Catholic Church urged to accept gay unions

Francis I

Kasper

                                                        

By Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi

On May 29, 2015, not long after the controversial Private Rome Meeting organized by liberal members of the German, French, and Swiss Bishops' Conferences, one of its participants and speakers, prof. Schockenhoff, gave an interview in Germany to the radio of the Archdiocese of Cologne, called domradio.de. In it, he made two important statements. First, he is cautious about the possibility of bringing about a liberal reform at the upcoming synod of bishops on the family; secondly, he restated his revolutionary position concerning the acceptance of same-sex relationships, reports LifeSiteNews.

When asked what his expectations about the upcoming synod are, Schockenhoff said:

                                                                                         

“As a theologian, I do not expect that everything will be expressed in a fundamentally different and new way. For me, a positive [sic] outcome of the Synod would be of course desirable, because it would show that the Catholic Church is able to reform itself, and that the following principle is also important for it: namely, that the search for more adequate forms of expression of its faith will continue. But, for me as a theologian, the substantial reasons for positions which I represent are the ones that count. For example, concerning the question as to how to deal with remarried divorcees; the reasons for a respectful, accepting treatment also of those people who live in same-sex living partnerships. If this would now lead to an official recognition by the Synod, then that is good. But, if that fails, then the reasons are not thereby devalued. They, of course, are still valid. And that is the reason why I look forward to it [the Synod] with a certain detachment.”

When asked about Ireland's recent referendum and approval of same-sex “marriages” and its criticism by some prelates, speaking of “defeat for humanity,” the “theologian” responded:

“That would not be my language. This matter is to be considered in a differentiated way. First of all, one has to say that those people who have same-sex feelings have the right [sic] to be recognized in their lives – and that includes the fact that they are sexual beings, just as all people are. That includes also their form of living. The church's position – that one does not discriminate against them as persons and that one respects them, but that one considers their acts as intrinsically disordered – that is in itself not a convincing position.”

Of course the position that one does not discriminate against homosexuals “as persons and that one respects them, but that one considers their acts as intrinsically disordered” is in no way the position of the Catholic Church (the true Church simply anathematises homosexuals) but that of John Paul II, well embedded in his false “Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

In Schockenhoff's eyes, to declare a conduct as sinful or immoral implies immediately an unjust discrimination. One wonders, how, then, one could claim any conduct as sinful any more.  According to this German “theologian”, the Church should unconditionally accept homosexual couples and their immoral conduct.

In the wake of this interview, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, one of the organizers of the Private Rome Meeting of May 25, 2015, had the following to say on June 5 at the German Protestant Church congress: To find a consensus within the Catholic Church concerning the question of how to deal with homosexual couples is “extremely difficult,” since there are vast differences between European, African, and southern American Catholics. With respect to the upcoming synod of bishops, the liberal prelate promised the audience, speaking this sentence in English: “I'll do my very best.”

These comments from the liberal group of “Catholic” leaders in Germany are countered by an interview that the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, gave the Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost for its June 6 edition. Cardinal Mueller rebuked the German lay organization central committee of German Catholics (ZDK) for their recent liberal demands concerning marriage and the family, namely a church's blessing of homosexual couples and an acceptance of second civil marriages. “One does not have there [at the ZDK] competence – instead of the magisterium – to interpret essential contents of revelation, nor to empty them out.” The ZDK cannot, in Mueller's eyes, refer to a democratic backing when it comes to the mission of the Catholic Church in the world. The claim to bless something that God Himself does not call good and which is a violation of the sixth commandment, is a “stunning contradiction against the word of God.”

Cardinal Mueller, in the same interview, also supported Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin's now-famous claim that Ireland's referendum is a “defeat for humanity.” Mueller congratulated everybody “who did not bend their knees in front of the idols of self-creation and self-redemption, both of which will lead us with certainty into the self-destruction – just as other political ideologies have done it, too.”  And Mueller assured the readers that a majority (of a vote) in itself had nothing to say about its truthfulness. “The truth will prevail, even if with great sacrifices!”

Similarly, the grave effects of Ireland’s May 22 referendum in favour of same-sex “marriages,” not only for the secular world, but also especially for the Catholic Church, are showing themselves already.

  

None other than the leading cardinal who has promoted the liberal agenda for the two-part Synod of Bishops on the Family, Cardinal Walter Kasper, has now come out publicly and with force, telling the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera that the Church needs to address more fully the question of same-sex couples. This topic was at the last Synod “only a marginal topic, but now it becomes central,” Kasper said on Wednesday.

Kasper also defended the vote of the Irish in favour of homosexual “marriages,” saying: “A democratic state has the duty to respect the will of the people; and it seems clear that, if the majority of the people wants such homosexual unions, the state has a duty to recognize such rights.” 

On the contrary, scripture refers to the vice of homosexuality with special severity:

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22). “If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them” (Lev. 20:13).

Again, we read: “And the Lord said: The cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is multiplied, and their sin is become exceedingly grievous” (Gen. 18:20). The angels arrived at Lot’s house, under the appearance of two handsome men. “But before they went to bed, the men of the city beset the house both young and old, all the people together. And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? Bring them out hither that we may know them. . . . And they pressed very violently upon Lot; and they were even at the point of breaking open the doors. And behold the men [angels] put out their hand, and drew in Lot unto them, and shut the door. And them that were without, they struck with blindness from the least to the greatest, so that they could not find the door” (Gen. 19:4-11). “And they [the angels] said to Lot: Hast thou here any of thine?…all that are thine bring them out of this city, for we will destroy this place, because their cry [of their crimes] is grown loud before the Lord, who hath sent us to destroy them” (Gen. 19:12-13). “And they brought him forth, and set him without the city: and there they spoke to him, saying: Save thy life; look not back, neither stay thou in all the country about, but save thyself in the mountain, lest thou be also consumed” (Gen. 19:17). “And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. And he destroyed these cities, and all the country about, all the inhabitants of the cities, and all things that spring from the earth. And his wife looking behind her, was turned into a statue of salt. And Abraham got up early in the morning, and . . . looked towards Sodom and Gomorrha, and the whole land of that country, and he saw the ashes rise up from the earth as the smoke of a furnace” (Gen. 19:24-28).

Again, on the punishment that God prepared for the Jews, we read: “And I will give children to be their princes, and the effeminate shall rule over them . . . the shew of their countenance hath answered them: and they have proclaimed abroad their sin as Sodom, and they have not hid it: woe to their souls, for evils are rendered to them. . . . The Lord standeth to judge the people” (Is. 3:4-13). Vague references to sodomites, without special interest for our exposition, are found in 1 Tim. 1:8-10. For other references to Sodom and Gomorrha, without express mention of the vice of homosexuality, see: Deut. 29:23; 32:32; Jer. 23:13-14; 49:18; 50:40; Ezech. 16:55-56; Matt. 10:15; Rom. 9:29; Apoc. 11:8.

In the New Testament, Saint Paul indignantly castigates this vice against nature: “Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind [sodomites] . . . shall possess the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10). In the Epistle to the Romans, the Apostle of the Gentiles threatens perverts with punishments even on this earth: “Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error” (Rom. 1:24-27).

Saint Peter, the first Pope, stresses the infamy of the sin of sodomy and the chastisement God reserves for it: “For if God . . . reducing the cities of the Sodomites, and of the Gomorrhites, into ashes, condemned them to be overthrown, making them an example to those that should after act wickedly, and delivered just Lot, oppressed by the injustice and lewd conversation of the wicked . . . [then] the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly from temptation, but to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be tormented” (2 Peter 2:4-9).

Saint Jude is no less severe: “As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighboring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire, in like manner these men also defile the flesh, and despise dominion [of Christ], and blaspheme majesty” (Jude 7-8).

Of course the Bible, as any good historian knows, is a product of the Catholic Church. From the above quotations therefore, one can see the Church’s severe stance on the sin of homosexuality. The first statement of a Church council on homosexual practices was issued by the Council of Elvira (305-306). The decree excludes from communion, even in articulo mortis (at the moment of death), the stupratores puerorum (defilers of boys). The decree of the Council of Ancyra, held in Asia Minor in 314, strongly influenced the Western Church, and it was often cited as authoritative in later enactments against homosexual practices. Canon 17 speaks about those “who . . . commit [acts of] defilement with animals or males.” The Council of Ancyra established for these crimes a series of punishments according to the age and state of life of the infractors: “Those who have committed such crimes before age twenty, after fifteen years of penance, will be readmitted to the communion of prayer. Then, after remaining five years in that communion, let them receive the sacraments of oblation. However, let their lives be analyzed to establish how long a period of penance they should sustain in order to obtain mercy. For if they unrestrainedly gave themselves over to these crimes, let them devote more time to doing penance. However, those aged twenty and over and married who fall into these crimes, let them do penance for twenty-five years and [then] be received in the communion of prayer; and, remaining in it for five years, let them finally receive the sacraments of oblation. Moreover, if those who are married and over fifty years of age commit these crimes, let them obtain the grace of communion only at the end of their lives.”

Pope Saint Siricius (384-399) issued norms for admission into the priestly state. They apply indirectly to homosexuality: “We deem it advisable to establish that, just as not everyone should be allowed to do a penance reserved for clerics, so also a layman should never be allowed to ascend to clerical honor after penance and reconciliation. Because although they have been purified of the contagion of all sins, those who formerly indulged in a multitude of vices should not receive the instruments to administer the Sacraments.”

In the opening speech of the XVI Council of Toledo in 693, Egica, the Gothic King of Spain, exhorts the clergy to fight against homosexual practices: “See that you determine to extirpate that obscene crime committed by those who lie with males, whose fearful conduct defiles the charm of honest living and provokes from heaven the wrath of the Supreme Judge.”

The most complete set of norms against homosexual practices in the medieval era is contained in the canons approved at the Council of Naplouse, assembled on January 23, 1120 under the direction of Garmund, Patriarch of Jerusalem, and Baldwin, King of the same city. On that occasion, a sermon was preached about the evils that had befallen the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Earthquakes, plagues, and attacks by the Saracens were judged as a punishment from Heaven for the sins of the people. As a consequence, the Council issued twenty-five canons against the sins of the flesh, four of which related to homosexual practices. Death at the stake was decreed for those convicted of those specific crimes.

The Third Lateran Council (1179) establishes: “Anyone caught in the practice of the sin against nature, on account of which the wrath of God was unleashed upon the children of disobedience (Eph. 5:6), if he is a cleric, let him be demoted from his state and kept in reclusion in a monastery to do penance; if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated and kept rigorously distant from the communion of the faithful.”

Such was the horror that surrounded the sin against nature that, by the late twelfth century, sodomy was a reserved sin for which absolution was reserved to the Pope and, in some cases, to the Bishop.

Nevertheless, with the Renaissance this vice surfaced again. Homosexuality was a matter of grave concern to Saint Pius V. As the well-known historian von Pastor narrates, “In the first year of his pontificate, the Pope had two preponderant concerns: zeal for the Inquisition and the struggle against ‘this horrendous sin whereby the justice of God caused the cities contaminated by it to be consumed in flames.’ On April 1, 1566, he ordered that sodomites be turned over to the secular arm. . . . The various imprisonments of sodomites . . . impressed Rome and frightened especially well-established people, for it was known that the Pope wanted his laws enforced even against the powerful. Indeed, to punish for vices against nature, the torment of the stake was applied throughout the pontificate of Saint Pius V. . . . An earlier papal Brief mandated that clerics who were guilty of that crime be stripped of all their posts, dignities, and income, and, after degradation, be handed over to the secular arm.” The Holy Inquisitor promulgated two Constitutions in which he castigates and punishes the sin against nature.

In the Constitution Cum Primum of April 1, 1566, Saint Pius V solemnly established: “Having set our minds to remove everything that may in some way offend the Divine Majesty, We resolve to punish, above all and without indulgence, those things which, by the authority of the Sacred Scriptures or by most grievous examples, are most repugnant to God and elicit His wrath; that is, negligence in divine worship, ruinous simony, the crime of blasphemy, and the execrable libidinous vice against nature. For which faults peoples and nations are scourged by God, according to His just condemnation, with catastrophes, wars, famine and plagues. . . . Let the judges know that, if even after this Our Constitution, they are negligent in punishing these crimes, they will be guilty of them at Divine Judgment and will also incur Our indignation. . . . If someone commits that nefarious crime against nature that caused divine wrath to be unleashed against the children of iniquity, he will be given over to the secular arm for punishment; and if he is a cleric, he will be subject to analogous punishment after having been stripped of all his degrees [of ecclesiastical dignity].”

Saint Pius V is no less rigorous in the Constitution Horrendum Illud Scelus of August 30, 1568. He teaches: “That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were burned by virtue of divine condemnation, causes Us most bitter sorrow and shocks Our mind, impelling it to repress such a crime with the highest possible zeal.

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] decrees: “Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature . . . be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery, so that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity, taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, We determine that they should be handed over to the secular authority, which enforces civil law. Therefore, wishing to pursue with the greatest rigor that which We have decreed since the beginning of Our Pontificate, We establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be executed as mandated by law, according to the appropriate punishment for laymen plunged in this abyss” (chap. 4, X, V, 31).

The Code of Canon Law undertaken at the initiative and encouragement of Saint Pius X, and published in 1917 by his successor Pope Benedict XV, says this: “So far as laymen are concerned, the sin of sodomy is punished ipso facto with the pain of infamy and other sanctions to be applied according to the prudent judgment of the Bishop depending on the gravity of each case (Can. 2357). As for ecclesiastics and religious, if they are clerici minoris [that is, of a degree lower than deacon], let them be punished with various measures, proportional to the gravity of the fault, that can even include dismissal from the clerical state (Can. 2358); if they are clerici maiores [that is, deacons, priests or bishops], let them ‘be declared infamous and suspended from every post, benefit, dignity, deprived of their eventual stipend and, in the gravest cases, let them be deposed’ (Can. 2359, par. 2).”

So many saints and doctors of the Church such as St Augustine, Saint Basil of Caesarea, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Peter Damian, Saint Albert the Great, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Bonaventure, Saint Catherine of Siena, Saint Bernardine of Siena and Saint Peter Canisius have denounced the sin of homosexuality.

   On Francis’ looming Ecological Manifesto

                                                        

                                                 

                                                   By Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi 

On June 16, Francis 1 is expected to release an encyclical letter on the environment, the Catholic Church’s strongest statement to date on the moral issues associated with climate change. It’s a move that has environmentalists very excited — and one GOP presidential nominee less than thrilled, said Climate Progress.

During an interview with a Philadelphia radio station on Monday, June 1, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, a Catholic, said that while he loves “Pope” Francis, he thinks the “Pope” should leave discussions about climate change to scientists.

“The church has gotten it wrong a few times on science,” Santorum told radio host Dom Giordano. “We probably are better off leaving science to the scientists, and focusing on what we’re really good at, which is theology and morality.”

“When we get involved with controversial and scientific theories, I think the Church is not as forceful and not as credible,” Santorum continued. “I’ve said this to the Catholic bishops many times — when they get involved in agriculture policy, or things like that, that are really outside of the scope of what the Church’s main message is, that we’re better off sticking to the things that are really the core teachings of the Church as opposed to getting involved in every other kind of issue that happens to be popular at the time.”

Interestingly, while we notice here that Rick Santorum is merely manifesting his profound ignorance of the vital role Catholicism stands to play in the domain of science—and indeed in all areas of life on this planet—Bergoglio’s defenders have debunked Santorum by arguing that after all Bergoglio studied chemistry as a young man, therefore he is a competent scientist to speak on the issue!

Vatican officials confirmed last month that the much-anticipated "encyclical" is already finished and ready for translation. An “encyclical” is the most developed form of papal teaching, and this will be the very first such document ever devoted entirely to the environment.

To set the table, the Vatican co-hosted a summit on climate change in Rome last month along with the United Nations, with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon as the headliner. The Heartland Institute, a leading American forum for climate change and global warming sceptics, organised a rump event in Rome, but those voices were pointedly not invited inside the Vatican and UN conference.

The near-universal expectation is that Francis’s encyclical will lend the moral authority of the Catholic Church to calls for stronger environmental protection, including limits on greenhouse gas emissions as part of the anti-climate change push.

Francis has already tipped his hand about the document’s contents in multiple ways. He’s said he wanted the document out by mid-2015 so it would influence a UN climate change summit set for Paris in December. He said he hopes the nations gathered at the event will make “courageous” choices—clearly implying that he doesn’t believe efforts to date have been especially courageous!

In January, he went on record saying he believes climate change is largely man-made, going so far as to fault humanity for “slapping around” the natural world. Bergoglio is also fond of saying, whenever talk turns to the environment, that “God always forgives, man sometimes forgives, but nature never forgives.”

The “encyclical” is already generating significant criticism. Some are coming from secular sceptics on global warming and climate change, but presumably more worrying for Bergoglio is blowback from within the Church.

One such voice was heard last month in a piece by Riccardo Cascioli for La nuova Bussola Quotidiana, a widely read Italian Catholic web site. Cascioli’s concluding line is, “The road the church is heading down is precisely this: To quietly approve population control while talking about something else.”

The heart of Cascioli’s case is not just that the United Nations is, in some ways, an odd partner for the Catholic Church, since some UN agencies over the years have engaged in titanic battles with the Church over issues such as whether condoms should be part of anti-AIDS efforts in the developing world.

It’s also that environmentalism and population control are intrinsically linked—at least in their present forms. Cascioli believes you simply can’t have one without the other.

For those not familiar with Cascioli’s work, he’s a former Vatican Radio employee who co-authored a two-volume work entitled Lies of the Environmentalists in 2004 and 2006. Among other things, the book argued that radical eco-activists deny the unique spiritual status of human beings in a way incompatible with Christian orthodoxy.

To date, Cascioli’s main concern has been with secular environmentalism. Now, however, he believes those forces are infiltrating the Church at its highest level.

“Up to this point, the Holy See has always represented the final and inviolable obstacle in defence of human dignity against a globalist ideology,” he wrote last month. With Bergoglio’s new encyclical, he said, the moment may be at hand when “the Catholic Church is swept into the ecological chorus … sustaining its official doctrine on the climate.”

The logical consequence, Cascioli believes, will be for the Catholic Church to lower its guard against abortion, contraception, and other population control measures, because the “ecological chorus” is convinced the main threat to sustainable development and environmental harmony is human over-population.

“It’s the usual story,” he writes. “To eliminate poverty, all you have to do is to physically eliminate the poor.”

In opposition to that, Cascioli cites traditional Catholic doctrine that “every human life is sacred and cannot be sacrificed for any motive,” adding his own coda: “Not even to save the planet.” You don’t have to control population growth in order to clean up the environment!

Cascioli’s core point is that you can’t buy only part of the secular environmental agenda. If Catholicism officially embraces the crusade against climate change, he warns, the momentum will carry the Church to places it will regret going.

Whatever one makes of Cascioli’s point, it would be a mistake to conclude he’s the only one who feels this way. He speaks for a powerful constituency in the Church, including Catholics most committed to pro-life causes. As one of such Catholics, Michael remarked, “it is rather Bergoglio's emissions that are causing global climate change.

“Talk about harmful man-made emissions affecting the global climate...”, he writes, “how about the emissions constantly spewing out of Bergoglio's big mouth...? Those are having a severe detrimental effect on the global morality climate. The more he talks the lower the global morality index plunges... The world-wide climate for Catholic families is deteriorating due to warming up of the global radical homosexual campaigns to redefine the most basic unit of society which is the family... There are rising levels of acceptance of abortion and contraception... deviant sexual brainwashing programs are flooding our schools and drowning our children....

“Previously unrecorded storms of heresy and blasphemy are erupting in parishes world-wide and causing widespread spiritual illness in all of the Catholic religious orders—affecting priests, nuns and laity... Bergoglio is definitely changing the global climate in the worst way possible... (the real "Francis effect"). One thing this shows us is the power of the Catholic Church and the papacy to change the world... for good... or for evil...”

It’s Heresy: Francis’ “Ecumenism of Blood”

Fear Francis more than ISIS...

                               

Bergoglio’s heresies are a direct attack on the Body of Christ

This post is not going to make us a lot of friends, but we’ll publish it anyway, since our desire is to serve and please God, not man (cf. Gal 1:10).

We have all heard about the horrific murders of men, women, and children by the ISIS terrorists. The barbarism of these people is beyond comprehension — they are clearly tools of the devil. In response to the most recent video that shows the beheading of 21 Egyptian men for professing belief in Christ, “His Holiness” Francis made a statement on February 16, 2015. As it is very brief, we reproduce the entire news clip from Vatican Radio below:

"Pope Francis on Monday denounced the murder of 21 Coptic Christians by ISIL militants in Libya. The Islamist terrorist organization released a video of the killings on Sunday. 

Speaking in Spanish to an ecumenical delegation from the Church of Scotland, the Holy Father noted those killed only said “Jesus help me.”

“They were killed simply for the fact they were Christians,” Pope Francis said.

“The blood of our Christian brothers and sisters is a testimony which cries out to be heard,” said the Pope.  It makes no difference whether they be Catholics, Orthodox, Copts or Protestants. They are Christians! Their blood is one and the same. Their blood confesses Christ.''

"Pope Francis said that in remembering these brothers and sisters who have been murdered simply for confessing Christ, Christians should encourage one another in the ecumenical goal, noting the “ecumenism of blood.”

“The martyrs belong to all Christians,” he said. (“Pope Francis: The blood of murdered Copts a ‘witness that cries out’”, Vatican Radio, Feb. 16, 2015)

“Pope” Francis has promoted his idea of an “ecumenism of blood” before, but it is absolutely clear and unmistakableheresy — in direct contradiction to an infallible dogma proclaimed by Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence in the fifteenth century:

[This council] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Council of Florence, Decree Cantate Domino; Denz. 714; underlining added.)

This absolutely, definitively, and infallibly excludes any possibility of an “ecumenism of blood.” No one dying for the name of Jesus Christ can attain to eternal life unless he is joined to the Catholic Church, either as a formal member, or, if invincible ignorance should prevent his becoming a member, through the genuine virtues of Faith, hope, and charity, the latter of which, to be true charity, must animate the sincere desire to enter the Catholic Church, even if this desire be only implicit. 

As the great anti-Modernist Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton explains:"...the forgiveness of sin and the infusion of the life of grace is available by the power of Christ only "within" His kingdom, His Mystical Body, which, in this period of the New Testament [i.e., as opposed to the time of the Old Covenant--NOW], is the visible Catholic Church.  

"…Now, while it is possible to have a desire to be within the Church, and, indeed even to be a member of the Church, without having the love of charity for God, it is quite impossible to have charity without being within the true Church, at least by an implicit desire to dwell in it. The love of charity is, by its very nature, a sovereign affection.

"…The love of charity is essentially something in the line of intention rather than of mere velleity. The man who loves God with the true affection of charity actually intends, insofar as it is possible for him to do so, to do the will of God. It is definitely the will of God that all men should enter and live within the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. It is impossible for a man who really loves God with the affection of divine charity not to be within the Church as a member or at least to desire with a sincere and effective, even though perhaps only an implicit, intention to enter this company.

"Hence, if a man is not “within” the Church at least by a sincere desire or affection, he has not the genuine love of charity for God." (Mgr. Joseph C. Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation [Westminster: The Newman Press, 1958], pp. 38-40.)

This scenario, under which someone who objectively professes heresy but is subjectively not guilty of the sin of heresy and instead possesses the love of charity and genuinely seeks to believe all that God has revealed, is killed for professing Christ, is known as the Baptism of Blood. (The term ‘baptism’ here is to be understood loosely, as it merely produces the grace of regeneration, not the sacramental character [indelible mark], and many who profess heresy but are not subjectively guilty of the sin of heresy already received a valid sacramental baptism in their own church. Cf. Pietro Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, s.v. “Baptism”.)

It is possible, therefore, that those poor ISIS victims were indeed saved. However, the Baptism of Blood is infinitely far removed from the heretical notion of an “ecumenism of blood” pushed by Francis, which holds that Catholics and heretics are spiritually and/or theologically united by being killed for professing allegiance to Christ. If this were so, then it would mean that the motive of the killer can cause religious unity between Catholics and Protestants, two religions that are exclusive of each other because their claims are mutually exclusive and per se irreconcilable. It would also mean that the Body of Christ has not “one Faith” (Eph 4:5) but several different faiths which contradict one another. The unity of the Church would be destroyed; but: “I believe in … one holy Catholic and apostolic Church” (Nicene Creed).

Furthermore, whereas in a baptism of blood the martyr dies within the Catholic Church of our Lord and any adherence to heresy which may exist would be entirely accidental and not intended (i.e. not pertinacious), in Francis’ proposed “ecumenism of blood” anyone who professes allegiance to Christ is per se considered united to the Church, regardless of any attachment to heresy or a false religion. This is clearly condemned by the decree of the Council of Florence, quoted above. 

To put it succinctly: In the baptism of blood, being united to the Catholic Church is a necessary precondition for one's martyrdom to lead to salvation; whereas in the ecumenism of blood, unity with the Catholic Church is, at best, the inevitable consequence of the martyrdom. This would then make any and all martyrs ipso facto into Catholics, and one might as well include Muslims then, too, for there is no theologically satisfactory reason why if a Protestant who dies for his faith goes to Heaven, this couldn’t also be affirmed of a Muslim dying for his religion. The inevitable result of this is indifferentism, the idea that it ultimately doesn’t matter what religion you profess. Indifferentism was sternly condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (1864).

And thus we see that an “Ecumenism of Blood” is an absurdity, simply the latest in Modernist-indifferentist hogwash dressed up as Catholic theology and foisted upon an unsuspecting populace by the enemies of the true Catholic Faith. Beware of the Modernists, who cleverly seek to eliminate all distinction between true religion and false religion (cf. 2 Cor 6:14; Gal 1:8-9), when for 2,000 years Catholics went to the most cruel deaths rather than admit even the slightest alteration to the true doctrine. In the 1500s, the Catholic Church was willing to see the entire nation of England defect into schism and heresy, and people like St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More to be martyred, rather than so much as grant a fake marriage annulment or compromise on her doctrine by one iota. How things have changed!

Some more words of clarification are in order. 

We understand that in the face of these horrific acts perpetrated by ISIS, many people think theological disputes between Catholics and Protestants are mere trifles by comparison and so view Francis’ “ecumenism of blood” as a great and charitable approach to bring Catholics and Protestants together in the face of such a terrifying threat. The truth, however, is very different.

Our Blessed Lord counseled us to fear not him who can kill the body, but him who can kill the soul: “And I say to you, my friends: Be not afraid of them who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will shew you whom you shall fear: fear ye him, who after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell. Yea, I say to you, fear him” (Lk 12:4-5). These are the very words of God Himself — truer ones have never been spoken. “But God is true; and every man a liar…” (Rom 3:4). 

The atrocities committed by ISIS are indeed cruel, but heresy is an infinitely greater danger, because heresy attacks and destroys the soul: “Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God” (2 Jn 1:9). Pope Clement XIII taught likewise: “Meanwhile the matter is such that diabolical error, when it has artfully colored its lies, easily clothes itself in the likeness of truth while very brief additions or changes corrupt the meaning of expressions; and confession, which usually works salvation, sometimes, with a slight change, inches toward death” (Clement XIII, Encyclical In Dominico Agro, n. 2).

What this means in practice is that Francis is to be feared much more than ISIS. Islamist terrorists can harm the body but the body alone — Francis, as a Modernist apostate, papal impostor, and spiritual terrorist, has power to send souls to an eternity of hell fire, “where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished” (Mk 9:43). The jihadi terrorist presents himself clearly as a threat to your bodily well-being, and once he has killed you, his terror is forever over. But the Modernist “Pope” presents himself as an “angel of light” (cf. 2 Cor 11:14), as a kind and benevolent spiritual guide, poisoning your soul gradually so you won’t notice. He is therefore the much greater danger and thus much more to be feared. “[T]he moderate [Modernist] is the real Satanic type; his is the masked evil” (Fr. Felix Sarday Salvany, Liberalism is a Sin, Ch. 16).

Francis’ use of the slaughter of Egyptian Copts to promote his heresy of an ecumenism of blood is shameful and diabolical. Francis’ message here is ultimately that Christ’s Truth does not matter, that the Church consists of many different faiths, that heresy is no obstacle to salvation, and that in the end, none of this “doctrinal stuff” is of any significance. Apparently, Saints Thomas More and John Fisher were just idiots for going to their deaths over such “squabbles.” Francis is essentially spitting Christ in His holy Face, who is “the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6) and who must be worshipped “in spirit and in truth” (Jn 4:23). Gone is the “one Faith” proclaimed by St. Paul (Eph. 4:5).

“Pope” Francis leads souls astray in the most devious and clever manner possible: with words that sound comforting and sweet but which in reality are but a cloak for the most destructive poison.

Even if you, dear reader, are not in agreement with us on this point and believe that Francis’ Ecumenism of Blood is a great and noble concept, please recognize at least one thing: that what Francis preaches is contradicted by the teaching of the Council of Florence, as we showed above. And yet, the Cathoilc Church teaches that the dogmas of her Faith cannot change, cannot “develop” under the pretext of a “deeper understanding”:

"…[T]hat understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding…. “Therefore . . . let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.” (First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Ch. 4; Denz. 1800)

The religion promoted by Francis is not the Catholic religion of old. The man is not a Catholic, and he therefore cannot be the head of the Catholic Church. 

Fear him, for he leads souls to hell.

Image source: Scene from The Passion of the Christ, modified.

Source: Novus Ordo Watch.

Re: “Rev.” Emma Percy says only using ‘He’ may make women feel less Christian

               

                                   By Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi  

A group in the “Church” of England says it will shift the language of worship to call God a female, just to be fair, and to combat sexism, says Berean Research. So instead of praying “Our Father, Who art in heaven”, we will now have to say, “Our Mother, who art in heaven...”

Critics have derided the proposal as a case of political correctness gone mad.

The “Rev” Emma Percy, chaplain of Trinity College, Oxford, said the dominance of male language makes women feel that they are less holy. She is a member of Watch (Women and the Church), the group that helped win the argument for female “bishops” in the Church of England, and says using the word ‘She’ for God would be “more inclusive.”

The group feels that the ideas of King, Lord and Father are too “one-sided”: “If we continue to address our worship to an almost exclusively male God then we are failing God, because God is so much more than anybody can ever understand.”

The women “priests” behind the idea argued that using ‘He’ suggests men are closer to God and called for the tables to be turned on sexism in the “Church.”

+3

The “Rev.” Emma Percy (right) is among those campaigning to refer to God as 'She' in prayers, hymns, art and in “church” services.

“When we use only male language for God we reinforce the idea that God is like a man and, in doing so, suggest that men are therefore more like God than women,” she told The Sunday Times last week.

“This means that women can see themselves as less holy and less able to represent Christ in the world. If we take seriously the idea that men and women are made in the image of God, both male and female language should be used.”

The Rev Kate Bottley, “vicar” of St Mary and St Martin’s, in Blyth, Nottinghamshire, told the paper that she and other “priests” had quietly dropped references to ‘He’ and ‘Him’ when referring to God.

+3

Gogglebox star and “Vicar”, Kate Bottley, of St Mary and St Martin's, in Blyth, Nottinghamshire, is among those who have removed references to 'He' and 'Him' in services where possible.

And Hilary Cotton, chairman of Watch, said the idea had been discussed by a Lambeth Palace committee exploring the experiences of women in the “Church”, known as the ‘transformations steering group’. She added: “We have conversations among that group and we are working towards working with those who are involved in liturgy in the Church of England.”

“We are at a very, very preliminary stage in terms of shifting the language of worship.” She went on to say: “The question of how might we rewrite the services of the Church of England in a way that broadens our understanding of God is a difficult question over which we will wrestle for a number of years. This has arisen now because of a change in gender culture.”

She said the fact that Christianity emerged during the Roman empire meant the ideas of King, Lord and Father were central to the Church, adding: “If we continue to address our worship to an almost exclusively male God then we are failing God, because God is so much more than anybody can ever understand.”

The “Reverend” Libby Lane became the first female “bishop” in a service conducted by the “Archbishop” of York, John Sentamu, in January.

But she insisted that a female God was “not a campaigning issue in the same way that getting women bishops was”, adding: “This is more about experiment. To encourage people to expand their imagery of God.” A spokesman for Lambeth Palace said: “The transformations steering group is an independent group made up of women clergy exploring issues relating to the reception of women in ministry.

“The Archbishop of Canterbury offers a meeting space at Lambeth Palace, but does not have a formal role in the group or participate in its discussions. Any change in the formal liturgy of the Church of England would require consent, revision and final approval of the General Synod. Even prior to that point, there would need to be substantial consultation with the Liturgical Commission.”

It is now more than 20 years since the first woman was “ordained” as a Church of England “priest”, and the first woman “bishop” – the “Rev.” Libby Lane – was “consecrated” this year.

On Saturday, May 30, Miss Widdecombe, who left the “Church” of England and became a Catholic over the decision to ordain women as “priests”, said: “God clearly isn’t a She as a She can’t be a father. This is plain silly, unbiblical and ridiculous. I think it’s the work of a few lunatics.”

But any Catholic who thinks this madness can only be witnessed in the “Church” of England or in other Protestant “churches” is just deceiving himself. In this regard, particularly on the issue of women leaders in the Church, defenders of Jorge Bergoglio have always quoted him: “On the ordination of women, the church has spoken and said no. John Paul II, in a definitive formulation said that door is closed.”- July 28, 2013.

However, the same Mr. Bergoglio, ever tactically confusing in his speeches, vomited the following just two months after:

“It is necessary to broaden the opportunities for a stronger presence of women in the church. I am wary of a solution that can be reduced to a kind of ‘female machismo,’ because a woman has a different make-up than a man. But what I hear about the role of women is often inspired by an ideology of machismo.” – September 30, 2013, interview with America Magazine.

“Women are asking deep questions that must be addressed. The church cannot be herself without the woman and her role. The woman is essential for the church. Mary, a woman, is more important than the bishops. I say this because we must not confuse the function with the dignity. We must therefore investigate further the role of women in the church. We have to work harder to develop a profound theology of the woman. Only by making this step will it be possible to better reflect on their function within the church. The feminine genius is needed wherever we make important decisions. The challenge today is this: to think about the specific place of women also in those places where the authority of the church is exercised for various areas of the church.” - September 30, 2013, interview with America Magazine.

“The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the Spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion, but it can prove especially divisive if sacramental power is too closely identified with power in general.”  – Evangelii Gaudium, November 24, 2013.

“We need to create still broader opportunities for a more incisive female presence in the Church. Because “the feminine genius is needed in all expressions in the life of society, the presence of women must also be guaranteed in the workplace and in the various other settings where important decisions are made, both in the Church and in social structures.” - Evangelii Gaudium, November 24, 2013.

A Defense of Conciliar Popes / Mentevacantism: Eleison Comments by Bishop Williamson

Conciliar Popes I

The world has always known bad Popes, but never as in today’s world more corrupt than ever.

Whenever the claim is put forward that the Conciliar Popes may be at least partly in good faith, there are usually Catholics that protest. They will say that the Popes are intelligent and educated churchmen, so it is impossible that they do not fully realize what they are doing. The “mentevacantist” theory, according to which these Popes have vacant minds, partly ignorant of the consequences of their own actions, is for these critics absurd. One can understand the protest, but let me quote a friend who understands “mentevacantism” as it needs to be understood:—

“The idea that Popes can be mistaken in good faith because they hold that certain errors are not opposed to the Faith, gets little serious attention, because people have a concept of the papacy too detached from the world, whereas the whole history of the Popes is a history of men of their time being liable to share in all the good and bad habits and vices of their time. The difference lies in the power of the error, which has never been so mighty as it is today, mankind never having been, as one must not forget, so degenerate as today.

“For indeed liberalism is now everywhere and it is overwhelming, no longer a mere thought, or way of thinking, but a very way of being that permeates every man alive, be he an absolute liberal in himself, or an agent of liberalism and its subversion, or merely one of its tools. Such is the case of the Conciliar Popes. They think they are drawing close to the world to heal it. They do not realize that it is the world which is drawing them to itself to infect and control them.

“In such a situation as this, one can certainly speak of liberal Popes but not of non-Catholic Popes, insofar as there is lacking the prime requisite for such a condemnation, namely the personal will on their part to be liberals and not Catholics. All one can do is recognize the fact that in these Popes there is the personal will to be Catholics and not anti-Catholic liberals, since for them there is no contradiction between the two, far from it. According to their theologian and thinker, Joseph Ratzinger, liberalism is one of the good by-products of Catholicism, needing only to be cleansed of certain alien distortions imported into it. And so as for destroying the Church, it stands to reason that Popes believing in such a compromised Catholicism cannot help one of the consequences of their actions being the destruction of the Church.

“Concerning Archbishop Lefebvre, given that he grew up in a Church quite different from today’s Church, I can only conclude that for him it was impossible for a Catholic acting as an instrument of subversion not to realize what he was doing. Still less could a Pope not realize. From reading between the lines of certain of the Archbishop’s writings, I do believe that while his vision of the world certainly included the process of degeneration reaching down to the end of time, it did not include that process involving in any clear manner the Church as well.”

I can just hear readers objecting to this kind of analysis: “Oh, Excellency, please stop defending the Conciliar Popes. It’s black or white. If they’re black, I’ll be a happy sedevacantist. If they’re white, I’ll be a happy liberal. Your greys do nothing but confuse me!”

Dear reader, black is black, white is white, but rarely in real life do we find pure white, and never pure black (whatever is, has the goodness of being). If you want to understand this relative excusing of the Conciliar Popes, the key is to grasp that the world has never been so deeply bad as it is today. From this unprecedented degeneracy it is obvious that Conciliar Popes are in this respect more excusable for going astray in the Faith than any of their predecessors.

Kyrie eleison.

Source: OPERATION SURVIVAL .ORG

       Tribute to Vladimir Putin

They loved Gorbachev because he killed the Bear... They adored Yeltsin because he allowed them to feed on the carcass of the Bear... They now hate and fear Putin because he resurrected the Bear!

Watching President Vladimir Putin feels like watching history being made. Despite the relentless propaganda aimed against President Putin by the political West, his star continues to rise. When the political history of the current age is finally recorded by future generations, Russia's Putin will no doubt be recognized as one of the greatest leaders in world history. 

Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is believed to have said that the natural wealth found in the vastness of the Russian Federation was too much for one country to posses. It is now obvious that the West would have loved to live off the bountiful carcass of the Soviet Union. They managed to do just that during the 1990s when Russia was on its knees. Russia's Western-backed oligarchs illegally acquired their immense wealth at the time. But that was merely not enough for them. Some of them joined forces with Western interests and began conspiring against the Russian state. Their ultimate intent was to either fragment Russia or weaken it significantly by making it subservient to the political West. Through theirpowerful connections inside a post-Soviet Russia, they exploited the nation's wealth as the Russian nation when into deep remission.

Then, unexpectedly Vladimir Putin appeared on the scene. The Kremlin was liberated. Within a few short years Vladimir Putin turned what in essence was a failed state into a great world power once again. Western powers are now trying to figure out who is this Vladimir Putin and what went wrong with their grand plans to exploit the Eurasian continent at will. 

I wish a great leader like Vladimir Putin appears in the US as well. Only a Putinesque leader can save the US from its political/financial decline and cultural degradation. But we all know that such a thing would never happen in the US because America's mighty oligarchs (i.e. its mega-corporations, Wall Street banksters, oil men, war profiteers and Jewish interests) tightly control the reigns of government in Washington and the American people are utterly  powerless against them.

I firmly believe that western/European civilization, apostolic Christianity, conservatism in social affairs, the traditional family and political sanity on earth will prove to have been preserved as a result of the sudden emergence of the Russian Federation as a superpower reasserting itself in global affairs. The sociopolitical mechanisms put into place by President Putin will one day prove to have saved humanity from another dark age. Under President Putin, the Russian Federation has become the last and only front against the Anglo-American-Zionist global empire; the only front against Pan-Turkism; the only front against Islamic extremism; and the only front against the world's newest form of Bolshevism - Globalism.

Nonetheless, imagine the political state of world today without the existence of the Russian Federation as a geopolitical factor. President Vladimir Putin's appearance on the political stage was in a sense God sent. What he and his supporters in the Kremlin managed to accomplish during the past decade was in my opinion one of history's most important turning points. President Putin turned me, an Armenian nationalist and a proud American libertarian - into a Russophile.

Arevordi

Source: Heralding the Rise of Russia.