Bishop Fellay: Cardinal Kasper Quite Logical and Perfectly Consistent …

bpbernardfellay_01You were received by Cardinal Müller on September 23rd.  The communiqué from the Vatican Press Office repeats the language of the 2005 communiqué issued after your meeting with Benedict XVI, which already said that the parties would “proceed gradually and over a reasonable period of time… with a view to the envisioned full communion.”  The 2014 communiqué, on the other hand, speaks about “full reconciliation.”  Does this mean that you are starting over at the beginning? 

Yes and no, depending on the perspective that you take.  There is nothing new, in the sense that both our interlocutors and ourselves, we realize that doctrinal differences still exist—which had been made quite clear during the theological discussions in 2009-2011—and that because of this we were unable to sign the Doctrinal Preamble that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has proposed to us since 2011.

But what is new?

There is a new pope and a new prefect heading the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  And this recent interview shows that neither they nor we want a break in our relations:  both parties insist that it is necessary to clarify the doctrinal questions before there is any canonical recognition.  This is why, for their part, the Roman authorities are demanding the endorsement of the Doctrinal Preamble which, for our part, we cannot sign because of its ambiguities.

Another new fact is the current aggravation of the crisis in the Church.  On the eve of the Synod on the Family, serious, well-founded criticisms made by several cardinals against Cardinal Kasper’s proposals about communion for the divorced-and-remarried are coming to light.  This has not been seen in Rome since the criticisms by Cardinal Ottaviani and Bacci in their Short Critical Study on the New Order of Mass (the “Ottaviani Intervention” of 1969).  But what has not changed is the fact that the Roman authorities still do not take our criticisms of the Council into account, because to them they seem secondary or even illusory, given the severe problems in the Church today.  These authorities do recognize the crisis that is convulsing the Church at the highest level—now among cardinals—but they do not consider that the Council itself could be the main cause of this unprecedented crisis.  It is like a dialogue of deaf people.

Can you give a specific example?

Cardinal Kasper’s proposals in favor of communion for divorced-and-remarried persons are an illustration of what we blame on the Council.  In the talk that he gave to the cardinals during the Consistory on February 20th of this year, he proposed doing again what was done at the Council, namely:  reaffirming Catholic doctrine while offering pastoral overtures.  In his various interviews with journalists he harps on this distinction between doctrine and pastoral practice.  He says that theoretically doctrine cannot change, but he introduces the notion that concretely, in reality, there are some situations in which the doctrine cannot be applied.  Then, in his opinion, only a pastoral approach is capable of finding solutions… at the expense of doctrine.

Cardinal Kasper is quite logical and perfectly consistent:  he proposes applying pastorally to marriage the new principles concerning the Church that were spelled out at the Council in the name of ecumenism:  there are elements of ecclesiality outside the Church.  He moves logically from ecclesial ecumenism to matrimonial ecumenism.  Thus, in his opinion, there are elements of Christian marriage outside of the sacrament.  To look at things concretely, just ask spouses what they would think of “ecumenical” marital fidelity or fidelity in diversity!  Similarly, what are we supposed to think about a so-called “ecumenical” doctrinal unity that is united in diversity?  This sort of result is what we denounce, but the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith either does not see it or else does not accept it.

How are we to understand the expression from the Vatican communiqué:  “proceed gradually?” 

The mutual desire of Rome and in the Society of Saint Pius X to continue doctrinal discussions in a broader, less formal framework than in the previous discussions.

Cardinal Kasper’s proposals in favor of communion for divorced-and-remarried persons are an illustration of what we blame on the Council.  In the talk that he gave to the cardinals during the Consistory on February 20th of this year, he proposed doing again what was done at the Council, namely:  reaffirming Catholic doctrine while offering pastoral overtures.  In his various interviews with journalists he harps on this distinction between doctrine and pastoral practice.  He says that theoretically doctrine cannot change, but he introduces the notion that concretely, in reality, there are some situations in which the doctrine cannot be applied.  Then, in his opinion, only a pastoral approach is capable of finding solutions… at the expense of doctrine.

For our part, we blame the Council for making this artificial distinction between doctrine and pastoral practice, because pastoral practice must follow from doctrine.  Through multiple pastoral concessions, substantial changes have been introduced in the Church, and its doctrine has been affected.  This is what happened during and after the Council, and we denounce the same strategy that is being used today against the morality of marriage.

But was it only pastoral changes in the Council that indirectly affected doctrine?

No, we are in fact obliged to note that serious changes were made in doctrine itself:  religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism….  But it is true that these changes appear more clearly and more evidently in their concrete pastoral applications, because in the conciliar documents they are presented as simple overtures, just hinted at, with much left unsaid….which makes them, in the words of my predecessor, Fr. Schmidberger, “time bombs.”

In the proposals of Cardinal Kasper, where do you see a pastoral application that makes more evident a doctrinal change introduced during the Council?  Where do you see a “time bomb?” 

In the interview that he granted to the Vaticanist Andrea Tornielli on September 18th, the Cardinal says:  “Church doctrine is not a closed system: the Second Vatican Council teaches us that there is a development, meaning that it is possible to look into this further. I wonder if a deeper understanding similar to what we saw in ecclesiology, is possible in this case (i.e. that of divorced Catholics who have remarried civilly).  Although the Catholic Church is Christ’s true Church, there are elements of ecclesiality beyond the institutional boundaries of the Church too. Couldn’t some elements of sacramental marriage also be recognized in civil marriages in certain cases? For example, the lifelong commitment, mutual love and care, Christian life and a public declaration of commitment that does not exist in common-law marriages.”

 But if the doctrinal discussions in 2009-2011 accomplished nothing, what good is it to resume them, even in a broader fashion? 

Because, following the example of Archbishop Lefebvre, who never refused to go to Rome at the invitation of the Roman authorities, we always respond to those who ask us about the reasons for our fidelity to Tradition.  We could not shirk this responsibility, and we will fulfil it in the spirit and with the obligations that were defined by the last General Chapter.

But since you just mentioned the audience that Benedict XVI granted me in 2005, I remember saying then that we wanted to show that the Church would be stronger in today’s world if it upheld Tradition; I would also add:  if it proudly recalled its bi-millennial Tradition.  I say it again today, we wish to contribute our witness:  if the Church wants to end the tragic crisis that it is going through, Tradition is the response to this crisis.  This is how we manifest our filial piety toward eternal Rome, to the Church, the mother and teacher of truth, to whom we are deeply devoted.

You say that this is about giving witness; it is not rather a profession of faith?

One does not exclude the other.  Our Founder liked to say that the theological arguments with which we profess the faith are not always understood by our Roman interlocutors, but that does not relieve us of the duty to recall them.  Moreover, with his characteristic supernatural realism, Archbishop Lefebvre added that the concrete accomplishments of Tradition:  the seminaries, schools, priories, the number of priests, brothers and sisters, of seminarians and lay faithful, also had a great value as proof.  Against these tangible facts no specious argument can hold up:  contra factum non fit argumentum.  In the present case, we could translate this Latin adage by the saying of Jesus Christ, “A tree is judged by its fruits.”  And in this sense, while professing the faith, we must give witness to the vitality of Tradition.   Source

Comment:

If you can highlight one point made by Bishop Fellay which outshines the rest, share it with us. I can’t get past the (obviously rhetorical) question: “why isn’t Bishop Fellay Pope?”

59 responses

  1. Bishop Fellay is spot on – given the drastic “reforms” of Vatican II in terms of ecumenism, religious liberty etc. then it’s perfectly consistent and logical for Cardinal Kasper to seek to adapt marriage “rules” to the spirit of this Godless age, as the “rules” about there being one true Church etc have been ignored in the name of adapting to the modern world.

    The problem is for those Catholics who criticise Cardinal Kasper’s plans for the synod while persisting in going along with the “reforms” and defending the indefensible changes brought about as a result of Vatican II. They are NOT being logical and consistent.

    Enter our modernist readers… to, er, defend the indefensible 😯

    • Too true. The Catholics who have gone along with the changes in the Church and defended them because they must obey the Pope etc. must not complain about Cardinal Kasper’s disgraceful attacks on marriage because the Pope has endorsed what he has said, if nothing else than by his silence. He spoke out at the start of this controversy only to praise Cardinal Kasper and not a word since, so we can draw our own conclusions. The conclusion the papolatry Catholics have to draw is that it’s fine to allow “remarried” people to receive Communion and that Jesus was wrong to call these “remarriages” adultery.

  2. Bishop Fellay is surely a living saint. He sums up the situation perfectly when he says ” if the Church wants to end the tragic crisis that it is going through, Tradition is the response to this crisis. This is how we manifest our filial piety toward eternal Rome, to the Church, the mother and teacher of truth, to whom we are deeply devoted.”

  3. This is a smooth talking cardinal – I think the synod will be a real battle ground, with him on the side of the devil.

    • That Cardinal is a total disgrace and should be hanging his head in shame. He is definitely on the side of the devil, without a doubt.

      • Lily,

        I don’t think that Cardinal knows the word ‘shame’. Like our illustrious Pope, he is no friend of tradition- I don’t think there is any TLM offered in his diocese,since he was transferred there.

        • Jobstears,

          You are so right – these cardinals who are causing the confusion re. Holy Communion for public sinners, are as shameless as they are faithless. This synod, more than anything else to date, reminds me of the Akita prophecy that “cardinal will oppose cardinal, bishop oppose bishop” – I tried to post a video of another cardinal speaking out against the Kasper Crew, with that very quote attached, but we are having problems with the website and so it wouldn’t go online for me. What’s the bet it will go online for Webmaster, though, when he has a bash? Jealous? Moi? Just because I’m technologically challenged? Moi? You betcha!

          A short while later…

          Success at last! Who needs Webmaster? Moi? You kidding?

          • Later again, that same evening…

            I thought I would post the video and quote from Akita which is on the website (although imperfectly – we’re still having problems with the software) because I think it is becoming clearer by the minute that both Fatima and Akita (which personally I believe contains something at least of the suppressed part of the Third Secret) are unfolding at the present time…

            The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, and bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their Confreres. The Church and altars will be vandalized. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord. he work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, and bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their Confreres. The Church and altars will be vandalized. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.
            Our Lady, Akita, Japan, 1973 – 1981

            • Editor, you technically challenged? Not at all 😉

              Cardinal Napier made an excellent point – which really makes this sham synod unnecessary: he says, for divorced and remarried couples, the only way out is to accept the Cross of Christ! That the world intervenes and offers a ‘soft solution’ complicates things but the solution is not at all a solution in the light of eternity.
              What else really is there to say? Just listening to the cardinals go on and on about ‘pastoral’ this that and the other, while trying to sound intelligent and compassionate is sickening.

              “The Church will be full of those who accept compromises “, how very true!

      • Lily,

        Wuerl would undoubtedly say that Bishop Fellay is a schismatic, that’s the laugh of the whole thing.

        He’d look worried and say going to an SSPX Mass might mean you end up with a “schismatic mindset”. He really is blind, like all the rest of the cardinals pushing for a change in the practice of Communion for the divorced and remarried.

          • Therese,

            I suspect Nicky refers to the spiritual blindness that is the very stuff of the diabolical disorientation engulfing the hierarchy at the present time. They are so blind because they stick obstinately to their modernist beliefs, ridiculing the traditional popes who identified and warned against the same errors to which they now so openly adhere.

            Blind, you say? As a bat, I reply 😯

  4. I’ve written extensively about this Synod of the Devil on my blog. Here is some of what I’ve been saying:

    Rome is blessed to be standing on its foundation. God will not be mocked for much longer.

    Holy Communion is a Sacrament for crying out loud! What on earth is the “pastoral application,” this Cardinal Wuerl speaks of? It’s insanity. It’s not enough that they trample underfoot the Body of Christ. No, they’ve grown bored with that. They have now turned their attention to a new found way to manifest their hatred for the Sacramental nature of the Catholic Religion; they will now trample underfoot the doctrine and teaching of the Church concerning these Sacraments. They may attempt to undermine the Scriptural foundation for the seven Sacraments of our Holy Religion, but they can never justify this complete and total abandonment of the Faith once passed down to our Fathers in exchange for their beastly and grotesque new church that is being erected in Rome.

    “What excuse shall he have, what mercy can be hoped for, who corrupts the adorable and ineffable dogmas of our faith?” ~St. John Chrysostom

    “Your sons ask for the bread of Faith and no one gives it to them. Ungrateful Rome, effeminate Rome, arrogant Rome. Forgetting that the Sovereign Pontiffs and your true glory are on Golgotha. Woe to you; my law is an idle word for you.” ~St. John Bosco

    The Catholic Religion is an “idle word” to Rome.

    The Synod is essentially saying that the whole mission of the Church, which is to condemn sin and save souls is no longer Her mission because it, “offends” people. Then what is the point of the Church anymore? Is it just an NGO, a community center, a club where everyone’s nice and nobody gets their feelings hurt? This isn’t the Catholic Church anymore. No, it’s not. The Church is being emptied of all divine content, but the Church will triumph again. The greater Her sufferings, the greater will be Her resurrection and triumph.

    As for Bishop Fellay, God bless and protect him. He is a true Catholic Bishop and I am proud to be associated with the SSPX.

    Long live the True Faith and Bishop Fellay!

    • Remnant of the Faith,

      What a fantastic comment. I completely agree with every word. I’d never heard the Don Bosco quote before – that was a mind-blowing moment, so thanks.

      • Thank you!

        The complete quote of St. John Bosco’s vision of Rome is as follows:

        “Ah but you, Italy, land of Blessings! Who has steeped you in desolation? Blame not your enemies, but rather your friends. Can you not hear your children asking for the bread of faith and find only those who smash it to pieces? What shall I do? I shall strike the shepherds, I shall disperse the flock, until those sitting on the throne of Moses search for good pastures and the flock listens attentively and is fed”

        Over the flock and over the shepherds My hand will weigh heavy. Famine, pestilences and war will be such that mothers will have to cry on account of the blood of their sons and of their martyrs dead in a hostile country.

        And to you Rome, what will happen? Ungrateful Rome, effeminate Rome, proud Rome! You have reached such a height that you search no further. You admire nothing else in your sovereign except luxury, forgetting that you and your glory stands upon Golgotha. Now he is old, defenceless and despoiled and yet at his word, the word of one who was in bondage, the whole world trembles.

        “Rome! To you I will come four times! The first time, I shall strike your lands and the inhabitants thereof. The second time, I shall bring the massacre and the slaughter even to your very walls. And will you not yet open your eyes? I shall come a third time and I shall beat down to the ground your defences and the defenders and at the command of the Father, the reign of Terror, of dreadful fear and of desolation shall enter into your city.

        But my wise men have now fled and *My law is even now trampled under foot.* Therefore I will make a fourth visit. *Woe to you if my Law shall still be considered as empty words.* There will be deceit and falsehood amongst both the learned and the ignorant. Your blood and that of your children will wash away your stains upon God’s law. War, pestilence, famine are the rods to scourge men’s pride and wickedness. O wealthy men, where is your glory now, your estates, your palaces? They are the rubble on the highways and byways.

        And you priests, why have you not run to ‘cry between the vestibule and the altar’ begging God to end these scourges? Why have you not, with the shield of faith, gone upon the housetops into the houses along the highways and byways, into every accessible corner to carry the seed of my word? Know you not that this is the terrible two-edged sword that cuts down my enemies and that breaks the Anger of God and of men?”

        God bless you, Lily!

        • Remnant of the Faithful,

          Thank you for your excellent comment – I had a quick look at your blog which is also excellent. Unfortunately, I’m really ultra-busy right now or I’d have spent longer perusing it, but looks great and one of these days I’ll get time to read it properly.

          God bless.

        • RemnantoftheFaith,

          I’ve just visited your blog and I agree with the others – it’s great. Your assessment of the “Resistance” movement is absolutely correct. Bunch of loonies. Most of the ones I know of are now lapsed Catholics, so we can see that God is definitely not on their side.

          • Thank you all for your lovely comments.

            I’m happy to be of help in spreading the truth. It’s nice to know others see the truth, as well.

            Keep the Faith, friends. Pax.

    • Remnant of the Faithful,

      I agree with Lily that your comment is fantastic and has great quotes. I love your “Synod of the Devil” – how true. We knew that even before it began, so Lord knows that we’ll be saying by the time it’s over.

  5. Isn’t it interesting to observe when fakes speak they are all show: calm and reasonable sounding, when in fact they speak evil and vile lies. Cross a fake and you see the real venom!

    • Graeme,

      You’ve hit a very big nail on the head there. I have a stack of stories I could tell about conversations with “liberals” who start out all sweetness and light but crumble when faced with sweetness and light opposition. Then the smiles turn to snarls very quickly.

      I remember once, after an exchange with letters with the former Bishop of Newcastle, he was visiting my parish and – knowing that he was waiting outside for the mandatory hand-shaking/gushing smiles service – I took my time (in mystical prayer and contemplation, of course, lighting candles to every saint in heaven – anything to wait sufficient time for him to have gone into the hall for the”tea party”) but still, there he was, waiting for me at the back. We’d never met, so when I saw that huge beaming smile, with extended hand and gushing “how do you do?”… I realised there would be no point in replying to his latest ridiculous letter and decided to say so.

      I didn’t get the chance. As soon as I smiled and gushingly told him my name and “we’ve had some correspondence in recent months…” the smile disappeared like snow in summer replaced by the snarl and a firm statement to the effect that he was done with that and wouldn’t discuss it. I said, smiling and gushing still, that he’d taken the words out of my mouth – I could see no point.

      So, well said, Graeme “venom” is the word. With bells on.

    • Graeme Taylor,

      “Fakes” is the right word. That’s what these modernists are – fakes, pretending to be what they are not.

  6. Ah Editor – I knew that bishop well. My family’s name was dust in his mouth. We have our own share of correspondence with him, which was as pointless as your own. We had made the unfortunate mistake of thinking that by pointing out the various errors and blasphemies committed in his diocese we could shame him into behaving like a Catholic bishop. Not a mistake I will make again with others of his ilk.

    • Therese,

      Very interesting. He was a dreadful bishop, and when I showed the correspondence to one of my friends, she asked to borrow it to let a priest friend see it. She later told me that the priest said he would not have believed that the bishop would say the things he did, had he not seen the letters on official diocesan headed notepaper for himself. He was dumbfounded that any bishop would write the totally faithless and scandalous rubbish that he penned to me in those shocking letters.

  7. This seems to be some good news from the Synod. However, I couldn’t find a report on it anywhere else, except on the Catholic Herald site and the CH is papolatrist with pink bows, champagne and fresh cream sponge cake added, so I’m not sure if they’ve put a spin on it…

  8. Father Lorans comments on Cardinal Kasper on the SSPX website Dici:

    From Deciphering to Mine-clearing

    Cardinal Walter Kasper declared to journalist Andrea Tornielli on September 18, in a falsely interrogative tone of voice: “Might we not say about marriage what Vatican Council II has allowed us to say about the Church? Just as, according to the Council, there are elements of sanctification in other religions besides Catholicism, might we not, thanks to the Synod on the family, admit that there are also elements of sanctification in other unions besides sacramental marriage?” this declaration hit like a bombshell.

    To hear a Roman prelate claim that civil marriage can contain the elements of sanctification that are proper to sacramental marriage was something absolutely unheard of. But notice that Cardinal Kasper, a great specialist on ecumenism, was inventing nothing new: his conception of marriage, one among many, is based on the conciliar idea of a Church that is one in its diversity. The ecclesial ecumenism expressed in Lumen gentium in 1965 is invoked in favor of matrimonial ecumenism, 49 years later. A doctrinally explosive charge, set half a century ago, has been used today to pastorally blow up the indissolubility of sacramental marriage, to the benefit of a flexible conjugal fidelity!
    Until now, we naïvely thought that the conciliar documents needed to be interpreted, deciphered. Now, thanks to Cardinal Kasper, we know that they also need to be cleared for mines.

    Fr. Alain Lorans

    I wonder if this synod and the in-fighting among the cardinals will make the anti-SSPX Catholics think again. Any that I know are keeping quiet. It’s hard to know what they are thinking. They just repeat stuff like “It’s God’s Church, he will take care of it.” I agree but can’t help wondering “when?” !

    • Nicky,

      Thank you for posting Fr Lorans’ comment on the scandalous remarks made by Cardinal Kasper. As ever, Fr Lorans is to the point; he doesn’t miss and hit the wall, as the saying goes.

      Indeed, thanks to everyone for all the superb contributions to this thread. I’m especially heartened to find that none of the usual neo-Catholic suspects has dared to come on and defend the indefensible goings on in the Synod. And nobody has dared to come on here to accuse Bishop Fellay of being “disloyal”, “schismatic” or anything else. Maybe, just maybe, the penny is beginning to drop, folks! Hope springs eternal 😀

    • Margaret Mary,

      I couldn’t believe what I was reading! This couple is about as Catholic as Luther! As if Catholic teaching has not been ridiculed enough and cast aside as irrelevant (and this model couple did say they found Church teaching to be from another planet and irrelevant!) this Synod of the Devil is going to make sure poorly catechized Catholic-Christians will not see in the Church a moral rudder to help them live as God intends.

          • Jobstears,

            I’ve just taken a minute to quickly look at your link and can see – even at a glance – that this is the sort of good example that should be on the Synod agenda (and would be in normal times, except that in normal times there wouldn’t be any such Synod taking place!)

            Yes, may God forgive this pope and the wretched cardinal followers of Cardinal Kasper, because I think a lot of people who are filled with confusion, are having a tough time understanding what it going on and some day this pontiff and those cardinals will be held accountable. God help them, each one of them, at their judgment. They can’t say they didn’t know any better – the Pope has made it clear he knows only too well but rejects what he considers to be too rigid and “unmerciful” teachings. Yes, let’s hope God forgives him/them, for people like my unworthy self would have a very hard time doing so (not that they’re likely to ask, of course!)

  9. This is an inspired discussion. I’m learning so much – what a wonderful man Bishop Fellay is. I couldn’t agree more with him that Cardinal Kasper and his followers are only following “the spirit of Vatican II”, the rebellious and destructive spirit of Vatican II. They’re at the last post now, attacking doctrine under the guise of “merciful pastoral practice”.

    You folks are on the ball and have helped me no end, just to know there are others out there who can see what is happening. There are those who speak out and show they know the truth. Then there’s the majority who keep silent and just revel in their confusion. We should pray for them and for the Pope presiding over this well named “Synod of the Devil”.

    • Joe Walker 11,

      Thank you for your kind remarks about the bloggers here.

      I’m not sure many are “revelling” in their confusion but I think I know what you mean. Some are silent because they just have no idea what to say in response to what is going on and others are just papolatrists, plain and (very!) simple, thinking it’s a sin to criticise a pope under any circumstances. Crackers.

      Anyway, many thanks for your support – much appreciated.

  10. I think under Pope Francis we can now appreciate what Fr. Malachi Martin meant when he said: “If ever a Jesuit becomes Pope run for the hills, for then the Church will really be in very serious trouble”.

    It is little known in our time that St. Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, instituted a very strict rule for the sons of his order that stands to this present day; it is that they are forbidden to seek or accept ecclesiastical dignity unless bound to do so by a reigning Pontiff under pain of sin. That rule has been relaxed in a few dozen cases over the centuries, mostly by Papal command, but never to the extent of a Jesuit Papacy. Cardinal Bergoglio knew his founder’s rule when he freely accepted election to the highest dignity in the Church, which must surely raise questions about his fidelity to the rule of the Order to which he belongs.

    But it was not merely the possibility of such infidelity to the Jesuit rule that prompted Fr. Martin to declare as he did some decades ago. No, he declared as he did because as a Jesuit himself who had been secretary to Cardinal Augustine Bea SJ during the 1960s, and who had collaborated closely with Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, he was in the best position to recognise the false spirit that had taken hold on Jesuit thought, a spirit so alien to Catholicism, yet now so influential in the Church, that he left the Order and Rome to get as far away from it as possible.

    We see this false spirit already creeping into the Jesuits at the turn of the 20th century when George Tyrrell SJ attempted to evolve and adapt Catholic doctrine to modern ideas. He was eventually excommunicated for his determined efforts.

    Notwithstanding this censure of Rome, other, more radical, Jesuits soon followed in the footsteps of Tyrrell. Of these, Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Urs von Balthasar and Henri de Lubac stand out as the founding fathers of the “New Theology,” a theology which St. Pius X called “the synthesis of all heresies” but which came to replace Traditional Catholic theology at Vatican II and beyond.
    For his part, Pope Pius XII did his utmost to prevent this false new Gospel from spreading. In particular His Holiness severely censured Henri de Lubac, forbidding him to preach or teach and having his most dangerous works placed on the Index of forbidden books. So serious were de Lubac’s errors, in fact, that Pius XII wrote the Encyclical Humani Generis in part to counter them.

    As in the case of de Lubac, de Chardin and von Balthasar had also come under Rome’s censure. But all was about to change upon the death of Pius XII.

    On ascending the Papal Throne in 1959, Pope John XXIII rehabilitated Henri de Lubac without requiring of him a renunciation of his Modernist errors. Pope Paul VI acted similarly towards him and the others.

    Here’s a snippet from Wikipedia telling of this astonishing development: ”In August 1960, Pope John XXIII appointed de Lubac as a consultant to the Preparatory Theological Commission for the upcoming Second Vatican Council. He was then made a peritus (theological expert) to the Council itself, and later, by Pope Paul VI, a member of its Theological Commission (as well as of two secretariats). Although the precise nature of his contribution during the council is difficult to determine, his writings were certainly an influence on the conciliar and post-conciliar periods, particularly in the area of Ecclesiology where one of his concerns was to understand the Church as the community of the whole people of God rather than just the clergy. De Lubac’s influence on Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, and Gaudium et Spes, the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, is generally recognized.”

    Now we know why conciliar ecclesiology and the content of Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes were of particular concern to Archbishop Lefebvre and other Traditional theologians!

    Hans Urs von Balthasar was a proponent of Universal Salvation, amongst other errors. He also argued that when Our Lord died on the Cross, He died in complete abandonment by the Father both in His Blessed body and soul because He had not merely taken our sins upon Himself but had actually become sin. He further argued that Our Lord, in this state of complete abandonment, descended into Hell proper rather than that part of Hell called the Limbo of the Just. In other words, he was saying that Our Lord (God the Son) lost the beatific vision of His Father for the time between His death and Resurrection. This is clearly a perverse doctrine which effectively denies Our Lord’s divinity.

    Here is an extract from Pope Francis’ ‘Urbi et Orbi’ address of last Easter Sunday which bears a striking resemblance to von Balthasar’s doctrine: “…This same love for which the Son of God became man and followed the way of humility and self-giving to the very end, down to hell – to the abyss of separation from God…” I will return to Pope Francis a little further on.

    In the meantime, it is worth noting that Pope John Paul II bestowed the honour of the Cardinalate on von Balthasar, though the recipient died a few days before receiving his red hat. Benedict XVI later heaped his own praise on Balthasar, calling him “the most cultured man of the 20th century”.

    Teilhard de Chardin’s errors are too numerous to relate here, but amongst the more prominent were his rejection of a literal interpretation of Genesis and his belief in the evolution of man that will one day reach “the Omega point,” at which juncture man will have become divine. The clear implication from these errors is a denial of Creation and the Original Sin. Teilhard was also an advocator of the doctrine that all religions are more or less evolving towards the same “Omega point,” albeit at a more or less advanced pace.

    In the 1960s Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) spoke enthusiastically of de Chardin’s Christology in Ratzinger’s famous Introduction to Christianity. He wrote:

    “It must be regarded as an important service of Teilhard de Chardin’s that he rethought these ideas from the angle of the modern view of the world and, in spite of a not entirely unobjectionable tendency toward the biological approach, nevertheless on the whole grasped them correctly and in any case made them accessible once again. Let us listen to his own words: The human monad “can only be absolutely itself by ceasing to be alone”. In the background is the idea that in the cosmos, alongside the two orders or classes of the infinitely small and the infinitely big, there is a third order, which determines the real drift of evolution, namely, the order of the infinitely complex…”

    Henri de Lubac’s errors are again too numerous to record here. Suffice it to say Pius XII enumerates them in Humani Generis. A closer study of the errors of de Lubac, together with the relevant excerpts from Pius XII’s Encyclical can be found here: http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1993_December/They_Think_Theyve_Won_PartIII.htm

    Suffice it to say John Paul II bestowed the honour of the red hat on de Lubac as well as von Balthasar. Every Pope from John XXIII to the present incumbent of the See of Peter has expressed regard for one or other, or all, of these heterodox theologians who were previously condemned by the Magisterium for their heresy.

    Interestingly, following Vatican II, the disciples of de Lubac, von Balthasar and de Chardin split into two camps – ultra progressive and “conservative” progressive. Each camp puts out its own propaganda via an international journal. The ultra progressive journal, first published in 1965, is called “Concilium” and its “conservative” progressive nemesis, first published in 1972, is called “Communio”.

    Concilium was co-founded by Karl Rahner SJ, Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx O.P., Yves Congar O.P. and Fr. Johann Metz.

    Communio was co-founded by de Lubac, von Balthasar, Ratzinger and, wait for it, Walter Kasper, who now appears to have shifted sides with his “Communion for the divorced and remarried” doctrine which is more at home in the Concilium camp, where Pope Francis appears theologically to reside, than in the Communio camp where Pope Benedict XVI clearly lives.

    So why am I writing all of this? Well, I am trying to demonstrate how these two camps, both Modernist, have different views as to how Vatican II, whose documents they adversely influenced, should be implemented in the Church.

    As far as the Communio camp is concerned the reform should be moderate, a balance between Traditional and liberal thought. For the Concilium people this is unthinkable. They want complete revolution. And so there is great angst between the two camps.

    We may well ask the question why so much pressure was put on Benedict (Communio) when he was Pope, yet Francis (Concilium) is welcomed with open arms as a great reformer. Ultimately, both camps are anti-Thomist, one to some degree, the other completely. Both favour a return to Biblical sources and the teaching of the Fathers, exactly the excuse used by Protestants for their Reformation. So it really doesn’t matter which side gains the upper hand, the fact remains that the Church is in the hands of Modernists.

    So how does this all fit with Pope Francis SJ and the dire prediction of Fr. Malachi Martin? Well, as I have already stated, Pope Francis is of the ultra liberal Concilium camp which explains his contempt for authority, the Traditional institutions of the Church, his less than favourable view of the Tridentine Mass and his non-committal attitude in regard to the Church’s moral teaching.

    If anyone wants to know, then, why that horrendous Synod on the family is taking place in Rome right now, they need only read the following excerpt from Concilium:

    “Concilium Journal is deliberately based on Scripture and the history of salvation. At the same time it has the humble courage to confront the new problems arising from the human conditions of today. It seeks, on the basis of our contemporary situation, a better understanding of the Word of God for man and the world of our time. A theological insight of this kind is necessary for anyone who, acting in faith, is actively engaged in the Church and in the world. Concilium’s pages bring a fresh theological breath, creative insights and perspectives. No wonder then that it continues to find support among forward looking theologians, innovative pastoral practitioners and all those Christians who wish to enter into dialogue with diverse societies, with religions and cultures in every part of the world.”

    Given that Hans Kung is one of Concilium’s alumni, I think we all know what this statement means.
    Lest doubt remains, however, and lest some readers think my association of Pope Francis with this ultra liberal Concilium camp is an exaggeration, just read this abbreviated quote from Wikipedia on another of Concilium’s founders and alumni, Fr. Johann Metz:

    “A student of Karl Rahner, he broke with Rahner’s transcendental theology in a turn to a theology rooted in praxis. Metz is at the center of a school of political theology that strongly influenced Liberation Theology. He is one of the most influential post-Vatican II German theologians. His thought turns around fundamental attention to the suffering of others…He levels a fierce critique of what he calls bourgeois Christianity and believes that the Christian Gospel has become less credible because it has become entangled with bourgeois religion…”

    Compare this quote with the following address given by Cardinal Bergoglio to the Cardinals gathered for the conclave that elected him Pope.

    Presenting juxtaposed images of the Church, one good and one bad, his Eminence delineated which one “must give light to the possible changes and reforms which must be made.”

    He continued: “The first image is of the good Church coming out of herself to evangelise at the existential peripheries: those of the mystery of sin, of pain, of injustice, of ignorance, of doing without religion, of thought and of all misery.

    The alternative image is of the bad Church which has become self-referent and sick from a theological narcissism, a Church which believes she has her own light, a worldly Church that lives within herself, of herself, for herself, which gives way to that very great evil which is spiritual worldliness.”

    No prizes for guessing what the image of the “bad Church” represents!

    It only remains for me to say that Pope Francis needs our urgent prayers, while we run for the hills!

    One last observation, if I may. Was it coincidence that another Jesuit, Fr. Eduard Dhanis, successfully set about silencing the Message and Third Secret of Fatima just prior to the commencement of Vatican II?

    I’ll leave it to others to reach their own conclusions.

    Sorry to have posted so long a script.

    • Athanasius,

      That is one outstanding post. Every word is a gem.

      There’s just two quick points I’d like to make. Regarding Teilhard’s “Omega Point” heresy, this reminds me of the kind of paganism espoused by Hindus. They believe that a human person will eventually come to “perfection” – thus become “a god”. I’ve always thought that the theology of Vatican II sought to make man “a god”. No wonder Archbishop Lefebvre stated (as well as using this phrase as a title for one of his books), “They have uncrowned Him”.

      Secondly, we should indeed “run for the hills”. I can only conclude that the SSPX is “the hills”.

    • Athanasius,

      Many thanks for your most informative post, concisely outlining the key heretics who have, unfortunately, greatly influenced Pope Francis. Well said.

      Just one wee note of clarification regarding your statement “Teilhard de Chardin’s errors are too numerous to relate here, but amongst the more prominent were his rejection of a literal interpretation of Genesis…”

      I’m sure you don’t need reminding but the casual reader may, that some chapters of Genesis may be interpreted figuratively (as certain parts of the New Testament may, as well, where Our Lord uses hyperbole to emphasise a point, e.g. “cut off your limb, pluck out your eye rather than sin). Pope Leo XIII’s landmark encyclical on the Study of Scripture clarifies the Catholic position and points out that where the Fathers of the Church held different views on certain passages, so may we, too. St Augustine, as we know, believed that the six days of creation meant aeons of time, not six twenty four hour days as we know them, but that’s not the same as the theory of evolution so popular today. Had dear old Teilhard stuck with the Catholic position on the study and interpretation of Scripture, as you intimate, we wouldn’t now be remembering him as a heretic!

      Again, thank you for your terrific and most educative history of the Friends of Pope Francis. No wonder the Church is upside down right now!

      • Editor,

        Thanks for the clarification re literal interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures.

        Teilhard de Chardin’s problem was that he went beyond quibbling over figurative details to cast doubt on the entire creation story. I should have made that point clear to begin with, so thanks for raising the point and mentioning the distinction.

        • Athanasius,

          Thank you for thanking me! Yes, Teilhard de Chardin cast doubt on just about every dogma of the Faith but, hey, don’t write him off just yet. He’s probably on the road to canonisation as we speak!

    • Athanasius,

      As my comment to Leo below, please will you also feel free to copy and re-post the above excellent post on the new thread devoted to the shocking Synod Document released today.

      “Repetition is the mother of education” is a very old and very true saying so your expose of the influences which have helped (de)form Pope Francis bears repeating.

      No pay will be deducted if you can’t find time, of course!

  11. Petrus

    Many thanks! I only hope the information will help others gain a better insight into present developments. I have been astounded by the recurrence of the same prominent names in the Church since Vatican II, how they all relate to each other and how they have manipulated events, not to mention how they award and congratulate each other as though they were all outstanding Apostles of the “New Pentecost” worthy of canonisation. Between them they’ve wrecked the Church! Or I should properly say, yes, Archbishop Lefebvre was right, they have uncrowned Him!

    I think all these Modernist reformers need to open their eyes and repent of what they’ve done to the Church. I’m not saying they are willfully bad Churchmen, just that they are intellectually proud and deluded. The only “New Evangelisation” is the one that began in the upper room on the day of the first Pentecost and continued unbroken down the centuries up to Vatican II. Any other “New Evangelisation” is an illusion, a trick of Lucifer who, as St. Paul says, sometimes appears disguised as an angel of light. We need to see an end to this “diabolical disorientation” and a restoration to the fulness of Sacred Tradition to the minds of the hierarchy as soon as possible. Now there’s a challenge worthy of a Synod or 10!

      • Athanasius,

        Illuminating posts, very clear. I doubt if many people know all that information about those heretics but it certainly makes it a bit easier to see where Francis is coming from, definitely. You put it all together extremely well. Thanks for helping a rather slow learner to catch up! I’ll be reading your posts a few times to make sure it all sinks in!

        • Joe Walker,

          Thank you, and don’t worry about taking time to digest everything. Some of us have been trying to understand the depth of this “diabolical disorientation” for quarter of a century and we’re still learning. I think the main lesson is that no matter how bad things get, Our Lord is still in charge of His Church and will put things right in His own time.

          In the meantime we cling to the truth and safety of Sacred Catholic Tradition.

  12. Cardinal Burke’s new book seems to be a full frontal attack on the proposals being put forward by Cardinal Kasper

    • It is all anathama, They are outright attacking the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ and Sacred Scripture.

      “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” ~Gal. 1:8

      We must keep praying that the false church leaves Rome. Pray to St. Michael to crush Freemasonry and the enemies of the Church.

      This is another Gospel. One can no longer sit on the fence and do nothing. Make your voices heard. Become the new warriors and knights for the Church.

      For the love of God, repent, Rome. You attack the very foundation, the moral and natural law. God won’t be mocked and he won’t put up with this mockery for much longer. He already has been mocked, despised and ridiculed for the past century.

      This does it.

      (BTW, thank for for this excellent blog and for speaking the truth, Catholic Truth. God bless everyone).

      • Remnant of the Faith,

        Thank you for your strong exhortation (and kind words about this blog – same goes for yours)

        The good news is that at least some of those formerly apparently addicted to papolatry are now beginning to “get real”. Even John Smeaton of SPUC is quoted as saying the time has come to distinguish true from false obedience. At long last! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

        Now let’s see how long it takes them to apply that Catholic teaching to the new Mass and all the other novelties of the past fifty or so years.

        • Thank you.

          Yes, there is beginning to be an awakening in the Novus Ordo. Another example would be Mr. Archbold, who wrote this article, acknowledging the crises we’re in:

          http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/the-truth-about-this-crisis#ixzz3FnTJwiUn

          The more people who wake up, the better.

          I read somewhere that we are under a moral obligation to resist what this Synod says and does. I totally agree. I knew danger was looming when they first announced a Synod.

          The consequences of this will be hell. Souls are going to hell in a handbasket, led on by those who should be snatching them from the brink of hell, the the Pope, Bishops and Priests of the Church.

          It’s frightening. More and more, it becomes clear that Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich’s Prophecies are being fufilled. I’ve been getting together many in blog posts (not to toot my horn and keep pushing my blog. I definitely don’t want to take away your followers!).

          We must pray that the false church of darkness leaves Rome.

          We must pray to St. Michael to defend us in this battle and to vanquish that evil sect, Freemasonry, once and for all.

          God bless.

          • Remnant of the Faith,

            Don’t worry at all about “taking away our followers” – I always urge our bloggers to contribute to any and all blogs out there – our work is one of educating in the Faith and we ought to do that wherever the opportunity presents itself. I try to do so myself but right now I am particularly busy due to various matters, including family illness and having to attend to other newsletter and website business. I’ve still not finished the November edition, for example, which should be heading for the printers but hasn’t yet reached the proof readers. Otherwise, I’d be contributing some comments to your excellent blog.. Will do in due course – that’s a promise!

  13. “When ministers are ignorant or neglectful of their duty, then the morals of the people also immediately decline, Christian discipline grows slack, the practice of religion is dislodged and cast aside, and every vice and corruption is easily introduced into the Church.” – Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, 1846

    “If [the Pope] gives an order contrary to good customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something openly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defence” – Fr. Francisco Suarez SJ, one of the foremost theologians and Scholastic philosophers of the 16th-17th centuries

    It’s just about impossible to avoid the thought that what we are witnessing in these days in Rome is open, diabolically influenced, apostasy, whatever the exact number of Bishops involved. If this whole assault against Divine Law was to stop immediately, the damage done already, over the last twelve months and culminating in the evil contained in today’s interim report from the Extraordinary Synod, surely calls for reparation on an immense scale. Our Lord is being mocked before our very eyes, as each passing day brings much of Scripture and Catholic prophecy into ever closer focus.

    “They will be fooled by evil spirits and by teachings that come from demons.” – 1 Timothy 4:1

    “Well, these ones are false prophets, or false doctors, inasmuch as, raising a doubt without resolving it is the same as conceding to it.” – Saint Thomas Aquinas, Sermon “Attendite a falsis prophetis”

    Truth be told, the revolutionaries’ tactic of deliberate ambiguity, which Pope Pius VI so clearly warned against 220 years ago, in Auctorem Fidei, now appears to be considered unnecessary. Seriously, what is left to defend if the sacrilegious reception of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord by those in a state of mortal sin, is to be sanctioned, encouraged and approved by the successors of the Apostles, those charged with leading, teaching and sanctifying the faithful? The gravity of such proposed sacrilege is really beyond words. It’s a truly terrible, painful thing to say, but, based in all the evidence to hand, there can be no doubt on where and with whom the final responsibility lies.

    I know, I know, the usual caveat applies: none of us can judge the interior motives of anyone, and judgement of souls belongs to God alone. Actions and words and words are another matter. The Modernists tactic of speaking in “pastoral” rather than “doctrinal” terms has been tried and tested, and documented since Vatican II. The fact that revolutionaries such Cardinal Kasper are prepared to state that doctrine cannot be changed hardly amounts to reassurance on anything. It is only slippery word play, and direct contradiction of reason to say that doctrinal orthodoxy would still be honoured in the face of blatant, unashamed heteropraxis.

    “Pastoral” practice, as Bishop Fellay has highlighted in the case of false ecumenism, is really nothing more than a tactic used to run around the bulwark of doctrine. What is taking place in these days conjures the thought of the Modernists’ hubris-fuelled panzers speeding around a doctrinal “Maginot Line”.

    Given the diabolical prospect of institutionalised sacrilege, motives are probably of secondary interest. Is it faithlessness, cowardice, craven human respect, greed, blackmail or something more sinister? Cardinal Marx of Munich (the Church’s teaching is not a “static construct”), a member of the Pope’s much publicised consultative group of eight Cardinals has stated that “the majority of German Bishops are agreement with Kasper’s proposal”.

    I wonder do these include those shameful episcopal porn barons who have invested large amounts of the Church’s treasure in Weltbild, one of the world’s largest publishers of pornography. I wonder if they include Bishops who have threatened to refuse the sacraments to those Catholics who refuse to pay the Church membership tax in Germany. Sex, simony, and sacrilege now appear to rule amongst the bishops of the lands evangelised by Saint Boniface.

    It’s hardly cynical to muse that the German bishops are somewhat insecure concerning the loyalty of their contracepting, fornicating, divorcing, adulterous sponsors. “Church of the poor”: yeah, right. Of course we can’t blame it all on a Teutonic horde of sex obsessed laity with malformed consciences. I notice that dependably disgraceful prelates from elsewhere have, rather predictably, joined the reprobate chorus.

    “The bishop should not fear since the anointing of the Holy Spirit has strengthened him: the shepherd should not be afraid since the prince of pastors has taught him by his own example to despise life itself for the safety of his flock: the cowardice and depression of the hireling should not dwell in a bishop’s heart. Our great predecessor Gregory [the Great], in instructing the heads of the churches, said with his usual excellence: ‘Often imprudent guides in their fear of losing human favour are afraid to speak the right freely. As the word of truth has it, they guard their flock not with a shepherd’s zeal but as hirelings do, since they flee when the wolf approaches by hiding themselves in silence…. A shepherd fearing to speak the right is simply a man retreating by keeping silent.’” – Pope Pius VI, Inscrutabile, 1775.

    As stated above there is no doubt, frighteningly, about where final responsibility for what is enfolding lies. Remember the Pope laudatory words about “serene and profound theology” in the aftermath of Cardinal Kasper’s shocking address to the February Consistory. Remember the Pope’s very first Sunday Angelus address in which he praised a book penned by the arch progressive. Cardinal Kasper himself has stated that the Pope is the real strategist behind what is going on.

    http://angelqueen.org/2014/10/12/censorship-of-the-episcopal-synod-kasper-refers-to-pope-francis-as-strategist-of-mercy/

    For all his “who am I to judge” line, and talk of “mercy” and “smelling the sheep”, as well as symbolic nods towards the downgrading of the Petrine Office, and talk of “synodality”, Pope Francis has offered abundant evidence that he is very willing and determined in wielding the full powers of the office of Supreme Pontiff. While famously stating in June of last year that he was not a “renaissance prince”, much of his exercising of papal authority might rather suggest the mind set of an oriental potentate. Just ask the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculata, or Cardinal Burke.

    “The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the Pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility.”
    – Father Le Floch, superior of the French Seminary in Rome, in 1926.

    No doubt many very loyal, pious Catholics, who through no fault of their own, and due to the influence of careerist papolatrist opinion formers, are lacking in a full understanding of the Church, are at this moment suffering severe crises of faith. No doubt they include some of those faithful whom the Pope spoke of, less than warmly, as seeking “doctrinal security”.

    We can but pray that, before souls are further imperilled, Pope Francis will, by the grace of God and the intercession of Our Lady, consider the grave demands of the Petrine Office, as did a true and outstanding pastor of souls, Pope Saint Pius X:

    “With our soul full of fear for the strict account we shall have to give one day to the Prince of Pastors, Jesus Christ, with regard to the flock entrusted to us by Him, we pass our days in continued anxiety to preserve the faithful, as far as possible, from the most pernicious evils by which human society is at present afflicted.” – 1906 Encyclical Pieni l’animo

    The words of saints, Doctors of the Church, eminent theologians, and Popes themselves concerning legitimate resistance to Popes have been presented on this blog numerous times, notably those of the Jesuit Cardinal Saint Robert Bellarmine, who can be included under three of those categories. His words written to Clement VIII concerning one of the Pope’s predecessors bear repetition, if only to show that the Church has been faced with problem Popes before, no matter that the present day crisis is almost certainly without precedent:

    “Your Holiness knows the danger to which Sixtus V exposed himself and all the Church, when he undertook to correct Holy Scripture according to the lights of his own personal knowledge. Truly, I do not know whether the Church has ever been subject to a more grave danger”- Jesuites: travaux sur les Saintes Ecritures in F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, vol.III, cols.1407-1408

    The words of a great 15th-16th century Dominican theologian, Francisco de Vitoria serve to reinforce the point:

    “A Pope must be resisted who publicly destroys the Church. What should be done when the Pope, because of his bad customs, destroys the Church? What should be done if the Pope wanted, without reason, to abrogate Positive Law?”
    His answer is: “He would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to act in such fashion nor should he be obeyed in what was evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension. Consequently, … if he wanted to destroy the Church or the like, he should not be permitted to act in that fashion, but one would be obliged to resist him. The reason for this is that he does not have the power to destroy. Therefore, if there is evidence that he is doing so, it is licit to resist him. The result of all this is that if the Pope destroys the Church by his orders and actions, he can be resisted and the execution of his mandates prevented.” – Obras de Francisco de Vitoria (Madrid: BAC, 1960), pp. 486f.

    Or, as Pope Leo XIII, citing his predecessor Felix III, teaches: “An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed.” (Inimica Vis, 1892).

    I have posted before that this conduct of this papacy has taken on the appearance of a runaway train hurtling downhill. If what we are being presented with in Rome does not shock people into grave concern nothing ever will.

    The Barque of Peter is most certainly taking on water from all sides in these days. It doesn’t help that holes are being drilled from the inside. The cackles from Hell can almost be heard amidst the storm. And yet we know with total certainty that Our Lord is still on board. We know with total certainty that in the end the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph.

    In the meantime we must pray much for the Holy Father.

  14. Briefly, there a few other points that others might care to expand on here.

    The remarkably secretive nature has understandably attracted attention. Given the amount of novus ordo hot air we have been treated to concerning “dialogue”, “listening”, “openness” etc. etc. such covert conduct of proceedings during a Synod is unworthy to say the very least. Are those charged with leading, teaching and sanctifying souls to be considered justified in acting like amoral, back room dealing, Chicago political ward bosses.

    Surely the use of word “remarried” in all this discussion is totally, utterly out of order. In the absence of a Church annulment, while the second spouse is alive, there is no such thing as a second “marriage”.

    Maybe the issue of Holy Communion for adulterers was seen by most of us as the main issue in advance of the Synod. It now appears that the seemingly ever present sodomite agenda has been well and truly hitched onto the discussion of “pastoral” care for those in “irregular unions”. I don’t know why any of us should be surprised. The promoters of the perversion just will not let this rest. Are we seeing the hand of the sodomite Mafia within the Church, or even that of personally compromised prelates at work here?

    • Leo,

      Please feel free to copy and re-post those two most recent terrific comments on the new thread, devoted to the disgraceful Synod document released today.

      “Repetition is the mother of education” is a very old and very true saying and your words of wisdom and apposite quotes fall into that rare category of a statement that bears repeating… over and over again!

      No pay will be deducted, however, if you are too busy. Moi will understand. So will I 😀

  15. Editor

    Will do as requested, even if I don’t get paid twice.

    Athanasius

    Thank you very much indeed for the very informative post about the Jesuits. It certainly merits reading, and re-reading. Maybe it shouldn’t be a surprise that the cancer of Modernism in the Church as a whole, mirrors, or rather is intertwined with, the descent of the Jesuits in particular. No doubt satan concentrated especially heavy fire on what was one of the best units in the Church Militant’s army.

    Indeed the along with its rejection of its magnificent history of service to the Church, it hardly constitutes a surprise to find that a Superior of the Company of Jesus has asserted a rejection of its military character. In February 1989, Fr. Peter-Hans Kolvenbach told the 30 Days periodical that

    “Any military connotation in relation to the Society and its Superior General must be eliminated…In this process of renewal (proposed by Vatican II), a certain way of being of the Society of Jesus has died. This explains why a theologian said in this magazine that the Society ‘was dead’…”

    As for Malachi Martin, opinion appears to vary wildly amongst Catholics faithful to Tradition. All I will say is that having read one of Christina’s posts here last December I bought Martin’s book entitled, The Jesuits. It was an absolutely riveting read, particular in dealing with the period from Tyrrell onwards, and explains much concerning the Conciliar crisis, as well as helping greatly to understand the words and actions of Pope Francis.

    It’s worth adding that the Pope apparently isn’t entirely uncomfortable with the Jesuits’ past. On June 10, at a specially convened meeting with Franciscan Friars of the Immaculata, who, it was reported by Rorate Caeli, were drawn exclusively from the then minority malcontents wing of that Order, the Pope, quoting Saint Ignatius Loyola, is supposed to have told the friars that if the Pope says that black is white then we should believe that it is white.

  16. Leo,

    Thank you for this great post. I picked up in particular your remarks about the descent of the Jesuits, how the devil has brought those once-great champions of orthodoxy down by the pride that can so easily destroy great intellects. Today the Jesuits, for me, are the most heterodox Order in the Church, an Order I would willingly see disbanded because of the threat it poses to Catholic souls.

    What we observe in relation to the Jesuits, however, can also be observed in those countries that were once the most Catholic. They have now become the most anti-Catholic. It’s almost as if Lucifer targeted them for special attention. I firmly believe this to be the case.

%d bloggers like this: