“If we speak explicitly, …what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly.” (Pope Francis)
“Let what you say be simply `Yes’ or `No’; anything more than this comes from evil.” (Jesus Christ)
As underlined last month, the filthy fingerprints of the Father of Lies are now all over the Vatican (aka Sodomy Central). Hiding in plain sight, his ‘signature’ is not only apparent in orgiastic eruptions, however. It is also clear and ever present in the leitmotif of this papacy — deception.
This devilish modus operandi is expressed in the slithering papal strategy above, confided by Francis to his Special Secretary for the 2014/15 Sinods, Archbishop Bruno Forte. In October 2014, it was Forte who penned the infamous text calling for the Church to “value” homosexuality. And it was Forte who subsequently revealed that his boss had told him:
“If we speak explicitly about Communion for the divorced and remarried, you don’t know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”
Far from “evil”, as Our Lord Himself designated such deceit, Forte found this papal ploy so clever (“typical of a Jesuit,” he sniggered) and so appealing, that he had no qualms whatsoever recounting it during a May 2016 conference on the equally deceitful Amoris Laetitia.
Wherever we look, it’s that sort of papacy. There was even a deceptive symmetry about the Pope’s Christmas message and subsequent stroll across St. Peter’s Square to view the Vatican Nativity. After vespers in St. Peter’s, having just bewailed a “wasted and wounded” year of “lies and injustices” (perpetrated by everyone except himself, of course) our pontifical hypocrite then visited and complimented a subversive depiction of Bethlehem; a ‘wound, lie and injustice’ that passed without papal comment, despite (or because?) it involved a blasphemous nudge and wink to the sodomitic culture he has cultivated.
Under the pretext of clothing the naked, the life-size nativity featured a naked man lying on the straw right opposite the manger. He was being offered a cloth by a pilgrim, but as one of countless outraged onlookers truly observed, he was “too much a poster boy for the local gym to be a man in need of corporeal mercy.” Indignant Catholics were not alone in voicing their disgust. Even ultra-liberal Facebook drew the line. It rejected an advert centred on the scene with the following explanation: “Your ad can’t include images that are sexually suggestive or provocative”!
Unlike Francis, who blithely praised the Nativity as “inspired by the works of mercy,” its creator, Antonio Cantone, at least displayed signs of a conscience, albeit a guilty one. “It is not a campy nativity,” he pouted, before conceding that it did contain “provocations.” You might say! As Ann Barnhardt discovered:
It turns out that the whole Vatican Nativity scene was made in the Sanctuary of Montevergine, a Benedictine monastery outside of Naples. The Sanctuary of Montevergine has long been notoriously and blasphemously claimed as a mascot and meeting place for sodomites and transvestites.
[In 1256], a false story was started by sodomites that two sodomite men, after being caught, convicted and condemned to death by exposure for their sickening capital crimes by being tied to a tree, were miraculously saved by the Virgin of Montevergine, whereupon the two sodomites… wait for it… promptly celebrated by sodomizing each other because their “love” had been ratified by the Queen of Heaven, or something.
Blasphemy of the sickest and most demonic sort. This blasphemy spread, and now the Sanctuary of Montevergine is used by Italian sodomites as a mascot for gay pride marches and drag queen conventions. The biggest gay pride march at the Shrine of Montevergine, happens, even more blasphemously, on February 2, the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin.
So the Vatican Nativity scene was made at the Shrine of the so-called “Gay Madonna”, and there is an image of the Icon of the Madonna of Montevergine in the Vatican Nativity scene itself – a CLEAR SIGNAL to the sex perverts that the scene is a bow to them.
So, to all the people who remarked that the figure of the Blessed Virgin in the Vatican Nativity scene looks really, really masculine, almost like a man in drag, I think you have
Just as Freemasons on every continent, but especially in Italy, imprint their occult symbols on monuments, buildings and structures of every kind, so the inclusion in the Vatican Nativity of male erotica, a masculine Madonna and, in one corner, a replica of the Icon of Montevirgine — known in Italy as “The Gay Madonna” and “The Madonna of the Drag Queens” — were Pink Mafia ‘calling cards which cried out: We’re everywhere! Subverting! Deceiving! Defiling all that is holy, wholesome, innocent and pure!
Such ‘pink provocations’ are now legion and flagrant.
Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia has even befouled his coat of arms with the ‘gay’ rainbow (yet another beautiful symbol the sodomites co-opted to corrupt). He has no fear of papal rebuke since he was chosen by Francis to head the Pontifical Council for Life despite his public support of the homosexual political movement; support he further signposted by commissioning a homosexual artist to adorn his former cathedral in Terni with a massive “homo-erotic” mural featuring an “erotic” depiction of Christ.
Painted by Argentinian sodomite Ricardo Cinalli, the pornographic mural depicts an almost nude Christ figure lifting two nets filled with contorting human figures, including a nude depiction of Paglia himself. Cinalli confirmed that Paglia had approved every stage of the work. He added that Paglia had drawn the line only at depicting the figures in the act of copulating, but agreed “that the erotic aspect is the most notable among the people inside the nets.”
Thus, forever fixated on political deceptions and lies, our worldly pontiff happily ignores the deceit, mendacity and associated perversions tearing the Church apart. He ignores them because he facilitates and personifies those very traits — as the Forte revelation, the Paglia appointment and a Curia stacked with his creepy placemen make crystal clear.
Aflame with radical Modernism, Vatican Congregations, Pontifical Councils and Institutes, and other curial bodies are all billowing forth the smoke of Satan. Cleansed of orthodox heads and advisers they are now run by sinister figures like Francesco Coccopalmerio (Legislative Texts), Pio Vito Pinto (Roman Rota) and the aforementioned Vincenzo Paglia (Council for Life/Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences), to name just a few. Yet if there is ‘something of the night’ about all these men, and so many other Bergoglian appointees beyond Rome, it goes double for the man who appointed them.
Modernism alone does not account for Francis. Quite apart from doctrinal issues, he exudes a pungent combo of mental illness, complicity and blackmail. How else to account for the unhinged rants, the perverts he coddles, and, above all, the noxious path to formal schism he is not only set upon but talks of treading? Der Spiegel of 23 December 2016 reported him having said, “It is not impossible that I will go down in history as the one who split the Catholic Church.” A boast that flags his instability, it is not, however, an idle one. Daily reports confirm what we all sense: that his cherished place in history (infamy more like) is nigh. [Emphasis added -Ed.]
Among several schismatic snippets filed at the time of writing, Bishop Bode, Vice President of the German Bishops’ Conference, wants to bless active homo pairs because he feels that “it is difficult to say from the outside whether someone is in the state of mortal sin.” [LifeSiteNews, 10/1/18] Yet in order to comprehend sodomy as mortally sinful behaviour, and so conform himself to the plain-speaking counsel of Christ, it is not so difficult for His Lordship simply to Google the hard science on destructive sodomitic fruits. Like his pontifical role-model, however, the Bishop “won’t speak plainly.” Instead, he babbles. “We have to reflect upon the question as to how to assess in a differentiated manner a relationship between two homosexual persons,” he proclaims. “Is there not so much positive and good and right so that we have to be more just?”
As Jesus taught, this sort of evasive, convoluted verbiage — ideological blather that will not countenance a “yes” or “no” — “comes from evil.” And schism is its evil end. To read the rest of this devastating editorial, click here…
And to subscribe to Christian Order (recommended) click here
THE REMNANT UNDERGROUND: Headed up by Bishop Athanasius Schneider and two other Archbishops from Kazakhstan, a total of 6 bishops and 1 cardinal have now signed a statement of opposition to the pope-approved interpretations of Amoris Laetitia that non-repentant public adulterers can return to the sacramental life of the Church. This is revolution and counterrevolution in a Catholic Church in total crisis. Plus, looking ahead to October’s Synod of Young People in Rome—will the Church deep six Humanae Vitae? Will the Vatican give the green light to so-called ‘gay unions’? Finally, an old Jimmy Stewart movie, “Call Northside 777”, includes a sobering reminder of what it used to mean to be Catholic–something Pope Francis would do well to consider.
From La Croix International: Cardinal Müller ‘bitter and concerned’ with Church’s direction – 29 November, 2017…
Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller / Alberto PizzolI / AFP
“There is a front made up of traditionalist groups as well as a number of progressives, who would like to see me lead a movement against the pope, but I will never do it.”
These were the words of Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to Massimo Franco, columnist at the Italian daily Il Corriere dela Sera, in an interview published on Sunday, November 26.
Müller, who has previously distanced himself from a series of pontifical moves, revealed that he was both bitter and concerned with the direction the Church is taking.
Insisting that he believed in “the unity of the Church”, Cardinal Müller nevertheless called on Church authorities “to listen to those who have serious questions and fair complaints”.
“We must not ignore them or, worse, humiliate them,” he emphasized.
“If not, without intending it, the risk of a slow separation may grow and lead to a schism by a section of the Catholic world that feels disoriented and disappointed,” Cardinal Müller warned.
“The history of Martin Luther’s Protestant schism 500 years ago should indicate the kind of mistakes we need to avoid,” he said.
Although he had previously harshly criticized his dismissal as the head of the Congregation for the Faith, he revealed several new aspects of this in his Corriere interview.
Pope Francis reportedly said to him that “certain people have told me anonymously that you are my enemy”.
“After forty years of service to the Church,” he lamented, “gossips are making such absurd comments, creating doubts in the mind of the pope when they would have done better to visit a psychiatrist.”
Reaffirming his loyalty to Pope Francis, Cardinal Müller claimed that the pontiff’s “real friends are not those who flatter him” but “those who assist him with the truth and with theological and human expertise”.
He had severe words for the “detractors” whom he blamed for his departure from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Refuting the notion of a plot against the pope as “an absolute exaggeration”, he admitted that significant “tensions” exist in the Church at present.
“I believe that the cardinals who expressed their doubts on Amoris Laetitia or the 62 signatories to a letter making critical comments about the pope, including some which were excessive, should be listened to and not swept aside with the back of the hand as if they were Pharisees or malcontents,” Cardinal Müller said.
What is needed is “free and frank dialogue,” he added.
Instead, he feared that people within the pope’s “magic circle” are “worried primarily about spying on perceived enemies, preventing open and balanced discussion”.
In a sign of his good faith, Cardinal Müller recently issued a public defense of Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation on the family, which has crystallized the various conflicts.
“To classify all Catholics as ‘friends’ or ‘enemies’ of the pope is the greatest evil that they cause to the Church,” Cardinal Müller insisted.
“People are perplexed when they see a well-known journalist, who is also an atheist, claim to be a friend of the pope, while a Catholic bishop and cardinal like me, is defamed as an opponent of the pope.
“I don’t think that these people are in a position to give theology lessons on the primacy of the sovereign pontiff,” he said.
Compared to Benedict XVI’s pontificate, the Church now seems “weaker,” Cardinal Müller continued.
“There are fewer and fewer priests yet we are offering answers that are more organizational, political or diplomatic than theological and spiritual,” he said.
“The Church is not a political party based on power struggles. We need to discuss existential issues about life and death, the family, and religious vocations and not always ecclesiastical politics,” he added.
“Pope Francis is popular and that’s a good thing. However, people are no longer receiving the sacraments. And his popularity among those Catholics who enthusiastically quote him, unfortunately, does not change their false convictions,” the cardinal insisted.
It is now necessary to go beyond the notion of a Church as a “country hospital”, Cardinal Müller said, citing an expression popularized by Pope Francis.
He said, instead, that the world needs a “Silicon Valley” Church.
“We need to become the Steve Jobs of the faith and transmit a powerful vision in terms of moral and cultural values,” the cardinal claimed. [Emphases added] Source – La Croix International
Is the Cardinal over-egging the crisis? Or do you agree that we are in danger of schism?
In the clip below, Cardinal Burke pronounces the Society of Saint Pius X in schism. Listening to it, I recall the reason several Catholic friends gave for refusing to attend his Pontifical High Mass in a Glasgow parish church recently, summed up by one insightful soul: “…he’s not the real deal.”
Blogger Gabriel Syme, who did attend the Pontifical High Mass in Glasgow recently, writes:
I read that earlier and was much dismayed by the reported comments from Cardinal Burke.
it is unbecoming for a prelate to tell fibs (that the SSPX is in schism) which contradict his brother Bishops.
Ironically, he would never say such a thing about genuinely schismatic groups, such as the Eastern Orthodox churches.
How disappointing that he is so feeble in the face of Francis, yet so bold with unprovoked attacks on faithful Catholic groups, attacks based on deceit.
I am very disappointed in him and have diminished respect for him now. As if attacking the SSPX should be on his agenda, while everyone is waiting (and waiting and waiting) for him to act on the dubia.
His “damp squib” dubia and meek acceptance of the Pope’s refusal to grant him an audience to discuss the four cardinals’ concerns about Amoris Laetitia, are now placed firmly in context. He hasn’t a clue. He’s apparently no clearer in his grasp of the limits as well as the extent of papal authority than most of the confused Catholics, ordained and lay, suffering in the Church-anything-but Militant today. He has shown himself to have feet of clay. Or maybe you’re a Cardinal Burke fan, just because, at least, he values the traditional Mass? Let’s hear it…
Cardinal Burke on Amoris Laetitia Dubia: ‘Tremendous Division’ Warrants Action
Posted by Edward Pentin on Tuesday Nov 15th, 2016 at 11:25 AM
In an exclusive Register interview, [Cardinal Burke] elaborates about why four cardinals were impelled to seek clarity about the papal exhortation’s controversial elements.
Four cardinals asked Pope Francis five dubia questions, or “doubts,” about the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love) in a bid to clear up ambiguities and confusion surrounding the text. On Nov. 14, they went public with their request, after they learned that the Holy Father had decided not to respond to their questions.
In this exclusive interview with the Register, Cardinal Raymond Burke, patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, explains in more detail the cardinals’ aims; why the publication of their letter should be seen as an act of charity, unity and pastoral concern, rather than as a political action; and what the next steps will be, if the Holy Father continues to refuse to respond.
Your Eminence, what do you aim to achieve by this initiative?
Are you hearing this concern about confusion a lot?
Everywhere I go I hear it. Priests are divided from one another, priests from bishops, bishops among themselves. There’s a tremendous division that has set in in the Church, and that is not the way of the Church. That is why we settle on these fundamental moral questions which unify us.
Why is Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia of such particular concern?
Because it has been the font of all of these confused discussions. Even diocesan directives are confused and in error. We have one set of directives in one diocese; for instance, saying that priests are free in the confessional, if they judge it necessary, to permit a person who is living in an adulterous union and continues to do so to have access to the sacraments — whereas, in another diocese, in accord with what the Church’s practice has always been, a priest is able to grant such permission to those who make the firm purpose of amendment to live chastely within a marriage, namely as brother and sister, and to only receive the sacraments in a place where there would be no question of scandal. This really has to be addressed. But then there are the further questions in the dubia apart from that particular question of the divorced and remarried, which deal with the term “instrinsic evil,” with the state of sin and with the correct notion of conscience.
Without the clarification you are seeking, are you saying, therefore, that this and other teaching in Amoris Laetitia go against the law of non-contradiction (which states that something cannot be both true and untrue at the same time when dealing with the same context)?
Of course, because, for instance, if you take the marriage issue, the Church teaches that marriage is indissoluble, in accord with the word of Christ, “He who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” Therefore, if you are divorced, you may not enter a marital relationship with another person unless the indissoluble bond to which you are bound is declared to be null, to be nonexistent. But if we say, well, in certain cases, a person living in an irregular marriage union can receive holy Communion, then one of two things has to be the case: Either marriage really is not indissoluble — as for instance, in the kind of “enlightenment theory” of Cardinal [Walter] Kasper, who holds that marriage is an ideal to which we cannot realistically hold people. In such a case, we have lost the sense of the grace of the sacrament, which enables the married to live the truth of their marriage covenant — or holy Communion is not communion with the Body and Blood of Christ. Of course, neither of those two is possible. They contradict the constant teachings of the Church from the beginning and, therefore, cannot be true.
Some will see this initiative through a political lens and criticize it as a “conservative vs. liberal” move, something you and the other signatories reject. What is your response to such an accusation?
Our response is simply this: We are not taking some kind of position within the Church, like a political decision, for instance. The Pharisees accused Jesus of coming down on one side of a debate between the experts in Jewish Law, but Jesus did not do that at all. He appealed to the order that God placed in nature from the moment of creation. He said Moses let you divorce because of your hardness of heart, but it was not this way from the beginning. So we are simply setting forth what the Church has always taught and practiced in asking these five questions that address the Church’s constant teaching and practice. The answers to these questions provide an essential interpretative tool for Amoris Laetitia. They have to be set forth publicly because so many people are saying: “We’re confused, and we don’t understand why the cardinals or someone in authority doesn’t speak up and help us.”
It’s a pastoral duty?
That’s right, and I can assure you that I know all of the cardinals involved, and this has been something we’ve undertaken with the greatest sense of our responsibility as bishops and cardinals. But it has also been undertaken with the greatest respect for the Petrine Office, because if the Petrine Office does not uphold these fundamental principles of doctrine and discipline, then, practically speaking, division has entered into the Church, which is contrary to our very nature.
And the Petrine ministry, too, whose primary purpose is unity?
Yes, as the Second Vatican Council says, the Pope is the foundation of the unity of the bishops and of all the faithful. This idea, for instance, that the Pope should be some kind of innovator, who is leading a revolution in the Church or something similar, is completely foreign to the Office of Peter. The Pope is a great servant of the truths of the faith, as they’ve been handed down in an unbroken line from the time of the apostles.
Is this why you emphasize that what you are doing is an act of charity and justice?
Absolutely. We have this responsibility before the people for whom we are bishops, and an even greater responsibility as cardinals, who are the chief advisers to the Pope. For us to remain silent about these fundamental doubts, which have arisen as a result of the text of Amoris Laetitia, would, on our part, be a grave lack of charity toward the Pope and a grave lack in fulfilling the duties of our own office in the Church.
Some might argue that you are only four cardinals, among whom you’re the only one who is not retired, and this is not very representative of the entire Church. In that case, they might ask: Why should the Pope listen and respond to you?
Well, numbers aren’t the issue. The issue is the truth. In the trial of St. Thomas More, someone told him that most of the English bishops had accepted the king’s order, but he said that may be true, but the saints in heaven did not accept it. That’s the point here. I would think that even though other cardinals did not sign this, they would share the same concern. But that doesn’t bother me. Even if we were one, two or three, if it’s a question of something that’s true and is essential to the salvation of souls, then it needs to be said.
What happens if the Holy Father does not respond to your act of justice and charity and fails to give the clarification of the Church’s teaching that you hope to achieve?
Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the Tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.
In a conflict between ecclesial authority and the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which one is binding on the believer and who has the authority to determine this?
What’s binding is the Tradition. Ecclesial authority exists only in service of the Tradition. I think of that passage of St. Paul in the [Letter to the] Galatians (1:8), that if “even an angel should preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.”
If the Pope were to teach grave error or heresy, which lawful authority can declare this and what would be the consequences?
It is the duty in such cases, and historically it has happened, of cardinals and bishops to make clear that the Pope is teaching error and to ask him to correct it.
Some commentators may argue that the Cardinals’ action will have little to no effect, that things will continue apace. But IS this an historic moment in the life of the Church? Might this conscientious challenge by the four Cardinals, mark a turning point in the current, worsening crisis? What about the papolatrists? How do they reconcile their false belief that the pope – any pope – is beyond criticism, with the impending public correction of Pope Francis by a number of Princes of the Church? How do they square that circle? Maybe we should ask Michael Voris!