, “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird! …”The kings of the earth who committed fornication and lived luxuriously with her will weep and lament for her, when they see the smoke of her burning, standing at a distance for fear of her torment, saying, ‘Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! For in one hour your judgment has come.’ “And the merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her, for no one buys their merchandise anymore” (Revelation 18:2, 9-11).

Notes:

The full text can be read on the official site of Vatican Radio:  http://www.news.va/en/news/full-text-note-on-financial-reform-from-the-pontif I have paraphrased their statements simply to strip the text of verbiage and make it more accessible to readers who are not lawyers or theologians. I have endeavoured to not alter or exaggerate anything they have said.

Source:

http://antonbosch.org/Articles/English%202010/Rev13.html
It is also available on request as a MP3 message preached in Sun Valley on November 13, 2011.

[1] The full text can be read on the official site of Vatican Radio: http://www.news.va/en/news/full-text-note-on-financial-reform-from-the-pontif

[2] I have paraphrased their statements simply to strip the text of verbiage and make it more accessible to readers who are not lawyers or theologians. I have endeavoured to not alter or exaggerate anything they have said.

Source: Discerning the World