Posted on 09/22/2016 4:09:40 PM PDT by ebb tide
With Burning Concern: We Accuse Pope Francis Part II of III
"As you revealed in your manifesto (Evangelii gaudium, 94), you are filled with contempt for tradition-minded Catholics, whom you rashly accuse of self-absorbed Promethean neopelagianism and of feel[ing] superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past. You even ridicule a supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline because, according to you, it leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others
A Joint Statement from The Remnant and Catholic Family News Michael J. Matt, Christopher Ferrara & John Vennari
PART II
An Absurd Whitewash of Islam
Assuming the role of a Koranic exegete in order to exculpate Mohammeds cult from its unbroken historic connection to the conquest and brutal persecution of Christians, you declare: Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence. [Evangelii gaudium, 253]
You ignore the entire history of Islams war against Christianity, continuing to this day, as well as the present-day barbaric legal codes and persecution of Christians in the worlds Islamic republics, including Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. These are regimes of oppression intrinsic to Sharia law, which Muslims believe Allah has ordained for the whole world, and which they attempt to establish wherever they become a significant percentage of the population. As you would have it, however, Muslim republics all lack an authentic understanding of the Koran!
You even attempt to minimize outright Islamic terrorism in the Middle East, Africa and the very heart of Europe by daring to posit a moral equivalence between Muslim fanatics waging jihadas they have since Islam first emergedand imaginary fundamentalism on the part of the observant Catholics you never cease publicly condemning and insulting. During one of the rambling in-flight press conferences in which you have so often embarrassed the Church and undermined Catholic doctrine, you uttered this infamous opinion, typical of your absurd insistence that the religion founded by God Incarnate and the perennially violent cult founded by the degenerate Mohammed are on equal moral footing:
I dont like to speak of Islamic violence, because every day, when I browse the newspapers, I see violence, here in Italy this one who has murdered his girlfriend, another who has murdered the mother-in-law and these are baptized Catholics! There are violent Catholics! If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence ... I believe that in pretty much every religion there is always a small group of fundamentalists. Fundamentalists. We have them. When fundamentalism comes to kill, it can kill with the languagethe Apostle James says this, not meand even with a knife, no? I do not believe it is right to identify Islam with violence. It defies belief that a Roman Pontiff would declare that random crimes of violence committed by Catholics, and their mere words, are morally equivalent to radical Islams worldwide campaign of terrorist acts, mass murder, torture, enslavement and rape in the name of Allah. It seems you are quicker to defend Mohammeds ridiculous and deadly cult against just opposition than you are the one true Church against her innumerable false accusers. Far from your mind is the Churchs perennial view of Islam expressed by Pope Pius XI in his Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart: Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism, and refuse not to draw them into the light and kingdom of God.
A Reformist Dream, Backed by an Iron Fist
All in all, you appear to be afflicted by a reformist mania that knows no bounds beyond your dream of the way the Church should be. As you declared in your unprecedented personal papal manifesto, Evangelii gaudium (nn. 27, 49):
I dream of a missionary option, that is, a missionary impulse capable of transforming everything, so that the Churchs customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channeled for the evangelization of todays world rather than for her self-preservation . More than by fear of going astray, my hope is that we will be moved by the fear of remaining shut up within structures which give us a false sense of security, within rules which make us harsh judges, within habits which make us feel safe, while at our door people are starving and Jesus does not tire of saying to us: Give them something to eat (Mk 6:37). Incredibly enough, you profess that the immemorial structures and rules of the Holy Catholic Church were cruelly inflicting spiritual starvation and death before your arrival from Buenos Aires, and that now you wish to change literally everything in the Church in order to make her merciful. How are the faithful to see this as anything but the sign of a frightening megalomania? You even declare that evangelization, as you understand it, must not be limited by fear over the Churchs self-preservationas if the two things were somehow opposed!
Your gauzy dream of reforming everything is accompanied by an iron fist that smashes any attempt to restore the vineyard already devastated by a half-century of reckless reforms. For as you revealed in your manifesto (Evangelii gaudium, 94), you are filled with contempt for tradition-minded Catholics, whom you rashly accuse of self-absorbed Promethean neopelagianism and of feel[ing] superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past.
You even ridicule a supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline because, according to you, it leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others But it is you who are constantly classifying and analyzing others with an endless stream of pejoratives, caricatures, insults and condemnations of observant Catholics you deem insufficiently responsive to the God of surprises you introduced during the Synod.
Hence your brutal destruction of the thriving Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate on account of a definitely traditionalist drift. This was followed by your decree that henceforth any attempt to erect a new diocesan institute for consecrated life (for example, to accommodate displaced members of the Friars) will be null and void absent prior consultation with the Holy See (i.e., de facto permission that can and will be withheld indefinitely). You thus dramatically diminish the perennial autonomy of bishops in their own dioceses even as you preach a new age of collegiality and synodality.
Targeting cloistered convents, you have further decreed measures to compel the surrender of their local autonomy to federations governed by ecclesial bureaucrats, the routine breaking of the cloister for external formation, the mandated intrusion of laity into the cloister for Eucharistic adoration, the outrageous disqualification of conventual voting majorities if they are elderly, and a universal requirement of nine years of formation before final vows, which is certain to stifle new vocations and ensure the extinction of many of the remaining cloisters.
God help us!
A Relentless Drive to Accommodate Sexual Immorality in the Church
But nothing exceeds the arrogance and audacity with which you have relentlessly pursued the imposition upon the Church universal of the same evil practice you authorized as Archbishop of Buenos Aires: the sacrilegious administration of the Blessed Sacrament to people living in adulterous second marriages or cohabiting without even the benefit of a civil ceremony.
From almost the moment of your election you have promoted the Kasper proposalrejected repeatedly by the Vatican under John Paul II. Cardinal Walter Kasper, an arch-liberal even among the liberal German hierarchy, had long argued for the admission of divorced and remarried persons to Holy Communion in certain cases according to a bogus penitential path that would admit them to the Sacrament while they continue their adulterous sexual relations. Kasper belonged to the St. Gallen group that lobbied for your election, and you royally rewarded his persistence in error, with the press happily dubbing him the Popes theologian.
It seems you have little regard for sacramental marriage as an objective fact as opposed to what people subjectively feel about the status of immoral relationships the Church can never recognize as matrimony. In remarks which alone will discredit your bizarre pontificate until the end of time, you declared that the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null whereas certain people cohabiting without marriage can have a true marriage because of their fidelity. Are these remarks perhaps a reflection of your divorced and remarried sister and cohabiting nephew?
Your preposterous opinionone of the many you have expressed since your electionprovoked worldwide protest on the part of the faithful. In an effort to minimize the scandal, the Vaticans official transcript altered your words from great majority of our sacramental marriages to a part of our sacramental marriages but left intact your disgraceful approbation of immoral cohabitation as true marriage.
Nor do you seem concerned about the sacrilege involved in public adulterers and cohabiters receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. As you told the woman in Argentina to whom you gave permission on the telephone to receive Communion while living in adultery with a divorced man: A little bread and wine does no harm. You have never denied the womans account, and it would only be consistent with your refusal to kneel at the Consecration or before the exposed Blessed Sacrament even though you have no difficulty kneeling to kiss the feet of Muslims during your grotesque parody of the traditional Holy Thursday mandatum, which you have abandoned. It would also comport with your remarks to a Lutheran woman, in the Lutheran church you attended on a Sunday, that the dogma of transubstantiation is a mere interpretation, that life is bigger than explanations and interpretations, and that she should talk to the Lord about whether to receive Communion in a Catholic Churchwhich she later did following your evident encouragement.
In line with your scant regard for sacramental marriage is your precipitous and secretive reform of the annulment process, which you foisted upon the Church without consulting any of the competent Vatican dicasteries. Your Motu Proprio Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus erects the framework for a veritable worldwide annulment mill with a fast-track procedure and nebulous new grounds for expedited annulment proceedings. As the head of your clandestinely contrived reform later explained, your express intention is to promote among the bishops a conversion, a change of mentality which convinces and sustains them in following the invitation of Christ, present in their brother, the Bishop of Rome, to pass from the restricted number of a few thousand annulments to that immeasurable [number] of unfortunates who might have a declaration of nullity
Thus does the Bishop of Rome demand from his fellow bishops a vast increase in the number of annulments! A distinguished Catholic journalist later reported on the emergence of a seven-page dossier in which curial officials juridically picked apart the Popes motu proprio accuse the Holy Father of giving up an important dogma, and assert that he has introduced de facto Catholic divorce. These officials deplored what this journalist describes as an ecclesialized Führerprinzip, ruling from the top down, by decree and without any consultation or any checks. The same officials fear that the motu proprio will lead to a flood of annulments and that from now on, couples would be able to simply exit their Catholic marriage without a problem. They are beside themselves and feel obligated to speak up
But you are nothing if not consistent in pursuing your aims. Early in your pontificate, during one of the in-flight press conferences at which you have first revealed your plans, you stated: The Orthodox follow the theology of economy, as they call it, and they give a second chance of marriage [sic], they allow it. I believe that this problem must be studied. For you, the lack of any second chance of marriage in the Catholic Church is a problem to be studied. You have clearly spent the past three-and-a-half years contriving to impose on the Church something approximating the Orthodox practice.
A distinguished canonist who is a consultant to the Apostolic Signatura has warned that as result of your reckless disregard of the reality of sacramental marriage:
a crisis (in the Greek sense of that word) over marriage is unfolding in the Church, and it is a crisis that will, I suggest, come to a head over matrimonial discipline and law . I think the marriage crisis that he [Francis] is occasioning is going to come down to whether Church teaching on marriage, which everyone professes to honor, will be concretely and effectively protected in Church law, or, whether the canonical categories treating marriage doctrine become so distorted (or simply disregarded) as essentially to abandon marriage and married life to the realm of personal opinion and individual conscience.
Amoris Laetita: the Real Motive for the Sham Synod
That crisis reached its peak following the conclusion of your disastrous Synod on the Family. Although you manipulated this event from beginning to end to obtain the result you desiredHoly Communion for public adulterers in certain casesit fell short of your expectations because of opposition from the conservative Synod Fathers youdemagogically denounced as having closed hearts which frequently hide even behind the Churchs teachings or good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families.
In a brutal abuse of rhetoric, you likened your orthodox episcopal opponents to the Pharisees, who practiced divorce and remarriage according to the Mosaic dispensation. These were the very bishops who defended the teaching of Christ against the Phariseesand your own designs! Indeed, you seem intent on reviving a Pharisaical acceptance of divorce by way of a neo-Mosaic practice. A renowned Catholic journalist known for his moderate approach to analysis of Church affairs protested your reprehensible behavior: For a pope to criticize those who remain faithful to that tradition, and characterize them as somehow unmerciful and as aligning themselves with hard-hearted Pharisees against the merciful Jesus is bizarre.
In the end, the synodal journey you extolled was revealed as nothing but a sham concealing the foregone conclusion of your appalling Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Latetita. Therein your ghostwriters, principally in Chapter Eight, employ artful ambiguity to open wide the door to Holy Communion for public adulterers by reducing the natural law forbidding adultery to a general rule to which there can be exceptions for people who have great difficulty in understanding its inherent values or are living in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently (¶¶ 2, 301, 304) Amoris is a transparent attempt to smuggle a mitigated form of situation ethics into matters of sexual morality, as if the error could be thus confined.
Your evident obsession with legitimating Holy Communion for public adulterers has led you to defy the constant moral teaching and intrinsically related sacramental discipline of the Church, affirmed by both of your immediate predecessors. That discipline is based on the teaching of Our Lord Himself on the indissolubility of marriage as well as the teaching of Saint Paul on the divine punishment due to the unworthy reception of Holy Communion. To quote John Paul II in this regard: However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage. Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples. [Familiaris consortio, n. 84] You have ignored the worldwide pleas of priests, theologians and moral philosophers, Catholic associations and journalists, and even a few courageous prelates among an otherwise silent hierarchy, to retract or clarify the tendentious ambiguities and outright errors of Amoris, particularly in Chapter Eight.
A Grave Moral Error Now Explicitly Approved
And now, moving beyond a devious use of ambiguity, you have authorized explicitly behind the scenes what you have condoned ambiguously in public. The scheme was brought to light with the leaking of your confidential letter to the bishops of the pastoral region of Buenos Aireswhere, as Archbishop, you had already authorized mass sacrilege in the villas (slums).
In this letter you praise the bishops document on Basic Criteria for the Application of Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitiaas if there were some duty to apply the document so as to produce a change in the Churchs bimillenial sacramental discipline. You write: The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations. Is it a coincidence that this document comes from the very archdiocese where, as Archbishop, you had long since authorized the admission of public adulterers and cohabiters to Holy Communion?
What was only clearly implied before is now made explicit, and those who insisted Amoris changes nothing have been made to look like fools. The document you now praise as the only correct interpretation of Amoris radically undermines the doctrine and practice of the Church your predecessors defended. In the first place, it reduces to an option the moral imperative that divorced and remarried couples live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples. According to the bishops of Buenos Aireswith your approvalit is merely possible to propose that they make the effort of living in continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the difficulties of thisoption.
As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared definitively only 18 years ago during the reign of the very Pope you canonized: if the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid, under no circumstances can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible. The conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception. This is the constant teaching of the Catholic Church for two millennia.
Moreover, no parish priest or even a bishop has the power to honor in the so-called internal forum the claim of one living in adultery that his conscience tells him that his sacramental marriage was really invalid because, as the CDF further admonished, marriage has a fundamental public ecclesial character and the axiom applies that nemo iudex in propria causa (no one is judge in his own case), marital cases must be resolved in the external forum. If divorced and remarried members of the faithful believe that their prior marriage was invalid, they are thereby obligated to appeal to the competent marriage tribunal so that the question will be examined objectively and under all available juridical possibilities.
Having reduced an exceptionless moral norm rooted in divine revelation to an option, the bishops of Buenos Aires, citing Amoris as their only authority in 2,000 years of Church teaching, next declare: In other, more complex circumstances, and when it is not possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, the aforementioned option may not, in fact, befeasible. A universal moral norm is thus relegated to the category of a mere guideline to be disregarded if a local priest deems it unfeasible in certain undefined complex circumstances. What exactly are these complex circumstances and what does complexity have to do with exceptionless moral norms founded on revelation?
Finally, the bishops reach the disastrous conclusion you have contrived to impose upon the Church from the beginning of the synodal journey:
Nonetheless, it is equally possible to undertake a journey of discernment. If one arrives at the recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351). These in turn dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the aid of grace.
With your praise and approbation, the bishops of Buenos Aires declare for the first time in Church history that an ill-defined class of people living in adultery may be absolved and receive Holy Communion while remaining in that state. The consequences are catastrophic.
- Stay tuned for Part III - to be posted Friday, Sept. 23
To Include...
A Pastoral Practice at War with Doctrine Exceptions to the Moral Law Cannot be Confined Ignoring All Entreaties, You Forge Ahead with Your Revolution We Must Oppose You
With Burning Concern: We Accuse Pope Francis: The Remnant & Catholic Family News - II of III
As promised, here’s Part II.
It’s about time that people see that this jackass is the ‘False Prophet’...
With Burning Concern: We Accuse Pope Francis Part II of III
An Absurd Whitewash of Islam
A Reformist Dream, Backed by an Iron Fist
A Relentless Drive to Accommodate Sexual Immorality in the Church
A Grave Moral Error Now Explicitly Approved
Stay tuned for Part III - to be posted Friday, Sept. 23
To Include...
A Pastoral Practice at War with Doctrine Exceptions to the Moral Law Cannot be Confined Ignoring All Entreaties, You Forge Ahead with Your Revolution We Must Oppose You
With burning concern?? Are they implying he’s like Hitler?
Is this pope a Catholic?
Amazing how ignorant some are. Put love in your heart and you will see Pope Francis for the good man he really is.
while i have to object to his apparent positions on several issues, his support of the IslamoNazi invasion of Europe and USA... is contributing to the destruction of the Church and the entire Western civilization
and we don’t want Christian leaders to serve as aplogists for the Satanic Islam fake ‘relgion’ ..either
Islam prays to Satan (you can tell a tree by its fruits)
Islam is the opoenly-declared enemy of the Church and Christians (and Jews and other innocent people) everywhere
if we are to survive, we must defeat and end Islam, period. start by deporting (repatriating) them back to the countries they’ve already conquered by this very same type of mass-invasion
“Is this pope a Catholic?”
Not really. He’s a Jesuit. Like Democrats were once Americans, Jesuits were once Catholics.
LOL!!!!!!
Thank you, that was hilarious!!! (-:
yes, Pope Francis may in some ways be a good man,
but he’ll be the death of us all
if he doesn’t start helping us deport, not import, Moslems!
“It will be a delight to be able to use so many insults while still avoiding being judgemental.”
Perfect.
Are they implying hes like Hitler?
_______________________________
Actually, depending on one’s frame of reference, some might conclude that he’s WORSE then Hitler.
Is this pope a Catholic?
______________________
Depends on how one defines the word Catholic.
Put love in your heart and you will see Pope Francis for the good man he really is.
____________________________________
Having love in your heart doesn’t preclude having a brain in your head, at least for most people.
His support of the Islamo-Nazi invasion of Europe and USA... is contributing to the destruction of the Church and the entire Western civilization.
And we dont want Christian leaders to serve as apologists for the Satanic Islam fake religion ..either.
____________________________________________
Precisely correct. And as a practicing Catholic, I could not agree with you more. He’s an embarrassing disgrace to all Christians.
Not really. Hes a Jesuit. Like Democrats were once Americans, Jesuits were once Catholics.
___________________________
Right. And this has been true of the Jesuits since long before the VC-II debacle. Bunch of arrogant bast*rds, the whole lot of them, especially those at Georgetown University. I know this from personal experience.
It is not mere happenstance that Jorge Bergoglio’s selection to be Pope is manifoldly unprecedented; it is analogous to Barry Soetoro’s selection to be the 2008 Democratic candidate.
His selection is specifically unprecedented in several ways, and in combination, these explain the reason for it, and who is behind it. The equation is simple:
A) He is a Jesuit, and therefore a secularized pseudo-Christian who embraces leftist (”liberal”) ideology at the expense of all sound doctrine.
B) He is an Argentine, and therefore a worldly heretic who embraces so-called liberation theology, a Marxist philosophy focused upon making Heaven on Earth by redistributing wealth.
C) He is named Francis, a name which, through no fault of the celebrated historical servant of the Lord who inspired it, evokes a repudiation of all prosperity and property in the name of addressing poverty.
A + B + C = Communist.
Soetoro and Bergoglio were both chosen by globalists to assist in destroying Eurocentric Western Civilization, by redistributing not only property but population.
Everything these two communists do to enable the Muslim hordes to invade the West and supplant the natives - including Christians - is thus easily explained.
For anyone interested, you can watch that EWTN discussion segment at this link: "World Over - 2016-09-15 Pope Francis, Communion for Remarried Divorcees with Raymond Arroyo" - "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvzdueUc9Ug".
That seems to be the inference.
Pope Francis is disgracing the Church.
Tagline
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.