Bergoglio’s encouragement of airing heresy is severing the Church!

Synod of Doom

In his piece THE CASE OF THE DUAL PAPACY—"DEUX PAPES VERMOULU", Father Paul Kramer writes: “By Catholic standards, Bergoglio is a heathen—an unbeliever, an infidel. Such a one, even if he had been canonically elected, such a one is to be "cast out and trampled underfoot by men", according to Innocent III (Sermo IV)". See: 

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/05/case-of-dual-papacy-deuxpapes-vermoulu.html. 

Now that the man has manifested himself more openly, can Catholics finally recognise his true (albeit veiled) identity?   

The evil Synod, of more than 300 bishops and delegates is due to end  on Saturday (today) afternoon after participants vote on more than 1,300 proposed changes to the Synod’s final report. While the advisory body does not have the power to alter church doctrine, there is great anticipation on the kind of language the document will use to discuss the most contentious issues. The “pope”, who is the final arbiter on any change and who has called for a “more merciful and inclusive church”, can use the material to write his own document, known as an "apostolic exhortation".

“Bishop” Lucas Van Looy of Ghent, Belgium, seen as a progressive, told reporters he hoped the synod would lead to "the end of judging people, the end of a church that casts judgment over every situation". Another progressive, “Cardinal” Reinhard Marx of Germany, lamented that some bishops still saw the church "as a castle surrounded by enemies that has to be defended". Bergoglio called the two-part meeting—the first session took place a year ago. He will preside at a “Mass” in St. Peter's Basilica to close the gathering ceremonially on Sunday and his homily there could give further indications of his thinking.

LifeSiteNews reporter John Henry-Westen has just completed his good work of covering the evil Synod, and is flying home from Rome. For him, it is now clear—at last!—that “Pope Francis’ encouragement of airing heresy is severing the Church”!  

Hear him:

I’m writing this while flying home from Rome currently after an exhausting nine days of covering the Synod on the Family for LifeSiteNews and working with Voice of the Family to assist Synod Fathers in their task to defend the teaching of the Church.  The work is grueling -- sometimes twenty-hour days with very little time for anything but prayer and work. And prayer is a definite part of the work. A regular regimen of Mass and rosaries to implore the help of the Almighty and the assistance of the saints are not an option in this battle, which is more spiritual than anything else.

The stakes are incredibly high; they literally portend a major schism in the Catholic Church.  The reality is, despite the presentation of non-negativity and fraternity inside the Synod hall, or aula as it is called, those upholding orthodoxy have been fighting a pitched battle with powerful foes openly proposing heresy with not a word of correction from Pope Francis.

The heart of the hero-faction of this year’s Synod has shifted from the Africans last year to the Eastern Europeans.  They have spoken out, naming bluntly the evils being proposed by cardinals and bishops as having been inspired by the devil. But a powerful cardinal shot back by accusing faithful bishops of bringing “division,” the hallmark of Satan, he said.  Interestingly, when Archbishop Tomash Peta referred to the “smoke of Satan” entering the Church through the Synod’s heretical proposals he was being deadly serious. When Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schonborn retorted with his “smoke of Satan” rejoinder he paused for laughter at his Kazakhstan counterpart’s expense.

The most vociferous of the heretics at the Synod and those wielding the most power and meting out punishment are the Western Europeans with assistance from liberal Americans.  German Cardinal Walter Kasper it seems has taken a back seat to Cardinal Reinhard Marx, president of the German Bishops’ Conference, who with his intervention, published on the conference website, spells out his anti-Catholic proposal to allow Holy Communion to couples remarried after having left “canonically valid” marriages while their former spouses are still living. Even the escape hatch of the new couple living in continence as “brother and sister” was ruled out: Cardinal Marx said, “The advice to refrain from sexual acts in the new relationship not only appears unrealistic to many. It is also questionable whether sexual actions can be judged independent of the lived context.”

The Americans are split down the middle at the Synod with the appointees by Pope Francis touting heresy and shutting down those who were elected by their brother bishops in America to attend. Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich suggested openly to the media that even active homosexual couples could be given Holy Communion. Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl just completed a media tour using harsh language to put Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput in his place.

As for the Canadians, there are three who have garnered much attention.  The heroic act of Toronto Cardinal Thomas Collins as one of the thirteen Cardinals to sign on to the letter to the Pope expressing grave concern about manipulation at the Synod caused him much suffering. I met him at a restaurant and he looked very tired. I expressed a simple thanks and offered him prayers on behalf of life and family activists.  Archbishop Paul-Andre Durocher planted himself firmly in the progressive camp along with Fr. Thomas Rosica early on in the proceedings.

All the while Pope Francis has presided in silence, never correcting the heresies but in his private homilies in Casa Santa Marta denouncing again and again those “doctors of the law” who lack mercy and whose “self-righteous attitude” betrays them as Pharisees.

The bombshell of the Synod came Saturday when, apart from the Synod itself, the pope presided at a celebration commemorating the 50th anniversary of Pope Paul VI establishing the modern Synod of Bishops.  He used the opportunity to speak of a “decentralization” of the Catholic Church.  Ironically he used and cited the Church’s strictest teaching on papal authority to enforce a change which is being interpreted as divesting the papacy of that very authority.  The Christ-appointed authority of the Rock of Peter is unique to the Catholic Church and was given only to Peter (the Pope) to guarantee its unity and fidelity.

There’s hardly any other way to interpret what’s happening now in Rome. Prior to the Synod we had Cardinal Marx, one of the pope’s nine top advising cardinals, openly say that the German Church was “not a subsidiary of Rome” and that it would go ahead with its proposal to give Holy Communion to remarried divorcees.  He’s spelled it out as direct heresy at the Synod with no objection from the pope. And Pope Francis has ordered decentralization.

What is it exactly that bishops conferences are unable to do now other than alter Church teaching?  As Cardinal Arinze told me in my interview with him in Rome, they can do just about anything except change faith and morals, and if we’re changing that we’re no longer Catholic.

All the old errors of the 60s seem to have come back to haunt us. By gently chiding them rather than stamping them out and disciplining or ousting their proponents, we now have seven new evil spirits along with the first infesting the Church.  There are surely harder times coming with even greater confusion in the Church.

While the picture may seem bleak, we have no cause for worry.  We believe Christ’s promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. Moreover, a great hope was instilled in me during my brief journey to the heart of the battle.  It was a hope which came from witnessing and working with God’s littlest ones; with those clergy and laity, young and old, ready and willing to lay down their lives for the faith.  These are regular heroes ready to forgo fame and fortune, prestige and honor, to be faithful to the teachings of Christ in good times and in bad.  These are the little ones who form the "calcaneum Mariae" or the heel of Mary which is predicted in Genesis 3:15 to crush the head of the serpent.

Bishop Schneider warns of ‘spirit of Satan’ at Synod on the Family

Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan—a Novus Ordite though!—has certainly developed an international reputation for his defence of Catholic doctrine and tradition. Always very clear and unambiguous in his words, the Bishop spoke with LifeSiteNews last week in an interview, about the evil Synod of Bishops on the Family, which is nearing its end in Rome this week, warning that the Synod appears to be taking its lead from the “anti-family agenda,” and goes so far as to say that those advocating changes are following the “spirit” and “language” of Satan.

Excerpts:

LifeSiteNews: The Synod of Bishops on the Family is right now taking place in Rome. What are your own observations and impressions of the Synod's discussions so far? And about what has not been said?

Bishop Schneider: Well, I’m not participating in the Synod so I can only say what I’m reading in the mass media, and from the Catholic Bloggers, and so from this information which I have, my impression is that it is the same as it was in the last year. The Synod is, unfortunately, focused only on the two main themes: namely, the admittance of the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion, and the recognition in some way of the homosexual way of life. These two topics are part of the typical agenda of the anti-Christian world ideology.

It is very sad that the Synod has in some way let itself be conditioned to be lost in a scramble for this false freedom.  It is a bondage to be under this submission to this typical anti-Christian philosophy that is both promoting the homosexual ideology and destroying family by the means of divorce. It seems that these are the two points around which there are the synodal discussions and the battles; and we can read much of this in the contributions of the synod fathers and also in the later reports of some language groups which have been published. 

This is really bad, because this is supposed to be a synod on the family and it leaves the impression that it has become a synod for promoting the anti-family agenda. Therefore, for now it is not so openly published, and yet the majority of Synod fathers – also to be seen in the Instrumentum Laboris – have not spoken, at least not sufficiently, about the very important virtue of chastity.  This chastity is a Biblical, Christian, and Apostolic virtue which is so necessary at all times, but especially in our times, where now anti-chastity has become a kind of overriding “value,” though it truly is an “unvalue.”

Unchastity has become for the modern world an ideology, a style which has to be even widely promoted. And so we can state that some of the Synod members and of those who have key positions in the administrative structures of the Synod have bent themselves for, or stooped to, these anti-Christian pressures and such a submission is really a shame.  How can members of an official Synod which represents the successors of the Apostles take this stance and forget to promote chastity, such an essential virtue to cultivate when we speak about family and marriage, for example? And another thing, our intention must be to promote really large families and once more to show the immorality and the danger of contraception. And so to my perception it is these two points which are, regrettably, not sufficiently clearly treated in the Synod.

LSN: 13 Cardinals have written a letter to Pope Francis where they criticize the lack of reliable and continuous transparency and the fact that the Commission for the Final Report has not been elected by the Synod Fathers themselves. To what extent would you agree with their objections?

Bishop Schneider: I read the letter which was published in the media and I completely agree with their observations.  It is what they stated that has, to my knowledge, indeed a true foundation, a base.

LSN: Many journalists have now expressed their indignation because of the lack of trustworthy information about the Synod's ongoing discussions. Would you yourself have some observations about how this Synod is organized and how its discussions are transmitted to the public?

Bishop Schneider: As I already stated I am not in Rome and not participating in the Synod or its surroundings. Therefore, I cannot speak in a very complete manner.  I can only say what I observe, according to the information which I am following in the mass media. 

As the letter of cardinals says, it is really an impression that the discussions are directed to a specific team so as to achieve a pre-determined result, to admit the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion and to admit the permissibility of the homosexual way of life. We have to call the things by their right name. To achieve these aims, the information is filtered through some kind of censorship in the Vatican press office – we can see this every day – and when there are some critical voices concerning the content or the procedure, there is the danger that they are silenced.

Some journalists even lose their accreditation. It is becoming more and more obvious, and the manipulation and the tactics of those who held key positions in the Synod will probably become even more evident, in the future, after the scholars will have had access to the archives.

LSN: Have you yourself received reports from Synod Fathers about how the Synod is progressing and about the topics that have been brought up – or not brought up – so far? Is the Synod going in the direction of preserving the Church's traditional moral teaching?

Bishop Schneider: I have not received any report from a Synod Father and one has the impression that some influential members of the Synod are going into the direction of not preserving the Church's moral teaching in these two areas that we have already spoken about: Eucharistic Communion for the divorced and remarried; and approval of the homosexual way of life. We hope the Holy Ghost will help us and that the Synod Fathers, in the final document, will repeal or repudiate these un-Christian elements.

LSN: You have criticized the Synod's Instrumentum Laboris (working document) publicly before the Synod. May we know what your main criticism of this text is?

Bishop Schneider: Yes the main criticism is that this text has a main characteristic of a kind of relativism, that the truth is not always valid, that the truth can supposedly change under different or evolving historical circumstances.  That is the underlying ideological text of the whole document.

It reveals itself, for example, in contradictory passages such as these: in one paragraph, there is stated the indissolubility of Christian marriage, and then in another passage there is shown a possibility for those couples who are divorced to give them permitted access to the Sacraments. It is a continuous contradiction.  Or, it is slipped in with a veiled language which is both sophisticated and has characteristics of sophism, so as to introduce the homosexual way of life.

For example, by talking about families who have members who have homosexual tendencies; and it is very clear what they imply and mean with that and more fully desire to achieve. There is finally introduced, through ambiguous expressions, the recognition and acceptance of this sinful way of life.  This is in my opinion the basic problem of this document: it really is a kind of doctrinal and moral relativism. And the relativism is so concretely shown in these two specific topics.

LSN: Do you see a likelihood that the defects of that working document will be acknowledged and corrected by the ongoing Synod?

Bishop Schneider: I hope for this, but I cannot say, because I am not participating. I do have though some concerns and some doubts about what we now observe and the methods of manipulation and censorship of those who have the administrative power in the ruling of the Synod and in the press office of the Synod.

Those who have the power of ruling this Synod reveal themselves as propagators of these two topics (about Sacramental Communion for the divorced and remarried and about approval of homosexual acts) as we have mentioned, and so it remains for me doubtful whether the ongoing Synod will correct these defects.  Even in their letter, where the 13 cardinals pointed out the problematic issues with the Instrumentum Laboris and the insufficient doctrinal character of this Instrumentum Laboris, their arguments were rejected. For on the very next day, the content was rejected by the General Secretary of the Synod in the Synod Aula.

Because these preoccupations were immediately rejected, it is, humanly speaking, therefore very doubtful that the final document will unambiguously correct these grave defects.

LSN: As little as we know about the discussions in the Synod Hall, some points have been released to the public. Archbishop Paul-André Durocher from Canada presented the idea that the Church should do more for women, and possibly even ordain women deacons and give women higher positions and decision-making participation within the Church's structures. What would you say about this statement?

Bishop Schneider: This is completely wrong and does not belong to the theme of the family.  It is a typical agenda to destroy Catholic doctrine, the Catholic identity, taking elements from the agenda which started first in the Protestant “churches”, and the promoters of such proposals will also not likely stop with the women diaconate. They want to go even further, and, so, this is an abuse of the Synod to introduce heretical positions into the Church and to destroy the Apostolic Tradition.

The sacramental order in the Church is a role for men, and not for women. This would be against women. The sacramental order is not a power; it is a ministry. Church offices are not a power. It is unfortunately the case that some clergy live and behave in a very worldly way, abusing the spiritual power, but this is not the real meaning of the Catholic Priesthood and Diaconate and of their sacramental offices in the Church.  This new proposal is a completely wrong view. And, secondly, it is a wrong view of the nature and mission of the women in the family and in the Church according to God’s plan.

It seems that Archbishop Paul-André Durocher is only a spokesman for those who want to give to the woman a mission and a task which she has not received from God, and which is against the plan of God; and therefore she will be damaged for her life as a Christian woman. A real Christian woman would never desire to occupy decision-making powers within the Church.  In fact, the woman already has one of the highest decision making-powers because she is mother.

There is a proverb which says: “The hand which rocks the crib of the child governs the world.” This is the real end, namely to educate children; and from the crib, even from carrying a child in the womb, and then until the child becomes adult, the woman has this very high and responsible decision-power to educate a new person for God, for the society, for heaven, for eternal life. What a decision power is this!

LSN: Abbot Jeremias Schröder has publicly said at one of the Synod press conferences that a majority of the Synod Fathers support the idea of allowing different regions (and national bishops' conferences) to establish their own ways of dealing with contentious issues such as homosexuality and divorce. What would be your comment on this proposal which has especially been strongly promoted by the German Bishops' Conference, especially with respect to the preservation of the Doctrine and Morals of the Church?

Bishop Schneider: This proposal is not Catholic; it is destroying Catholicism, because “Catholic” means to believe in the same manner essential things. And to accept homosexuality and divorce is not a secondary aspect. In secondary aspects we can differ from one local Church to another – the kind of singing, the kind of dressing, language – we have different devotional practices in different countries; but with the same Catholic spirit and richness. Difference is legitimate, but only that which is not against the Catholic truth. Such differences are really complementary. 

By way of these slyly pluralistic new proposals, of course, they will destroy the meaning and Catholicity of the Church. And this is also an agenda of the anti-Christian world ideology, namely to destroy from within the Catholic Church and to make it a Protestant-like conglomeration of different regional and confessional churches.  This will be directly against what we confess every Sunday in the Creed: “I believe in one Church, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.” It seems very realistic that this is a trick to push on, in order to reach the aim of acceptance of divorce and homosexuality, by means of their allowing these regional church authorities to decide.  And, by time, and in this way, such destructive topics will be introduced.

LSN: As we speak of the German bishops, let me quote Archbishop Heiner Koch and his own presented second report of the German-language group at the Synod. He said: “We have also considered what the consequences are of such an interrelationship [between God's justice and mercy] with regard to the accompaniment of marriages and families. It excludes a one-sided and deductive hermeneutic which submits concrete situations to a general principle.” And he argued for the desirability to take more into account the personal biographies of people instead of insisting upon the moral law. What does this likely mean, concretely, and is this kind of approach with regard to the question of those living in extramarital or in adulterous relationships an acceptable approach for the Church?

Bishop Schneider: These are speciously beautiful words without content. Only superficially beautiful words, void and vague. Deliberately ambiguous speeches on the topics of theology and faith remind the speech of the serpent who spoke to Adam and Eve, very politely, very crafty, but without content, and filled with lies.

The so called “theology of biography” is an expression without real theological content, and it is only an accumulation of words and resembles a Gnostic language, because it destroys the reality by means of seemingly beautiful words. It destroys the truths. When one reads what Archbishop Koch and some members from the German Language Group said – dwelling upon personal biographies and not upon the moral law – one is compelled to re-write the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ which He said to Zacchaeus in such a way: “It is okay, I have to respect his personal biography and not insist on the law that he has to convert.” But Zacchaeus himself said: “Oh my Lord, I repent.  I will not continue with my sin. I will amend my life. I will give back two times as much of what I have stolen.”

Or, there is the woman who sinned. Our Lord could have said to her: “Okay, you have a personal biography; I will not insist on moral law, go in peace.” No, He instead insisted on the moral law and said: “Go and sin no more.” Our Lord insisted on the moral law and even in a more radical way. He said: “When your hand seduces you, cut it off.” This is radicalism! That has nothing to do with personal biography, which is ultimately an anti-Christian statement. It is a way of approving sin, it is against God's will, it is a mockery of the will of God, a mockery of the Ten Commandments.

LSN: Bishop Franz-Josef Bode, another German Bishop, proposed not to tell cohabiting couples that they live in the state of sin, since this would not be the way of drawing them close or closer to the Sacrament of Marriage. He said one should regard pre-marital relationships in a more positive light. How would you respond to such claim?

Bishop Schneider:  This is of course non-Christian and this is wrong, and is another way to approve sin. To speak and to act in such a way is unmerciful with a person who is living in a mortal sin and thereby offending God and living in a broken relationship to God and offending God in a serious manner and therefore putting in danger his or her eternal salvation.

When I see a person who is going close to an abyss or where there is another danger, I will warn this person. It is a kind of mercy for my neighbour. I will not say: “I will not disturb you.” This applies above all to a person who is living against the will of God! This person could tomorrow die, or in one hour, and I will have left him there. And should I say: “It is okay, I will leave you in this danger”? And would this not be cruel? This would indeed also be highly irresponsible.

One has doubts if Bishop Bode does believe that committing sexual acts outside marriage is a sin, that cohabitation is a sin. Does he believe in the existence of sin, of mortal sins, and thus, this is the consequence? Does he believe in hell, in eternal damnation? It is to be supposed that a person who speaks in this manner does not believe really in mortal sin, with the consequence of eternal damnation if the sinner dies unrepented. One has to ask if he does not believe on the ever-permanent validity of the revealed Divine Words: “You shall not commit adultery” and “Those who commit adultery will not inherit the kingdom of God.” These are Divinely Revealed words.

LSN: Father Thomas Rosica, the Vatican spokesman for the Synod, has stated publicly with regard to homosexuality at a press conference: “There must be an end to exclusionary language and a strong emphasis on embracing reality as it is. We should not be afraid of new and complex situations. […] The language of inclusion must be our language, always considering pastoral and canonical possibilities and solutions.” To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement with regard to the language used with respect to sinful conduct?

Bishop Schneider: Yes, this is more or less the same matter and content as the previous statements; they have the same common characteristic of relativism and of not taking seriously the truths of the revealed words of God, Who speaks to us clearly.

Indeed, the sometimes exclusionary language of Jesus is strong: “Cast away your hand, your eye”, and this with reference to sin. This is quite an exclusive language. When your brother commits a sin and you see this, you must warn him first individually; and when he does not hear your admonition, you must take witnesses and admonish him; and when he does not hear the witnesses, admonish him in the face of the whole Church; and, when he does not hear the Church then you have to treat him as a heathen. And this is the word of Jesus! And so we are following Jesus.

Those churchmen who accuse the unchangeable truth of doctrine of the Church as possessing an exclusionary language have to address their words to Jesus Christ, and I would say to them: “Please say to Jesus”: “Jesus, you have an exclusionary language.” Such men have the arrogance to correct and to teach God. This is the spirit of the world and a grave sin against the faith. This is dangerous for the salvation of the souls of such bishops and priests.

They correct Jesus in His statements and say ultimately that Jesus in the Gospels did not speak correctly, and this insolent presumption is, in it its final consequence, diabolic! The devil says: “God is not speaking the right way, for He is very exclusionary!” But, His Command, in truth, is ultimately an exclusionary command: “When you do not obey my word – 'not to eat of this fruit' – you will die.” To die is very exclusionary.

The serpent said: “No, it is not true, God did not say this. You will not die. You will be like God.” So, these unfaithful bishops and priests have effectively wanted, or maybe only have unconsciously wanted, in the final result, to be like God. They will state in a superior way what is true and what is exclusionary and what is not exclusionary. And then they become worse than the oft-maligned Inquisition.

The Inquisition indeed had – and it has been recognized now by the international scholarship – one of the most elaborated and equitable methods to protect the accused person, in order to give him the possibility to have and apply the just means of self-defence, and thereby to observe scrupulously the rules. One has the impression that some of those who currently have ruling powers in the Synod structures are not observing the quite wise and balanced rules of procedure of the historical Inquisition.

LSN: In general, what is your own assessment of the modern language as a tool to mediate meaning and substance, such as the words “accompaniment,” “exclusion,” “positive versus negative,” “gradualism,” and so on?

Bishop Schneider: This is again to use language without content to make and express an accumulation of letters with beautiful sound, but without sound substance. This is a perversion of language, in order to achieve an aim which is against the Word of God. And this is typical Gnosticism.

They use words like accompaniment. But they will accompany the person in order that he remains in his sin, in the danger to die eternally. This is the opposite of accompaniment. And “gradualism” is contrary to the Divinely revealed truths because God has radically and effectively said in His Commandments: “Do not lie!” God had not said: “Oh, yes, you can lie a little bit”; He said: “Do not steal.” He did not say: “No, you can steal a little bit, gradually.” In the same way you should not commit adultery, nor unchaste acts, not even a little bit. For, this is contrary to the words and truths of God.

This is even psychologically damaging to the person, because when you say to the liar: “Oh, you can still lie a little bit.” He will not change and not improve really; for, he does not see that he is in danger. He will always say: “Today, my lie was not so big, not so bad,” and so we will likely not help him at all. Therefore, from the point of view of human psychology such a “gradualism” is a danger. We have thus to say this: “You must never lie and never steal, nor to commit unchaste acts, nor to commit calumny, never!” And then the person will know this, that this is a danger, and will have a goal to achieve this standard.  He will perhaps not succeed tomorrow, this is another question, but he has the firm will to abandon this, completely. 

Of course we have to say this in a charitable manner, like a mother and a father speaking to their children.  A responsible father and mother will never say “that is not so bad” when their child, for example, cheats in school. For, cheating is dishonest and when the parents discover it, it would be irresponsible for the father or mother to say: “okay, you can gradually abandon this conduct.” No, the child should never cheat, and he will not be a moral person unless you teach them. You have to educate the child. But then, when your child says: “I made all my effort but lapsed once more,” then you must say: “okay, please continue to try.” This is the pedagogy of God and of the Church.

Every time when a sinner comes with sincere repentance to Confession and truly confesses his sin, the priest has to give him the absolution when he really and sincerely has used all the means at his disposal. When it is only a case of human fragility, we do not have the authority to deny absolution. This is authentic gradualism. But they – the innovators – apply a bad gradualism. They say: “Now you can live in sin.  And then tomorrow, or perhaps in one year, when you want you can start to commit lesser sins.” This orientation is completely unrealistic and irresponsible.  Not to mention, as well, that this is also contrary to the truth. I only now gave a useful example and an additional psychological comparison.

I grew up in Communism, I went five years to Communist schools, and I remember very well this seductive language, and quite completely; for, they used the same terms, concepts, but in a perverted manner, when they spoke of “peace.” They said: “Oh we are promoting peace,” but we knew that in that Communist time that they were not promoting peace by exporting weapons to Cuba, to Angola, and so on; and, so, this was “the peace.” And this is cynical and is likewise perverting the true meaning of the words.

For example, I remember as a child in the Communist school, that we had to learn a famous Communist song, quite famous at that time, and it goes like this: our country is a beautiful country with trees and forest, and I don’t know another country where people can breathe so freely. Freely! I had to sing this song again and again. A country where you can breathe so freely – and, in actuality, it was a country filled with prisons and with concentration camps. It is very sad that now this innovative group of bishops in the Synod are using a perverted language to promote an anti-Christian agenda.

LSN: Your superior, Archbishop Tomash Peta, of Astana, Kazakhstan, has said recently during the Synod that, at the 2014 Synod, “the 'smoke of Satan' was trying to enter the aula of Paul VI.” He concretely mentioned as examples for this claim the attempt to allow “remarried” divorcees to receive Holy Communion; the claim that cohabitation “is a union which may have in itself some values”; and finally the “pleading for homosexuality as something which is allegedly normal.” He concluded with the regret that the “smell of Satan” is also to be found “in the interventions of some synod fathers this year [2015].” Could you comment on his statement and explain to us a little more about his position?

Bishop Schneider: I consider this statement one of the most striking, and it was one of the most apt statements on the issue. He spoke these words which no one else has dared to speak. He laid a finger on the wound. For, it is the spirit of Satan to pervert the Commandments of God, using specifically alluring and beautiful language. This is the language of Satan, smelling of the smoke of Satan. Archbishop Thomas Peta sincerely said it and we have to hope that some of the synod fathers awoke.

When Jesus spoke, He was often very exclusionary in His language. For example, when Peter said to Jesus: “Oh, you ought not to suffer at the Cross,” Jesus said: “Go and get behind me, Satan.” This is very exclusionary language. And so the Synod Fathers should also stand up and say such things when they see these proposals for accepting homosexuality and divorce: “Satan depart from here, from this Synod Hall, and from this Holy Eternal Rome.” Some people say it would be helpful to make an exorcism upon the Synod meetings.

LSN: Cardinal Robert Sarah had similarly strong words to say in his own intervention during this years' Synod about our current situation, saying that there are “two unexpected threats (almost like two 'apocalyptic beasts') located on opposite poles: on the one hand, the idolatry of Western freedom; on the other, Islamic fundamentalism: atheistic secularism versus religious fanaticism.” He also said: “What Nazi-Fascism and Communism were in the 20th century, Western homosexual and abortion ideologies and Islamic Fanaticism are today.” Would you agree with him, and would you develop your own thoughts for us on this thesis?

Bishop Schneider: I completely agree with this statement, it is a very apt remark and a very wise observation. For, this is really what awaits us, what is in front of us: a dictatorship of the homosexual ideology.  This is a new dictatorship. And we already observe some officials of the United States are condemned to prison when they refuse to fill out the marriage certificate for a homosexual couple. Kim Davis is an example. There is already starting a dictatorship and we do not yet know in which direction it is to go, so we have to be very vigilant. A display of one-sided thinking: this is typical in all dictatorships. There is no possibility to think another way.

Cardinal Sarah's analysis is very realistic and I agree with it. We have to be vigilant and prepared to be persecuted in different ways and manners, and perhaps not excluding even martyrdom and becoming confessors. Each time, as well as all these times of persecutions are always a time of great blessings for the Church and for her greater purification. Those cardinals and priests who are now so proudly occupying their ecclesiastical power positions and promoting such anti-Christian “values” such as homosexuality, will probably be the first ones who will deny Christ. They will deny Him, and they will not die for Christ, and especially not for the reason that He is God.

LSN: This morning here at St. John the Baptist Parish in Front Royal, Virginia, you spoke in your homily about a neo-Marxist and neo-Communist worldwide dictatorship that we are facing today. Could you explain what you meant with these words, and did this also include the more sophisticated theories and practice of Antonio Gramsci and of the Frankfurt School of Social Research?

Bishop Schneider: We are now observing this worldwide phenomenon in almost all countries that have now laxly introduced the homosexual ideology into schools, into courts. It is there on an increasingly worldwide scale, with the exception of Africa, East Europe, Asia, which are not so developed. But for the rest of the world, everywhere else this ideology and agenda are now being introduced. 

This is ultimately neo-Communist and Marxist because the ideology of Marx wants to abolish every sign of difference. The last sign and most evident difference is to be found in the created natural sex of persons. Therefore, there has arrived the homosexual agenda. It would be perhaps worthwhile to make further research in the writings of Marx and Engels. The seat of homosexual ideology is already in Marx and Engels. Therefore, I call this worldwide neo-Marxist, or neo-Communist, action. 

I am not so acquainted with the theories of Antonio Gramsci, therefore, I would have to research this question much further. To abolish all differences, all hierarchies, this is Communist, this is Marxist. It would be worthwhile to make this additional historical research in the writings of Marx and Engels – and in Hegel, too.

LSN: If you had the chance to meet with Francis I today, what would you say to him about the Synod? What would your request be?

Bishop Schneider: I would say: Holy Father, your first task is to accomplish loyally what Christ said to Peter, “Peter, confirm your brothers in the Faith; I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail, but you are thus now to confirm your brothers.” So I ask that you, Holy Father, confirm us, your brothers, with the clearest possible statements of the Divine Truths and to do that also with the most unambiguous and clear statements in defence of the Divine Truths on family and marriage, and thus on the dignity of chaste human sexuality.  And to be a Defensor Fidei, a Confessor Fidei. It would be my wish that there be no possibility for the Anti-Christian media to exploit your words for the aim of damaging the Catholic truth.

LSN: Finally, would you yourself like to add any additional comments?

Bishop Schneider: In this time, it seems that some of those in the Church who have received from God the first task to tell the truth in all its integrity, as it comes from the Apostles – and the bishops are to be their unmistakable successors - eventually do the contrary. An influential portion of them who occupy some key positions in Church administration are now misusing their holy, sacred mission so as, it seems, to ultimately destroy the Divine Truths about marriage and the family. This is very grave.

But, God has permitted this, just as He permitted it in the 4^th century when nearly the entire episcopacy, with few exceptions, had accepted or sympathized with the Arian heresy. In those times, the simple faithful, the children, loyally maintained, pure and integrally the truth about the divinity of Christ, and this fidelity in some way saved the Church. 

I am hoping in the fruitful purity of the faithful, of simple Catholics, of children, of young couples, of large families, of the simple priests, and others who fortunately have kept their purity of Faith and their defence of Faith which they accepted, such as Human Life International, and LifeSiteNews, and some others who have also made a very powerful – and in the eyes of God - effective contribution to keep the purity of Faith and to transmit it to the next generation. This is really our hope and gives us joy and confidence to continue our holy battle for the faith we received in baptism.

Our pure Catholic Faith is a victory over all the attacks of the un-Christian world and over all sophisms and infernal smelling of these deceitful beautiful phrases and proposals of the neo-Gnostic clerical establishment that promotes this subversion. Our pure Faith of the simple ones, “the Little Ones”, the “Parvuli Christi”, will win this struggle finally with the help of the grace of God and the intercession of Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, who conquered all heresies, as says an ancient Marian antiphon.

See also the following:

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/08/bishop-athanasius-schneider-synod.html

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/06/bishopschneider-francis-pontificate.html

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/08/married-lesbian-approved-as-head-of.html

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/07/all-or-nothing-final-battle-being-fought.html

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/06/hundreds-of-thousands-rally-in-rome.html

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/06/francis-1-strikes-againappoints-new.html

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/06/catholicchurch-urged-to-accept-gay.html

Decentralisation...so what’s the difference between Francis’ relativism and that of Benedict XVI?

By Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi

                                   

Synod of Doom

On Saturday, October 17, Francis I gave an address to the profoundly divided Synod on the Family, in which he called for a "healthy decentralisation" of power in the Roman Catholic Church, including changes in the papacy and greater decision-making authority for local bishops. Francis made his comments at a ceremony marking the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Synod of Bishops, a worldwide gathering that occasionally advises the pope on a host of issues.

This is the nightmare of “conservative” Catholic cardinals, said one Damian Thompson, "including—unsurprisingly—those in the Vatican. They thought they had a sufficient majority in the synod to stop the lifting of the ban on divorced and “remarried” Catholics receiving communion, or any softening on the Church’s attitude to gay couples". Certainly they do, and Francis knows that. Hence, he quickly considers “option two”! In Saturday’s keynote speech, delivered as the synod enters its last week, Francis told them that the decentralisation will be imposed from above. “In this sense, I feel the need to move ahead with a healthy decentralisation,” he said. Francis spoke about “synodality in the church,” the synod’s place within this, the relation between the synod and the “Successor of Peter”, and reminded the synod fathers that he has the last word. “The synod journey culminates in listening to the Bishop of Rome, (who is) called to speak authoritatively as ‘the Pastor and Teacher of all Christians,'” Francis stated on October 17, on the eve of the final week of the synod on the family. 

Francis also said it was "necessary and urgent to think about a conversion of the papacy", a possibility that was first floated even by the late heretical John Paul II in 1995.

The apostate “pope” said the type of collegiality—the papal governing of the Church in collaboration with bishops—envisaged by the “reforming” 1962-1965 Second Vatican Council still had not been achieved. National and regional bishops' conferences should have more authority to make decisions affecting the faithful in their areas rather than always looking to Rome for a centralised decision that has to fit all, he said. What does this imply? Precisely, this means Francis intends to give local bishops’ conferences—such as German bishops the majority of whom have endorsed the vices of homosexuality, quick divorce and the like—more freedom to work out their own solutions to the problems of divorce and homosexuality!

Without elaborating, Francis said "more light could be shed" on the exercising of the papacy, both within the 1.2 billion member Church and in its relations with other “Christian churches”—heretics—that split from Rome over the primacy of the papacy. The current synod of bishops has been discussing how the Church “can better serve families and minister to Catholics in difficulty”, (such as unrepentant homosexuals and divorced people who have “remarried” outside the Church).

Progressives say bishops should have authority to apply doctrine on some issues—such as whether divorced and civilly “remarried” Catholics can receive communion—according to individual circumstances.

“Conservatives”, on the contrary, oppose any changes to rules and say they should be applied identically around the world. The synod has now entered its third and final week and will produce a final paper that “the pope” may use to write his own authoritative document on the issues.

Damian Thompson has listed some reasons why he thinks Francis’ plan cannot work. “This is such a startling development that it deserves fuller analysis once the synod is over”, he writes. “I was going to say ‘once the dust has settled’, but I don’t expect any dust-settling in the foreseeable future—at least until after the next conclave, which lots of conservative Catholics want to happen as soon as possible.”

Here’s why he thinks Francis’s decentralisation won’t work:

Firstly, he writes: “This is the synod at which the African church flexed its muscles. And it’s very conservative. Cardinal Robert Sarah from Guinea declared that the gay lobby was as much a threat to Christianity as ISIS. Sarah is Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and therefore a top-ranking curial cardinal. But in his ‘intervention’ he wanted us to understand that he was speaking on behalf of nearly 200 million African Catholics. Whether he really represents them is a matter of opinion, but I doubt that many of them would dissent from the cardinal’s (literal) demonisation of homosexuality. NB: Sarah and other African cardinals aren’t saying ‘We’ll never tolerate communion for the divorced and remarried etc—but so long as you leave us alone, western dioceses can do their own thing’. They are saying the existing prohibitions must apply to the entire Catholic Church. Sarah regards Cardinal Kasper’s proposal to allow local bishops (meaning, in practice, local priests and probably divorcees themselves) to decide whether they can receive the sacrament as heretical.”

Secondly, says Thompson, the more liberal Synod Fathers, sensing that Francis will use the papal trump card on their behalf, “have all but endorsed a version of the Kasper plan—and may soon allow priests to put it into practice. Archbishop Blaise Cupich of Chicago (a Francis appointee who will soon be a cardinal) gave a press conference on Friday in which he said the following about communion for the divorced and civilly remarried: ‘[People must] come to a decision in good conscience…Conscience is inviolable and we have to respect that when making decisions and I’ve always done that.’ If by that he means that divorced Catholics can make up their own minds ‘in good conscience’ about receiving the sacrament, that puts him at odds with Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, one of the signatories of a letter also signed by senior Vatican cardinals warning the Pope that his synod could tear the church apart. Of all the routes to schism, squabbling in public about Holy Communion is the quickest.”

Thirdly, he says, “Francis is no longer trusted by many conservative Catholics, and the number who don’t trust him has grown enormously since the synod process—which I think he has gravely mismanaged—began last October. Priests and lay Catholics who originally liked the man if not his liturgical style, and thought he was fundamentally conservative despite his impromptu ‘who am I to judge?’-style comments, now believe he threatens the unity of the church. Some liberals agree that disunity is inevitable but reckon the Holy Spirit has already factored that in: eventually, Africans will come to share their own compassionate impulses towards Catholics who have been forced by the turmoil of modern life to bypass church teaching on sexual behaviour. They’re hoping for a miracle, in other words. In the meantime, they have become the new ultramontanists.”

Fourthly, says Thompson, “It’s not entirely clear what the Pope means when he talks about ‘synodality’, but it certainly doesn’t involve empowering the curia. By brushing aside a letter from the prefects of the Congregations of the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Secretariat for the Economy, Francis was distancing himself from the Vatican. He may not have decamped to Avignon, but his refusal to live in the papal apartments is looking more significant by the day. He has picked a fight with the Vatican—and that is something popes do at their peril. Cardinals Müller, Sarah and Pell (and other important cardinals too nervous to sign the letter) see the curia as the guardian of the Magisterium, the deposit of faith…”

These are good observations, indeed. However, Thompson’s further comments—offensive indeed—such as calling John Paul II (a notorious heretic) a Saint, need not be repeated here.

           

Similarly, Voice of the Family has warned that Synod proposal to give more authority to the bishops’ conferences “will shatter the church”. Francis, it warns, is promoting religious relativism. The article published by Voice of the Family starts with the “now famous speech” made in the Vatican Basilica on the eve of his election to the papacy, in which Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger deplored what he termed a “dictatorship of relativism”. Ratzinger remarked:

“Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labelled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be “tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine”, seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognise anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.”

Fighting a “dictatorship of relativism”, says Voice of the Family, “which affirms that moral or religious truth is not absolute, but relative to situations, persons, or places, had been a constant, if not the dominant theme of Pope Benedict’s papacy.”

It goes on:

“Moral relativism holds that there is no such thing as a moral or religious truth that is absolutely true, that is, true no matter to whom it is said, when it is said and where. Rather, proponents of relativism hold that propositions of a moral type, such as “Thou shalt not kill”, can be true for some, but false for others.

“For the moral relativist:  

“Same-sex marriage may be wrong in Africa or the middle East, but right in the West. Owning slaves can be right for some cultures, but unacceptable for others. Polygamy can be right in Muslim countries, but unacceptable everywhere else, and so on...

“Moral relativism constantly tempts those responsible for the common good, whether spiritual or temporal. Taking note of the existence of a great variety of moral and religious beliefs, many leaders are loathe to affirm, much less enforce, a certain moral code or spiritual doctrine, lest they lose the adhesion and cooperation of the people under their charge. Democratic governments, naturally, are most tempted to relativism, since elected representatives need to obtain votes from groups with different and often opposing religious and moral views. These politicians, in order to obtain votes, are likely to affirm that each group’s deeply held moral and religious views are “true for them” and therefore respectable.” (See my piece on this: 

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/03/can-catholics-by-jonathan-ekene-ifeanyi.html ).

According to Voice of the Family, Pope Benedict observed that moral relativism is but a step towards individualism—the view that each individual has his or her own moral and spiritual truths—, for, according to him, relativism’s “ultimate goal” consists “solely of one’s ego and desires.”

It goes on:     

“Moral relativism is thus the beginning of a slippery slope that leads to the individualism and anarchy that blights the West today: If it is good and proper that each culture has its moral and religious truths, then there is no reason why each individual could not have his own, too. But the slope does not end there, for that same individual who has decided that it was good and proper for him to hold his own moral and spiritual truth, could then decide that it is good and proper that the moral and religious truths he holds could change from one day to the next.

“Pope Benedict, then, clearly saw that moral and spiritual relativism was a recipe for the practical dissolution of morality and spirituality, which is why he dedicated much of his papacy to fighting it….How quickly we forget….A mere 10 short years after Pope Benedict’s momentous speech, German Benedictine abbot Jeremias Schröder, reporting on the general discussions held during the current Ordinary Synod on the Family, said on October 14 of this year that many synod fathers seemed to be espousing the very relativism that Benedict XVI had spent his whole papacy denouncing.”

Jeremias Schröder said:

“Many of the speeches in the general discussions mentioned the possibility of dealing with questions on the basis of a given cultural context. I would say there were about twenty or so speeches and only two or three were against, claiming that for the sake of the Church’s unity handing over powers would have fatal consequences. … I, for example am German and it seems to me that the remarried divorcees issue is very strongly and widely felt in Germany and much less so elsewhere. This is an area where there could be space for original pastoral ideas, also as far as the understanding of homosexuality goes, an issue that really varies from culture to culture. National Episcopal Conferences could be allowed to search for pastoral solutions that are in tune with their specific cultural context.” (emphasis added). 

These stupid statements have been rebutted by the "conservatives", such as Francis Cardinal Arinze of Nigeria, Cardinal Burke and others. (See: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-ten-commandments-are-not-subject-to-national-frontiers-says-cardi

This same abbot is also quoted in a German newspaper as saying:

“We do not need for every problem a uniform, whole-church solution which was compiled in Rome. The church must maybe come to an agreement about the fact that in different world regions and societies another contact with the complicated subject Family is allowed. An order member from the Middle East said to me recently: An acknowledgment of same-sexual life forms by the church would be conceivable, purely hypothetically, possibly in Europe. However, in the Islamic context it would on no account be this. (emphasis added, translation Vox Cantoris)

This talk, says Voice of the Family, is also reminiscent of that of another German, Cardinal Reinhart Marx, who affirmed in February of this year that the Church in Germany was “not just a subsidiary of Rome.”

But, it says, “this is nothing but the “dictatorship of relativism”, condemned throughout Benedict XVI’s papacy, applied to the Church: what is morally and spiritually right or wrong, in practice, must now depend upon which episcopal conference we are talking about.

“Truth be told, this tacit condoning of relativism by Synod fathers and Cardinal Marx was foreshadowed by no less than Pope Francis himself who wrote, in his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, that “a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority, has not yet been sufficiently elaborated.” (emphasis added) This observation was followed by the affirmation that “Excessive centralization, rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach.” These lines are contained in paragraph 32 of his exhortation, which is headed by a call for a “conversion of the papacy”.

“This seems to indicate that Pope Francis would be open to the possibility of devolving some of the doctrinal power of the papacy to the individual episcopal conferences. If this means anything, it means giving the episcopal conferences the power to adopt disciplines AND EVEN DOCTRINES that are different from those of other conferences. Would then a “converted papacy” be one in which the pope becomes, to use Benedict’s phrase, a “dictator of relativism” enforcing the moral and spiritual relativism that reigns among the episcopal conferences? If so, the “dictatorship of relativism” would hold sway over the whole Church, shattering it into as many pieces as there are episcopal conferences in the world.

“The process of dissolution would not end there, however. For as with moral relativism in society at large, spiritual and moral relativism in the church will very likely lead to a radical subjectivism, where individual “catholics”, chaffing under the constraints of their “authoritarian” episcopal conferences, will consider it right and proper to have disciplines and religious truths custom-tailored to their particular situations. Will a future Apostolic exhortation hint at a “conversion of the papacy” devolving even more of the powers of the papacy to these “oppressed” or “excluded” individuals?

“Anticipating the debacle that would surely follow should episcopal conferences be endowed with doctrinal and disciplinary power, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, condemned the whole idea as “an absolutely anti-Catholic idea that does not respect the catholicity of the Church.” Indeed, Catholic literally means universal, as in a universal moral and spiritual code that applies equally to everyone, everywhere, for all time; it is the antithesis of relativism, which states that moral and spiritual truths are true only for some or for a specific time.

“Also, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke has recently rejected the view that local bishops or episcopal conferences could have the authority on a pastoral level to deal with moral questions, condemning the proposal as “simply contrary to Catholic Faith and life”, going on to state that “there is no change in these truths, from one place to another or from one time to another.”

“Devolving power from the papacy to the episcopal conferences therefore compromises both the catholicity (universality) and unicity (one-ness) of the Church, making it a hodge-podge of “churches” all operating under their own rules and beliefs, and, ultimately, in thrall to the caprices of the individual egos that populate them.

“Drawing us away from the temptation to gratify our ego, Cardinal Ratzinger shows us, again by way of his Vatican basilica address, the way out of this mess: he invited us to adopt an “adult faith that refuses to follow the trends of fashion and the latest novelty.” Instead of embracing a dangerous relativism which is nothing more than a mask for a childish faith “tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine” we should look to Christ. For only through friendship with him can we obtain “a sure criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceit from truth” thus escaping the “dictatorship of relativism” that threatens us all.” Above is Benedict XVI praying with the Muslims, and below is Francis I with the Buddhists. So what's the difference? Well spoken. The problem, however, remains that the same Ratzinger—from a seemingly different but the same angle—has been a promoter of the same religious relativism. Many thought that “things would change” with the election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope in April 2005. “He always talks against religious relativism. You’ll see,” one Jan said, “he will make it clear there is only one true faith. I don’t think we’ll be seeing any more Assisis.”  Jan was speaking of the scandalous ecumenical encounters in Assisi in 1986, 1993 and 2002 where Catholics, Protestants, Schismatics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and even Animists all gathered together to pray. She was also referring to criticism expressed by Ratzinger in 1987 about the 1986 Assisi summit, where he stated “This cannot be the model!”  But despite that vague remark—not a criticism—Cardinal Ratzinger was present at the 2002 Assisi encounter and expressed his satisfaction with it. And almost as soon as he was elected Pontiff, he was affirming his commitment to the ecumenism promoted by his predecessor, and resolving to carry on in the same spirit. What then, is all this noise about the man? In 2006 another inter-confessional meeting was organized by the inter-faith Community of Sant’Egido and realized in Assisi to mark the 20th anniversary of John Paul II’s initiative. Again, scores of Muslims, rabbis, Buddhists, Shintoists gathered at Assisi on September 4 and 5 to dialogue and pray for peace. But the “correction” that so many “conservatives” were predicting never came. No, not even a word of criticism.  Instead, recalling the first such meeting on October 27, 1986, Benedict had words of praise and approval, describing it as a “vibrant message furthering peace and an event that left its mark on the history of our time.”  In his message read to the religious leaders gathered at Assisi, Benedict XVI reaffirmed the same inter-confessional and Masonic goals addressed so often by John Paul II: Faith in God, the Father of all, should encourage relations of universal brotherhood among all men;  No more religious war;  The value of prayer in building peace;  The importance of the personal relationship of each person of all faiths with God;  The supposed good effect of interfaith encounters and dialogue for the youth. You can read the whole message if you like, here.  After this powerful support for a Pan-religion (condemned by Pope Pius XI in his Mortalium Animos), Benedict reminded the religious leaders of the care taken at the Assisi meeting 20 years ago to ensure that "the inter-religious prayer meeting did not lend itself to syncretistic interpretations based on relativist concepts." He insisted that the same concern was “present today”. Pope Pius XI contradicts and denounces Benedict XVI: “A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.” (See: http://www.dailycatholic.org/mortaliu.htm) Should we piously believe that the Dalai Lama and his Buddhist monks placing a statue of Buddha over the tabernacle of St. Peter Church in Assisi did not promote religious syncretism and relativism of concepts? Of course it did. If in fact that Buddha display—as well as many other incidents at the various Assisis—did not serve to promote syncretism and relativism, then those words have lost their meaning. So, when Benedict XVI warned against syncretism and relativism, was he really concerned about defending the purity of our Holy Faith, or was he playing with words? So what actually are our “conservatives” now talking about? What is the major difference between Francis’ relativism and that of Benedict XVI?

See the following also: 

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/05/case-of-dual-papacy-deuxpapes-vermoulu.html

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015_06_01_archive.html

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/06/atheisticdemocracy-in-catholic-church.html

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/06/francis-1-strikes-again-received-his.html