Posted on 03/30/2021 1:44:54 PM PDT by ebb tide
From The Wanderer
We have known for decades that the Church is in crisis. However, in recent years and, above all, in the past few months, in my opinion we are witnessing the manifestation of omens that indicate the imminence of the final outcome. The crisis is terminal, that is, irreversible. There is no way to turn back. Without a direct divine intervention, the Catholic Church will disappear in the next decade, transformed into a religious multinational, disfigured in its original character and transformed into a furious persecutor of the few Catholics who remain faithful to the depositum fidei.
When Pope Francis revealed Laetitia’s love affairs to us a few years ago [editor’s note: a sarcastic reference to Amoris Laetitia], we began to see that the question was no longer reduced to Latin or the use of guitars in the liturgy. Doctrine was being undermined.
In recent days we have witnessed the comic developments caused by the declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which denies the possibility of giving blessings to homosexual couples, a matter that for a normal Catholic who has learned the catechism is an obvious truth. Well, what should have been an almost superfluous and obvious answer has provoked a great debate. To give only two examples, a group of Austrian priests have made it clear that they will not obey, and many German priests have said the same thing, while an important Belgian bishop, Johan Bonny, has said that he is ashamed of the Church because of this sort of document, and he has apologized to all homosexual couples as well as to their parents and grandparents.
So far, the Holy See has not reacted to these signs of rebellion against the doctrine of the Catholic faith, while Bishop Eduardo Taussig [of San Rafael, Argentina] and many other bishops continue to sanction priests and the faithful for giving and receiving Communion on the tongue. I do not know if we are aware of the situation of apostasy in which we find ourselves, or if it seems to us like everything is normal.
I will not repeat here the history of the document of the CDF and the subsequent advances and retreats that have been sufficiently documented elsewhere, but it is worthwhile to do some analysis.
The episode paints a complete picture of Bergoglio. His principle is: never sign anything that is against doctrine, but approve and encourage changes by means of gestures and printing operations. It is the old Jesuit and Peronist tactic. A friend has conveniently recalled the story The Great Tamerlane of Persia [editor’s note: in which the protagonist disguised himself as a merchant at night and visited the slums, while during the day he raged against the people in his palace]. Some Italian media have wondered if all this is a sign of Bergoglio’s psychological imbalance. In my opinion, it was a perfectly planned maneuver.
It is clear and uncontestable that the response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was published with the express authorization of the Pontiff. The document itself says: “The Sovereign Pontiff Francis, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Secretary of this Congregation, was informed and gave his assent to the publication of the above-mentioned Responsum ad dubium, with the annexed Explanatory Note.” The typically Jesuitical explanations of Pino Piva [editor’s note: Father Pino Piva, S.J., “an expert in pastoral accompaniment paths with homosexual persons”] have no foundation.
A few days after the publication of the document and the subsequent fuss, the journalistic association formed by the couple Gerard O’Connell and Elisabetta Piqué, with related articles in the international media (American Magazine and La Nación) has informed us that according to confidential sources within Santa Marta, Pope Francis was very disturbed by the note from the CDF, as was supposedly demonstrated by the words he spoke in his Angelus address on March 21. The articles appeared immediately after the end of the prayer, which indicates that they had been prepared well in advance. Many have wondered who the “authoritative source” could be. I have no doubt that it is Bergoglio himself. He is a personal friend of the O’Connell – Piqué couple, and he has already used them on other occasions, including when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires, for his printing operations.
Bergoglio, for whatever reason, wants to change the practice of the Church with regard to persons with homosexual tendencies, not only by allowing their conduct but also by blessing them. He cannot or does not want to sign an official doctrinal change, which would be catastrophic for the already-fragile unity of the Church and would make him go down in history as a certified apostate. What he is doing, therefore, is attaining his objective with allusions and ambiguous speeches, so that everyone understands what he wants anyways through the international press that is aligned with him […]. Everything has been attentively planned by Francis.
As if the ambiguity of the words at the Angelus were not enough, on Tuesday, March 23, in a speech given on the anniversary of none other than Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Francis gave even clearer indications, even if this time the ambiguity passed by almost unnoticed. He said: “I invite moral theologians, missionaries and confessors to enter into a living relationship with the people of God, and to look at existence from their angle, to understand the real difficulties they encounter and to help heal wounds […]. Moral theology cannot reflect only on the formulation of principles, of rules, but needs to be proactive about the reality that exceeds any idea (cf. EG 231). This is a priority (cf. EG 34-39), since the mere knowledge of theoretical principles, as Saint Alphonsus himself reminds us, is not enough to accompany and sustain consciences in the discernment of the good that is to be done.”
Bergoglio, paraphrasing Perón, says: “Don’t look at what I sign, but at what I say.” After these words, with what authority can one reproach, for example, the Salesian priest who a few weeks ago publicly blessed a homosexual couple in Ushuaia, Argentina? He was simply a good pastor who knew how to look at reality and, distancing himself from theoretical principles, accompanied consciences and healed the wounded.
These events recall and confirm the intuition that Ludovicus had in the first months of the Bergoglian pontificate, coining the expression “institutional cannibalism.” Elisabetta Piqué wrote at La Nación: “Although today’s letter, like last Sunday’s Angelus, did not have any reference to the responsum of the CDF, a document that had the assent of the Holy Father, the message made clear the contrasting vision of Pope Francis and of the Church in terms of content and language.” I wonder how there can be a contrast between the vision of the Pope and of the Church. The message of the journalist – and this is the message Bergoglio wants to convey – is that the Pope is the good one and the Church is the bad one, which impedes the development of the good intentions and actions of the pope.
Finally, as was warned a few days ago, Francis is not, as many of us believed, the incarnation of Vatican II. That unfortunate assembly did not throw the stone so far. Francis is Vatican III.
Source: caminante-wanderer.blogspot.com
Ping
Thanks for the update. Unfortunately, I believe the author is correct about the demise of the hierarchy of the Church.
Vatican III, that’s pretty good.
I’m still trying to figure out Vatican II and if there’s really anything wrong with it.
Thanks for that Ebb Tide, I’m slowly reading thru it.
“Even though the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ, neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during His passion.”
- Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, “Nostra Aetate,” Oct. 28, 1965
Wasn’t N.A. one of the best things to come out of Vatican II? Catholics are not “completed Jews.” Jesus, Mary and Joseph were Jewish, racially and spiritually. A Jewish person today does not carry a mark of guilt for the crucifixion. It’s backwards to think that medieval way and hold discriminatory views of Jews. N.A. is a great document, and an important turning point in world history.
Nostra Aetate is a heresy and it is the reason Bergoglio now says the Jewish covenant was never revoked and Jews do not need conversion to Christ for their salvation. N.A. is in direct conflict with the dogma, "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus".
I was also struck by #5. Seems just keeping blinders on to say Muslims and Christians worship the same God ?!? Maybe this was devised in a mid-century idealistic bubble, before Islam became an evident weapon of religious extremism and political violence?
Hmmm, well, they are the Chosen People.
Do you rembember this bible verse:
The governor said to them: Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying: Let him be crucified. [24] And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made; taking water washed his hands before the people, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man; look you to it. [25] And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children.Matthew Chapter 27
P.S. How do you explain all humans still carrying the stain of Adam and Eve's Original Sin until we are baptized?
Thus it was truly surprising and refreshing to hear in Benedict's radio address that the pope himself has reservations about Nostra Aetate, and even some criticism of it. Let's look at his statements in context:
Nostra aetate # 4:
"Since, therefore, the spiritual heritage common to Christians and Jews is so great, this synod wishes to promote and recommend that mutual knowledge and esteem which is required especially from biblical and theological studies and from friendly dialogues."[78]
Nostra aetate # 4:
"As holy scripture is witness, Jerusalem did not know the time of its visitation, and for the most part the Jews did not accept the Gospel, indeed many of them opposed its dissemination. Nevertheless, according to the apostle, because of their ancestors the Jews still remain very dear to God, whose gift and call are without regret."[79]
The Catholic Church does not look upon the Jews with esteem, but with sadness, acknowledging that they exist in a state of rejection of the true God; and that they need to be recalled from their false religion in order to be saved.
Pope Benedict XIV, A Quo Primum (# 4), June 14, 1751:
"Surely it is not in vain that the Church has established the universal prayer which is offered up for the faithless Jews from the rising of the sun to its setting, that the Lord God may remove the veil from their hearts, that they may be rescued from their darkness into the light of truth. For unless it hoped that those who do not believe would believe, it would obviously be futile and empty to pray for them."[80]
Pope Benedict XIV is referring to the prayer in the Catholic liturgy which implored God to convert the perfidious Jews. The word perfidious means unfaithful.[81] Not surprisingly, in 1960, the phrase "perfidious Jews" was removed from the Good Friday liturgy by Pope John XXIII. Furthermore, Pope Eugene IV dogmatically defined that everyone who practices the Mosaic law - that is, the Jewish religion - cannot be saved.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, Feb. 4, 1441:
"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors."[82]
WRONG. The Jews were and ARE NOW the Chosen People of God.
Period.
“Hmmm, well, they are the Chosen People.”
Yes, they are God’s chosen people, Marchmain. Indeed.
How so? Being they called for the Crucifixion of God and called for His Blood to be upon them and their children?
And to this day, they refuse to recognize Jesus Christ as God.
So every Jew in the world at the time was there screaming for Jesus to be crucified? And to this day, ALL Jews reject Jesus? That God rejected all of Christ Jesus’ disciples since they were Jewish?
I don’t think so.
But I guarantee you this, that even if it WERE so, God would STILL fulfill His promises. You can bank on it. He will fulfill every promise in Scripture. God is not a liar. If His promises to Israel were no good, then neither are His words to us. Can’t have it both ways.
And by your reckoning, was Mary also abandoned by God? She was a Jewess, after all.
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.