3 Cardinals and a bishop now challenging the Pope's document - AmorisLaetitia

The fall out from the Pope's document, "Amoris Laetitia" continues unabated, and now has 3 cardinals and a bishop, openly challenging the mulitiple heresies contained in the document. Professor Josef Seifert  says the danger of schism in the Catholic Church now seems likely, if the heresies are not removed. The 3 cardinals are; Cardinal Pujats (Latvia), Cardinal Caffarra (Bologna) and Cardinal Burke (Vatican). The bishop is Bishop Schneider (Kazakhstan).

Please click on the link to see the article, with the list of signatories.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/please-sign-declaration-of-fidelity-to-the-churchs-unchangeable-teaching-on

Pope Francis goes against ALL the past popes and the Bible! How much longer Oh Lord, how much longer!

Last October 2015 I had the great opportunity of interviewiing 80 year old Father Michael Clifton, former archivist and historian of Southwark Diocese. My article was published in Catholic Life Magazine. At the time, the Pope and the cardinals were conducting part 2 of the "Sinnod on the Family".

Father Michael said that if the Pope allowed Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried - it would make him a heretic. Look at the photo of my article - where I have highlighted his exact words. And why is this such a "big deal"? Well because allowing communion to people in adulterous unions tells them they are no longer in a state of objective mortal sin. The implications are huge - and the 6th Commandment is effectively tossed into the bin.

Well that day has come - the pope has over-turned 2000 years of Church teaching - as confirmed by the Vatican official newspaper the "L'Osservatore Romano", on 13th or 14th September 2016. (The Vatican newspaper confirmed a letter written by the Pope to the Argentianian bishops telling them to go ahead and give communion to those in second unions).

So there we are folks! 

Well for my part I have decided I will only obey previous popes and the Bible from now on.

Non Serviam Francis! Non Serviam

This is a very dark time for the Catholic Church.

Why this Catholic priest does not think Pope Francis is the true pope, and why he maintains that Pope Benedict really is the true pope. A theological essay - "One World Religion".

The following article was sent to me by a good Catholic priest. He has authored many books and is an inside expert on ecclesiastical masonry. He is Father Paul Kramer.

I have to say that I have never felt so confused by the current 'teachings' coming from the Vatican - I have to wonder - has there been a Vatican 'takeover'? I suppose it's possible. I don't know anymore. 

Here it is unedited.

ONE WORLD RELIGION

Pope St. Pius X warned about the coming One World Religion without dogmas in Notre Charge Apostolique:

  "l’établissement d’une Église universelle qui n’aura ni dogmes, ni hiérarchie, ni règle pour l’esprit, ni frein pour les passions et qui, sous prétexte de liberté et de dignité humaine, ramènerait dans le monde, si elle pouvait triompher, le règne légal de la ruse et de la force, et l’oppression des faibles, de ceux qui souffrent et qui travaillent."

Let's wait and see whether this is a false alarm or not -- THE ONE WORLD RELIGION  IS ABOUT TO BE INAUGURATED LATER THIS MONTH. Let's wait and see whether this is a false alarm or not (It's not a question of 'if' but 'when') If it's not a false alarm, then . . .

"Only She can help you" - Our Lady of Fatima

Last 1 June, "Pope" Francis blasphemously professed divine attributes to the pagan goddess, "Mother Earth". He is a heathen pantheist.

"We all like mother Earth, because it is she who gave us life and protects us" - Jorge "Francis" Bergoglio

JORGE BERGOGLIO (a.k.a. "Pope" Francis) -- PANDEIST PAGAN:

Bergoglio is an infidel. He is a pandeist who does not believe in the transcendent God and Creator of Catholicism, but in the immanent 'divine principle' of Paganism, the life giving world soul (anima mundi) within the universe. His creed is remarkably like a synthesis of the belief systems of Lord Shaftsbury, Friedrich Schleiermacher,  Benedict Spinoza, Auguste Compte, and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. He says atheists can be saved (no need for faith in God), he says the souls of the damned do not suffer eternal punishment. The damned souls, according to Bergoglio, will be annihilated. His doctrine on marriage is entirely circumscribed by Naturalism, denying the supernatural sacramentality of Holy Matrimony.

    Here is the link to the video where he says Mother Earth gave us life, and that it is she who protects us.

https://youtu.be/EOnH-NmkMv0

Francis is a PAGAN: 

"A noi, a tutti, piace la madre Terra, perché è quella che ci ha dato la vita e ci custodisce; direi anche la sorella Terra, che ci accompagna nel nostro cammino dell’esistenza." (http://m.vatican.va/content/francescomobile/it/speeches/2016/june/documents/papa-francesco_20160601_institute-of-jainology.html)

"We all like mother Earth, because it is she who gave us life and protects us" - Jorge "Francis" Bergoglio

     It is precisely this notion of the EARTH as the giver of life and provident  protector of life which conceives of "God" not as a transcendent,  infinitelly and eternally perfect Supreme Being; but as a merely immanent demiurge; a "divine" life giving principle which constitutes the world as the womb that gives life to all things. 

     In his remarkably short but concentrared work, The Present Crisis of the Holy See (1861), Cardinal Henry Edward Manning describes the continuous unfolding of the "mystery of iniquity", outlining the development of the spirit of Antichtist, which is the denial of the mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God; replacing it with the pantheistic Incarnationalism of "God" as "the living soul of the world". It is this pagan Incarnationalism which conceives of "God" as "Mother Earth" -- the earth as the womb from which all life is generated. It is this  pagan and pantheistic religion, which Manning says is the embodiment of the spirit of Antichrist, which Jorge Bergoglio professed last 1 June.

     As Christians we profess that it is GOD -- the GOD who CREATED ALL THINGS VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE who gave us life -- NOT "MOTHER EARTH", as the pagan Francis says. It is because GOD created us and gives life to us, that we profess Him DOMINUM ET VIVIFICANTEM -- "THE LORD AND GIVER OF LIFE". "Mother Earth" does not give us life, but the GOD who became incarnate, so that we may "have life, and have it more abundantly" (John 10:10). It was GOD who formed man from the lifeless slime of the earth, and breathed into him the breath of life living soul and man became a living soul: 《formavit igitur Dominus Deus hominem de limo terrae et inspiravit in faciem eius spiraculum vitae et factus est homo in animam viventem》-Gen. 2:7

     It is precisely our profession of the one true God, Creator of heaven and earth, that distinguishes us from the pagans; and it was that profession of God Almighty that distinguished Melchisedech from his pagan Caananite countrymen:  

"But Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God, 

Blessed him, and said: Blessed be Abram by the most high God, who created heaven and earth. (Genesis 14:18 - 19) 

Ps. 148:5 - "laudent nomen Domini quia ipse dixit et facta sunt ipse mandavit et creata sunt"

Ps. 32:9 - "ipse dixit et facta sunt ipse mandavit et creata sunt"

Judith 16:17 - "tibi serviat omnis creatura tua quia dixisti et facta sunt misisti spiritum tuum et creata sunt et non est qui resistat voci tuae".

JORGE BERGOGLIO'S RELIGION --FREEMASONRY (NATURALISM, RATIONALISM, PANDEISM)

     Bergoglio teaches that even those without faith, which is to say, infidels, can be saved -- and that there is no need to obey God's commandments. Obedience to one's own faithless conscience suffices for salvation, according to Bergoglio. Divine Revelation teaches there is no justification or salvation without faith, and that the divine commandments must be obeyed: "Tu mandásti  mandáta tua custodíri nimis"; and, "maledicti qui declinant a mandatis tuis" (Ps. 118); " Convertántur peccatóres in inférnum, omnes Gentes quæ obliviscúntur Deum" (Ps. 9), and, "sic viae omnium qui obliviscuntur Deum et spes hypocritae peribit" (Iob. 8:13).

     The dogmatic teaching of the Council of Trent, the explicit teaching of Scripture, and the universal and perpetual magisterium all teach the diametrical opposite:

"When we say that faith is necessary for the remission of sins, we mean to speak of the Catholic faith, not heretical faith. Without the habit of this faith, no man is justified." (St. Alphonsus Liguori, An Exposition and Defense of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Council of Trent)

MAKE NO MISTAKE -- BERGOGLIO IS A FAITHLESS APOSTATE

At the end of the synod, Bergoglio declared in yet another interview with Eugenio Scalfari:

"This is the bottom line result, the de facto appraisals are entrusted to the confessors, but at the end of faster or slower paths, all the divorced who ask will be admitted.” 

These are the words of Fr. Bergoglio: "ALL THE DIVORCED WHO ASK [for Holy Communion] WILL BE ADMITTED." (http://fatima.org/perspectives/sd/perspective798.asp)

What utter contempt for God's law. Bergoglio does not believe in Christ's doctrine on marriage -- Jorge Bergoglio is an infidel -- a faithless heathen who openly denies the most basic dogmas and moral teachings of the Church. He is not a member of the Catholic Church, nor its pope.

"First of all, you ask if the God of the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith. 

Given that—and this is fundamental—God's mercy has no limits . . . the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience. Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience."

The key words are: "those who do not believe and do not seek faith." Does God forgive them? Bergoglio says, "God's mercy has no limits . . . the issue for those who do not believe in God is obeying their own conscience" (!!!) and:

"The goodness or the  wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision"

Note also the moral relativism: "listening and obeying it [conscience], means deciding about what is perceived to be good or evil"

Bergoglio states with unmistakable clarity that one with no faith at all obtains forgiveness from God by obeying his conscience: "deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil." 
For Bergoglio, the conscience is autonomous: the "Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not" commandments are nullified -- human dignity (according to Bergoglio's Masonic creed) demands that the human person decide for himself what is right or wrong, without the tyranny of "clericalism" dictating to man's conscience, "Thou shalt not!"

Bergoglio's economy of salvation dispenses entirely with any need for faith -- faith is utterly superfluous. Salvation depends exclusively on following one's own autonomous conscience; and absolutely no one may dictate to that conscience by claiming to teach in God's name with divine authotity.

This is Bergoglio's religion. It is as far removed from Christianity as heaven is from hell. Bergoglio's religion is not Catholicism -- it is Masonism in its purest form. His creed is essentially identical to that of the godless Enlightenment freethinker, Lord Shaftesbury (1671 - 1713): " The articles of Shaftesbury's religious creed were few and simple, but these he entertained with a conviction amounting to enthusiasm. They may briefly be summed up as a belief in one God whose most characteristic attribute is universal benevolence, in the moral government of the universe, and in a future state of man making up for the imperfections and repairing the inequalities of the present life." AH! The Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man. (cf. Wikipedia)
Shaftesbury's moral doctrine is that of the "Moral Sense", of which the two most basic principles are:

"1 that the distinction between right and wrong is part of the constitution of human nature; 2. that morality stands apart from theology, and the moral qualities of actions are determined apart from the arbitrary will of God."

Fr. Cornelio Fabro cites the verbatim quotation (Introduzione all"ateismo moderno; English title, God in Exile. Modern Atheism) in which Shaftesbury declares that religion does not consist in believing tenets of revelation, but in morality. His religion was essentially Deism and Rationalism. 
(cf.- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/shaftesbury/#8)

Lest anyone think Scalfari fabricated the above Beegoglio quotation, here's a a parallel passage in Bergoglio's sermon:

Francesco, il capo della Chiesa Cattolica Romana ha affermato che anche gli atei vanno in paradiso. Pochi giorni fa infatti, ha raccontato la storia di un parrocchiano Cattolico che chiese ad un prete se anche gli atei erano stati salvati da Gesù, ed ha detto:

‘Il Signore ci ha creati a Sua immagine e somiglianza, e noi siamo l’immagine del Signore, ed Egli fa del bene e tutti noi abbiamo questo comandamento nel cuore: fai il bene e non fare il male. Tutti noi. ‘Ma, Padre, questo non è Cattolico! Non può fare il bene’. Sì, può farlo …. ‘Il Signore ha redento tutti noi, tutti noi, con il Sangue di Cristo: tutti noi, non solo Cattolici. Tutti! ‘Padre, e gli atei?’ Anche gli atei. Tutti!’ …. Dobbiamo incontrarci facendo il bene. ‘Ma, Padre, io non credo, sono un ateo!’ Ma fai il bene: noi ci incontreremo là’ [in paradiso].

Ecco le parole in inglese così come sono state pubblicate dall’Huffington Post:

“The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can… “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!”.. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

http://giacintobutindaro.org/2013/05/26/secondo-papa-francesco-anche-gli-atei-vanno-in-paradiso/

Bergoglio in, Heaven and Earth:

"As I am a believer, I know that these riches are a gift from God. I also know that the other person, the atheist, does not know that. I do not approach the relationship in order to proselytize, or convert the atheist; I respect him and I show myself as I am. Where there is knowledge, there begins to appear esteem, affection, and friendship. I do not have any type of reluctance, nor would I say that his life is condemned, because I am convinced that I do not have the right to make a judgment about the honesty of that person; even less, if he shows me those human virtues that exalt others and do me good."

Jorge "Francis" Bergoglio is most cerrainly an infidel, without the slightest doubt:

I can say with absolute certitude that Bergoglio is a formal heretic on the basis of the considerations that it is impossible that he is inculpable for denying the most basic revealed truth of the necessity of faith for salvation, because that pertains to the Natural Law which is written in the heart (Rom. 2:15): "Certum est hominem teneri ex lege naturali ad Deum per Fidem, Spem et Charitatem se convertere, et ideo elicere earum virtutum actus"  (St. Alphonsus M. De Liguori, Opera Moralia, Lib. II, Tract. I, De Præcepto Fidei. cap. II) - and therefore there is besides the patent matter of heresy the inexcusable form of the sin of heresy, which puts Jorge Bergoglio outside of communion with the Catholic Church:  “Hæresis est error intellectus, et pertinax contra Fidem, in eo qui Fidem sucepit. ... Unde patet, ad Hæresim, ut et Apostasiam, duo requiri, 1. Judicium erroneum, quod est ejus quasi materiale. 2. Pertinaciam; quae est quasi formale. Porro pertinaciter errare non est hic acriter, et mordicus suum errorem tueri; sed est eum retinere, postquam contrarium est sufficienter propositum: sive quando scit contrarium teneri a reliqua universali Christi in terris Ecclesia, cui suum iudicium præferat” – St. Alphonsus M. De Liguori, Lib. II. Tract. I. De præcepto Fidei. Dubium III.
     Since this matter pertains to the Natural Law, it is patent and certain that both of the conditions for matter and form are present in Bergoglio's denial of the most fundamental principle upon which all religion is based and hinges on, since in matters of natural law, "whoever shall have sinned without the law shall perish without the law". (Rom. 2:12).

JORGE BERGOGLIO IS THE SPEARHEAD OF THE GREAT APOSTASY

As Cardinal Ciappi wrote on the Third Secret of Fatima, "[T]he great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top." The collect for the XVIIth Sunday After Pentecost implores God to protect His faithful from the diabolical poison (the false opinions being spewed daily by Jorge Bergoglio and his Mason occupied Vatican), so they may avoid this contagion and follow the divine truths perpetually taught by the Catholic Church with a pure mind:

Orémus
Da, quaesumus, Domine, populo tuo diabolica vitare contagia: et te solum Deum pura mente sectari.
Per Dóminum . . .

     Bergoglio's deadly poison, is faithlessness, which produces the death of the soul. The first Great Commandment is this: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind." (Mt.22:37) This commandment unconditionally demands that we believe in God, believe his revelation, and obey His precepts. "This is the greatest and the first commandment." (v. 38) This is the basis of the Second Commandment, "And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (v. 39) The Second hinges directly from the first; since, without the need to believe, love, and obey God, there cannot exist an obligation to love one's neighbor or oneself. We are bound absolutely by Divine Law to observe these commandments, because God has commanded us to obey them; and not because we are convinced in our own mind that they are correct. 
     To believe God and to obey Him is the basis of all religion, which we must do in order to be saved: "On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets." (v. 40) If we refuse to believe in God, we are damned as infidels; and if we refuse to believe what He reveals, we are likewise damned as infidels: "he that believeth not shall be condemned." (Mk. 16:16)
    Bergoglio says he believes in God, and in Jesus Christ, but he explicitly rejects His teaching: " You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don't believe and who don't seek the faith." Bergoglio's reply: "The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience. Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience." (!) (Michael Day (11 September 2013)."Pope Francis assures atheists: You don't have to believe in God to go to heaven". London: The Independent.) Thus, his remark about the redemption of atheists hinges on this perverse principle -- " [God] has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ... Even the atheists, Everyone!” ( David Gibson (May 22, 2013). "Pope Francis: God redeemed everyone, ‘not just Catholics’". The Washington Post.)
     Hence, it is manifestly evident that Jorge Bergoglio is not a Christian at all, but an apostate and infidel. The incontrovertable proof consists in the fact that Bergoglio denies the very first principle and basis of all religion -- BELIEF, and he explicitly opposes, contradicts, and rejects the teaching of Christ on this most fundamental point which is the basis of all religion. Bergoglio preaches a false religion which does not require faith for salvation, but explicitly professes the opinion that men can be saved even if they don't believe in God. Thus, when Bergoglio says that all are redeemed, "even atheists" -- the clear and indisputable context of his words manifests plainly that he intends the term "redeemed" to be understood in the sense that it is used in the liturgy -- thus meaning "æterna redemptio" -- "eternal redemption" which is equivalent to "salus æterna" or "eternal salvation" -- thus, the term 'redemption' is used and understood in the cited passage by Bergoglio with the same meaning synonymous with 'salvation' as it is used in the Roman Canon: pro redemptione animarum suarum, pro spe salutis et incolumitatis suæ.
     Thus, Bergoglio, in addition to denying the natural law, flatly rejects the authority of the Revealing God by denying the most fundamental teaching of the entire Scripture and Tradition of both testaments. Infidelity is the "maximun omnium peccatorum", as St. Thomas explains. Hence, sin, for people who have no faith, is first and foremost the sin of unbelief, regardless of whether they obey their perverted conscience or not. One who denies the necessity to assent to divine revelation or the divine truths that are known by reason explicitly rejects the authority of the revealing God. Bergoglio is a manifest apostate and infidel -- and therefore is not a member of the Catholic Church, nor its visible head on earth.*
     Bergoglio's religion is a different religion than the Catholic religion, because his God is not the transcendent Catholic God, but the immanent "god" of Teilhard de Chardin and the Freemasons: "I believe in God - not in a Catholic God; there is no Catholic God." This is what he meant when he said, "God does not exist; do not be shocked" -- he's saying he believes in a god that is not the God of Christians as God and His attributes are understood by the perpetual tradition of Catholic theology and dogma.
    It is not mere gibberish when he says, " There is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, they are persons, they are not some vague idea in the clouds ... This God spray does not exist! The three persons exist!" Jorge Bergoglio has denied the transcendent Most High God who reveals infallible dogmas and commandments (Whom he reduces to the status of a "vague idea in the clouds"; a "God spray" which "does not exist"); and has replaced Him with a "god" who is "persons" whose revelation is received not by supernatural means, but in one's conscious experience: His religion is the Enlightenment "religion" of revelation experienced in one's heart -- of an immanent Deity which reveals itself in natural human experience -- the "Mother Earth" he professed on 2 June 2016, as the one who "gave us life and protects us". Thus, the absolute primacy of one's own conscience rather than the Commandments of God. Bergoglio's religion is a pandeistic form of Gnosticism,  expressed in terms of the perfidious "liberal theology" which had sprung forth from the faithless Enlightenment in the doctrine of Friedrich Schleiermacher, and his moral doctrine likewise is the vague Enlightenment belief in the "Moral Sense", as professed by the infidel Lord Shaftsbury.
     There cannot be salvation by means of the works of obeying one's conscience alone without supernatural faith in God (That is the heresy of Pelagianism.), since justification cannot be accomplished by mere human works without the sanctification of justifying grace which is received by faith and not works: "For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law." Hence, one cannot parttake of redemption without faith: " But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him." (Heb. 11:6) According to Bergoglio there can be redemption without faith. According to Divine Revelation, there cannot be redemption without faith. Bergoglio does not believe the Divine Revelation -- he does not believe God who speaks in Revelation. Thus, Jorge Bergoglio is an infidel -- he is not a Catholic. To be a Catholic, one must profess the FAITH of the Church:
    

St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, Ch. 2:

" [6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictestsense Catholic which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors."

Ch. 3:

"7.] What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from thecommunion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by anyfraud of novelty.

[8.] But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness andignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in various times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with oneconsent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation."

Ch. 4:

" [10.] So also when the Arian poison had infected not an insignificant portion of the Church but almost the whole world, so that a sort of blindness had fallen upon almost all the bishops of the Latin tongue, circumvented partly by force partly by fraud, and was preventing them from seeing what was most expedient to be done in the midst of so much confusion, then whoever was a true lover and worshipper of Christ, preferring the ancient belief to the novel misbelief, escaped the pestilent infection."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm

* The only valid pope is Benedict XVI, whose renunciation has been irrefutably demonstrated to be canonically defective, and therefore null & void.

---------------------

If cohabitation were to be considered a valid marriage, then there would be no need for sacramental marriage, since the cohabitation would fulfill the law of God -- which is heresy. Bergoglio's idea of marriage, specifically the idea that monogamous cohabitation constitutes a valid Christian marriage directly opposes the supernatural sacramentality of Holy Matrimony, and is rooted in Masonic naturalism. That is certainly no surprise, since Bergoglio's religious belief system is totally circumscribed by Masonic naturalism.

POPE BENEDICT DID NOT RESIGN THE PAPAL OFFICE, BUT ONLY RENOUNCED THE ACTIVE MINISTRY OF THE OFFICE

In order to understand the precise scope and extent of Benedict XVI's "renunciation" (not "resignation" or "abdication"), one must focus on his words which explain exactly what he renounced:

"Qui permettetemi di tornare ancora una volta al 19 aprile 2005. La gravità della decisione è stata proprio anche nel fatto che da quel momento in poi ero impegnato sempre e per sempre dal Signore. Sempre – chi assume il ministero petrino non ha più alcuna privacy. Appartiene sempre e totalmente a tutti, a tutta la Chiesa. Alla sua vita viene, per così dire, totalmente tolta la dimensione privata." ... " Il “sempre” è anche un “per sempre” - non c’è più un ritornare nel privato. La mia decisione di rinunciare all’esercizio attivo del ministero, non revoca questo."

"Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated." ... "The 'always' is also a "for ever" – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this."

Here Benedict XVI states explicitly that the gravity his decision to accept the papacy consisted in the fact that he was thereby engaged in a committment, received from Christ, which is "for always", and his "decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this." Thus, Benedict did not renounce the Petrine office or its ministry, but only the active exercise of the ministry. He then goes on to say that he will no longer wield the power of office, but will remain "within the enclosure of St. Peter": " Non porto più la potestà dell’officio per il governo della Chiesa, ma nel servizio della preghiera resto, per così dire, nel recinto di san Pietro. San Benedetto, il cui nome porto da Papa, mi sarà di grande esempio in questo. Egli ci ha mostrato la via per una vita, che, attiva o passiva, appartiene totalmente all’opera di Dio." ("I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.")  
    Hence, the intention expressed by Pope Benedict is to remain in the Petrine office and retain the passive aspect of its official service (munus), i.e. "the service of prayer"; and to hand over the active aspect of the munus, i.e. exercise of governance, to a successor, who will effectively fulfill the function of a coadjutor with power of jurisdiction. Thus, Benedict's clearly expressed intention was not to abdicate the office, but only to vacate the cathedra in the qualified sense of handing the seat of power of governance to one who will succeed him in the active governance, but not abdicating from the office itself. This solves the apparent mystery and explains why Benedict XVI refused to revert to being Cardinal Ratzinger; and why he retains his papal coat of arms and papal attire.
   In his Declaration of Feb. 11, 2013, Pope Benedict states as the reason for his decision his waning energy and consequent inability to administer the official duties of the papacy due to advanced age: Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata ad cognitionem certam perveni vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse ad munus Petrinum aeque administrandum.
   However, he states his awareness of the spiritual nature of the official service, the munus of the petrine office; namely, it is not merely active and verbal, but is to be fulfilled to no lesser degree by praying and suffering:  Bene conscius sum hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et orando. It is this passive function of the office that he expressly stated was his intention to retain in his above cited discourse of 27 Feb. 2013.
     It was only the active service, the execution of the ministery regarding grave affairs of the Church and proclaiming the gospel, which he said he could no longer adequately perform: Attamen in mundo nostri temporis rapidis mutationibus subiecto et quaestionibus magni ponderis pro vita fidei perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae necessarius est, qui ultimis mensibus in me modo tali minuitur, ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum agnoscere debeam.
   Therefore, in the next sentence he declares his intention to renounce that ministry:  Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse. As the eminent canonist Stefano Violi (quoted below) says, Benedict XVI did not resign the papal office, but only its administration. Since the Petrine office is indivisible (as Domenico Gravina OP explained ca. 1610), a partial act of renunciation is null and void due to defect of intention, and therefore does not suffice to vacate the Chair of Peter.
     One notices the corrected Latin in this Vatican website version of the Declaratio. In the official document the word "commissum" was used, and not "commisso" as you can see in the sentence. This is one of two glaring grammatical errors in the document that, according to the canonical custom which remains in force, renders the juridical act null & void. The 1983 Code of Canon Law states explicitly that where there is no  statute or custom ruling on some matter in the Code, the jurisprudence of the Roman Curia is to be followed*. The precedents go back to Pope St. Gregory VII, as I have explained in previous posts.
    However, leaving aside the question of the Latin errors; the far more weighty consideration of the pope's intention not to abdicate the munus, but only to renounce the active ministry is decisive in determining the nullity of the act. It is patent that a pope who intends to renounce the active exercise of the Petrine  ministry, but who expresses his intention to retain the passive service of the munus which he received on 19 April 2005, does not vacate the office. Hence, the intention to render the chair vacant is defective, since one who intends to retains the passive exercise of the munus retains the munus, and therefore still occupies the chair.

* Can. 19 - Si certa de re desit expressum legis sive universalis sive particularis praescriptum; aut consuetudo, causa, nisi sit poenalis, dirimenda est attentis legibus latis in similibus, generalibus iuris principiis cum aequitate canonica servatis, iurisprudentia et praxi Curiae Romanae, communi constantique doctorum sententia. [End]

     Gänswein and Violi are right. Weigel and all who agree with him are wrong. Pope Benedict XVI did not resign the Petrine office. Benedict's own words express this beyond all shadow of doubt.

     George Weigel's words illustrate the futility of arguing against reason. Weigel says, " A papal abdication, no matter what the circumstances, involves renouncing the Office of Peter, not reconceptualizing it." The proposition is entirely correct, but Weigel's (and a multitude of nominal Catholics) belief that Benedict XVI "abdicated" the petrine office is a fallacious a priori assumption based on an uncritical reading of Benedict's act of renunciation.

     The text of Benedict's 11/02/2013Declaratio has been systematically analyzed by Canon Law professor Stefano Violi, in his article published in the Theological Journal of Lugano (Rivista teologica di Lugano),  The Re unciation of Benedict XVI Between History, Law and Conscience
[Theological Faculty of Emilia Romagna – Faculty of Theology (Lugano).]    

     Violi demonstrates by strict application of the rules of logic and principles of law that Benedict expressed his intention to renounce only the active exercise of the petrine ministry, but not the papal office. Weigel's responds to those who refuse to be swayed by the uncritical and logically flawed arguments which erroneously assume a priori that Benedict "resigned" from the office, by personally berating them with gratuitous ad hominems and blindly rejecting their position without the slightest attempt at refutation.

     Prof. Violi explains in his article, "On 11 February 2013, Benedict XVI declared hisrenunciation not of the office, but of its administration. The limited renumciation of the active exercise of the munus constitutes the absolute novelty of the renunciation of Benedict XVI". By renouncing only the exercise of the munus, but not the office itself, Benedict did not vacate the office, but remained in office as pope and Vicar of Christ. (cf. The Resignation of Benedict XVI

Between History, Law and Conscience -- Professor Stefano Violi  http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/newsviews031315.pdf; http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350913)

     In order to understand exactly what Benedict's intention was in his act of renunciation, it is necessary to critically examine his words and determine the moral object of that act; since the object of the act specifies precisely the essence of the act. Prof. Violi has meticulously and expertly carried out such a critical analysis of Benedict's words.

     In his act of renunciation Benedict XVI specified precisely what he intended to renounce -- and what he renounced was the "active exercise of the petrine ministry". Such an intention as that does not suffice to vacate the papal office. The fact that he voluntarily took the name 'Pope Emeritus' and made his submission to the infidel Bergoglio does not change the fact that his renunciation was null & void for reason of defect of intention. 

"La mia decisione di rinunciare all’esercizio attivo del ministero, non revoca questo."

      These are Pope Benedict's own words by which he explicitly specified the object of the act of renunciation as a "decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry". THAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A RENUNCIATION OF THE OFFICE.

     Benedict XVI states explicitly that the gravity his decision to accept the papacy consisted in the fact that he was thereby engaged in a committment, received from Christ, which is "for always", and his "decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this." Thus, Benedict did not renounce the Petrine office or its ministry, but only the active exercise of the ministry. He then goes on to say that he will no longer wield the power of office, but will remain "within the enclosure of St. Peter": " Non porto più la potestà dell’officio per il governo della Chiesa, ma nel servizio della preghiera resto, per così dire, nel recinto di san Pietro. San Benedetto, il cui nome porto da Papa, mi sarà di grande esempio in questo. Egli ci ha mostrato la via per una vita, che, attiva o passiva, appartiene totalmente all’opera di Dio." ("I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.")  
    Hence, the intention expressed by Pope Benedict is to remain in the Petrine office and retain the passive aspect of its official service (munus), i.e. "the service of prayer"; and to hand over the active aspect of the munus, i.e. exercise of governance, to a successor, who will effectively fulfill the function of a coadjutor with power of jurisdiction. Thus, Benedict's clearly expressed intention was not to abdicate the office, but only to vacate the cathedra in the qualified sense of handing the seat of power of governance to one who will succeed him in the active governance, but not abdicating from the office itself. This solves the apparent mystery and explains why Benedict XVI refused to revert to being Cardinal Ratzinger; and why he retains his papal coat of arms and papal attire.
   In his Declaration of Feb. 11, 2013, Pope Benedict states as the reason for his decision his waning energy and consequent inability to administer the official duties of the papacy due to advanced age: Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata ad cognitionem certam perveni vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse ad munus Petrinum aeque administrandum.
   However, he states his awareness of the spiritual nature of the official service, the munus of the petrine office; namely, it is not merely active and verbal, but is to be fulfilled to no lesser degree by praying and suffering:  Bene conscius sum hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et orando. It is this passive function of the office that he expressly stated was his intention to retain in his above cited discourse of 27 Feb. 2013.
     It was only the active service, the execution of the ministery regarding grave affairs of the Church and proclaiming the gospel, which he said he could no longer adequately perform: Attamen in mundo nostri temporis rapidis mutationibus subiecto et quaestionibus magni ponderis pro vita fidei perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae necessarius est, qui ultimis mensibus in me modo tali minuitur, ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum agnoscere debeam.
   Therefore, in the next sentence he declares his intention to renounce that ministry:  Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.
    Thus, based on a strict analysis of Benedict's words, Prof. Violi concludes, "On 11 February 2013, Benedict XVI declared his renunciation not of the office, but of its administration. The limited renumciation of the active exercise of the munus constitutes the absolute novelty of the renunciation of Benedict XVI". 
[From the "Theological Journal of Lugano"XVIII 2/2013. The author is a priest of the diocese of Modena who teaches Canon Law in the Theological Faculty if Emilia Romagna, and in the Faculty of Theology of Lugano. Dalla "Rivista Teologica di Lugano" XVIII, 2 / 2013. L'autore è sacerdote della diocesi di Modena e insegna diritto canonico nella Facoltà Teologica dell'Emilia Romagna e nella Facoltà di Teologia di Lugano.]

     The recent statements of Archbishop Georg Gänswein explicitly confirm that it was Benedict's intention to not to resign the office but to "broaden" it -- not to step down, but to "step aside" and make room for a collaborator with whom the papal munus would be shared. About this there can no longer be any doubt. The proposition that Benedict abdicated the office and thereby fully relinquished the munus of the petrine office explicitly contradicts Benedict's own words by which he expressly stated his intention to retain the passive exercise of the petrine munus. 

     Benedict's judgment that his decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry would result in vacating the See of Rome is is flawed in its logic, being based on a fallacious premise, to wit, that the chair can be vacated by a pontiff who explicitly states in his act of renunciation, his intention to retain a partial exercise of the petrine munus; thereby expressing his will not to entirely relinquish the munus of office. By explicitly stating his intention to partially retain the munus of office, Benedict's act is thereby rendered null & void due to defect of intention; hence, his statement that his renunciation of the ministry was valid, is plainly erroneous.

     Mons. Gänswein is the personal secretary of Pope Benedict and his spokesman. He is only restating in the vernacular that which Pope Benedict already stated in terse canonical Latin on 11 Feb 2013, and reiterated in his final public audience on 27 Feb 2013.

     Absolutely none of Weigel's comments addresses the essential point made by Violi, Socci, and myself that Benedict XVI in his renunciation stated explicitly his intention to partially retain the official petrine munus. This plainly stated intention renders the act of renunciation null & void, since the See is not vacated unless the pope fully relinquishes the petrine munus.

     Furthermore, Benedict's claim made in his act of renunciation, that his renunciation of the petrine ministry will vacate the Chair and necessitate the election of a successor is logically inconsistent; and stands in irreconcilable opposition to his statement in the same document expressing his intention to retain the passive exercise of the munus; and his subsequent explicit affirmation that, "My decision to renounce the active ministry does not revoke this."

     These opposing statements constitute a fatal equivocation in the act of renunciation which renders the act null & void. In order that an act have the juridical force of law, in must unequivocally state that which it intends to be the juridical effect of the act. If it makes statements that stand in logical opposition regarding the intended juridical effect of the act; it's meaning becomes irremediably unintelligible, and therefore doubtful -- and as such, incapable of having the force of law: Lex dubia lex nulla.

     What is absolutely certain, however, is that Pope Benedict did not resign the petrine office. What Benedict did attempt, was the theological impossibility of dividing the exercise of the indivisible petrine munus between two men. Both Archbishop Gänswein and Prof. Violi have grasped perfectly what was actually Pope Benedict's stated intention, but hardly anyone else has attempted to gain a precise understanding of the specific nature of the act by analyzing the text of the Declaratio, and determining its moral object.

       Violi has stated it plainly: 

"Benedict XVI divested himself of all the power of government and command inherent in his office, without however, abandoning his service to the Church: this continues through the exercise of the spiritual dimension of the pontifical munus entrusted to him. This he did not intend renouncing. He renounced not his duties, which are, irrevocable, but the concrete execution of them."

If Pope Benedict had simply "resigned", "abdicated", or "renounced the petrine office"; he would not be dressed in white, and not be retaining the papal name and coat of arms. He did not simply "resign". He renounced the "exercise of the ministry", and expressed the intention to retain the passive aspect of the munus of office (which he said was not less important than the active aspect). This leaves us with two papal claimants: One who refuses to abdicate the office and totally relinquish any claim on the official munus, and the other who fills the partial vacuum left by Benedict's withdrawl from the exercise of papal jurisdiction.

    Since such an act that would divide the papacy is patently contrary to the divine constitution of the Church, which defined the singularity of the petrine office in Pastor Æternus; the renunciation of Pope Benedict can be judged invalid with absolute certitude.

     The Petrine munus remains singularly and permanently with the Pope, who is the Bishop of Rome. It cannot be divided: "Ecclesiae Romanae Episcopus, in quo permanet munus a Domino singulariter Petro . . ." (Canon 321) The munus consists in the service and duties of office. The singularity of the office was solemnly defined by Vatican I in Pastor Æternus.

     Thus, Pope Benedict's official declaration that he renounced only the active exercise of the munus; but retains the passive exercise of that official munus is manifestly contrary to the divine constitution of the Church, and is therefore null & void. Pope Benedict XVI remains in office as the one and only valid successor of St. Peter. Francis is an antipope and a manifest heretic. Benedict has consistently and repeatedly stated that what he renounced was only "the active exercise of the ministry"; and he stated on 27/02/2013 that his act of renunciation "does not revoke this" (By "this" he expressly referred to his irrevocable accepance of the petrine munus on 19 April 2005, which he explained earlier in the same discourse, which I have quoted above). Since 2013 Pope Benedict has left it to his secrerary, Archbishop Gänswein to explain the matter; but Benedict's own words pronounced publicly in Feb. 2013 have already stated precisely what Archbishop Gänswein has recently (21 May) only reiterated, namely, that Benedict XVI has not left the petrine office:

„Seit der Wahl seines Nachfolgers Franziskus am 13. März 2013 gibt es keine zwei Päpste, aber de facto ein erweitertes Amt - mit einem aktiven und einem kontemplativen Teilhaber. Darum hat Benedikt XVI. weder den weißen Talar noch seinen Namen abgelegt. Darum ist seine korrekte Anrede auch heute noch ‚Heiliger Vater’ (auf Italienisch: Santità), und darum zog er sich auch nicht in ein abgelegenes Kloster zurück, sondern in das Innere des Vatikans – als sei er nur beiseite getreten, um seinem Nachfolger und einer neuen Etappe in der Geschichte des Papsttums Raum zu geben, den er mit diesem Schritt bereichert hat um das Kraftwerk seines Gebets und Mitleidens in den Vatikanischen Gärten.“

"Dall’elezione del suo successore, Papa Francesco - il 13 marzo 2016 - non ci sono dunque due Papi, ma di fatto un ministero allargato con un membro attivo e uno contemplativo. Per questo, Benedetto non ha rinunciato né al suo nome né alla talare bianca. Per questo, l’appellativo corretto con il quale bisogna rivolgersi a lui è ancora 'Santità'. Inoltre, egli non si è ritirato in un monastero isolato, ma all’interno del Vaticano, come se avesse fatto solo un passo di lato per fare spazio al suo Successore e a una nuova tappa della storia del Papato che egli, con quel passo, ha arricchito con la centralità della preghiera e della compassione posta nei Giardini vaticani".

Hard evidence of the Vatican cover-up of the sex-abuse of children, seminarians and young priests.

Randy Engel - investigative journalist of the pedophile and pederast scandals in the Catholic Church, sent me this link. It is concrete proof of the systematic cover up of the sex-abuse of children, seminarians and young priests in the Church, from the highest echelons of the Vatican.  Mrs Engel says Archbishop Nienstedt and those complicit in his crimes - must be turned over to the police and defrocked. 

The video is just under an hour.

https://youtu.be/ujj_2Q2Jiig

British police whistleblower on corruption in police - regarding child abuse and other horrors

This is an interview between UK column news and one very brave policeman - who blew the whistle on what is really going on within care homes for children, and how the police can't deal properly with the crimes, due to 'higher authorites'. Credit must go to this independent news source - who tell it how it is.

https://youtu.be/Y_sDeTCLVDQ

More Catholic academics rise up against "Amoris Laetitia"

This is a video of around 29 minutes - with a number of speakers including Bishop Athanasiis Schneider - pointing out the catastrophic dangers in the Pope's document

https://youtu.be/nQpJqmbYPXg

Catholic academics rising up against the recent papal document- "Amoris Laetitia"

Go to the Latin Mass Society blog and see the latest post by chairman Joseph Shaw, which is getting global attention, regarding the heresies in the Pope's latest document. 

//www.lmschairman.org/2016/07/catholic-academics-and-pastors-appeal.html

One transsexual's regret

I started training with the Citizens Advice Bureau earlier this year as I wanted something interesting and useful to do while my son was at school. At the interview I was asked if there were any situations I wouldn't be able to deal with and I was pretty upfront - thinking that this would be 'curtains' for me. I stated plainly - that if someone came in and wanted to get an abortion or the "morning after pill" I would not in conscience be able to help them. The interviewer said - "we have never been asked that before". So I was accepted.

Working at the CAB is an eye opener as each person who comes for advice has a unique problem - no two are the same.

Anyway - one person who came in was a transsexual - 'she' was very open about this and how it had destroyed 'her' life. The issue 'she' came in with, was to do with benefits.  Due to the operation 'going spectacularly wrong' - which was on the NHS, this person couldn't manage to hold down a job. The sex-change operation was in 'her' eyes a "disaster". She had been pressurised to go "the full monty" by the surgeon, rather than a half-way house operation. I got the grisly details which I will spare this blog!

'She' said if she had known all this, she would have just carried on being a cross-dresser which wouldn't have involved a full scale operation. ‘She’ said the hormone pills had terrible side-effects and she had to stop taking them. ‘She’ also said the public only get to hear about the "successful ones" - and that there is no voice for those, when it has gone badly wrong. ‘She’ wanted to tell her story so that others don't follow this path. ‘She’ also said she was worried about schools now telling primary school children they have to think about their genders - putting ideas into their heads! ‘She’ thought this was downright dangerous. ‘She’ says she thinks the sex-change operations should be banned. 

Letter to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church

I

Does Pope Benedict promote the subtle Christological heresy that Jesus is not God?

I write this on Trinity Sunday 2016

Something odd happened to me in 2005, which scared me and gave me goosebumps. 

Why on earth am I writing about something that happened to me over 10 years ago? Because a few days ago, the Vatican issued a communique to the world, saying that Pope Benedict has denied having a conversation with Proffessor Dollinger regarding the Third Secret of Fatima. Apparently  Proffessor Dollinger said that Cardinal Ratziger told him that the unrevealed part of the Third Secret is to do with a bad Council and a bad Mass. Steve Skojec's latest post on OnePeter5 is about this new revelation by Proffessor  Dollinger, and it has gone so viral that it got the Vatican's attention. So this quick communication from the Vatican shows a nervousness on their part, to issue such a strong statement on behalf of Pope Benedict. So, who is lying? The Vatican, Pope Benedict or Proff Dollinger. I don't think the latter is lying.

So back to my past. While I was studying in my second year at Maryvale Institute in February 2005 for the part time BA Divinity, and while Pope John Paul II was still alive, I was perturbed to read a book by the then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. It was called "God and the World - A conversation with Peter Seewald", Ignatius Press, 2000. It was in a question and answer format. It has been a best seller I believe.

On page 294, Peter Seewald asks Cardinal Ratzinger about Mary being the mother of God, and the Cardinal replies, "obviously she is not God's mother in the sense of His having come from her. But she was in the sense of having been the mother of that man who was entirely at one with God." Now I remember re-reading and re-reading the last part and red flags were popping up all over my head, and I felt a quickening of my heart-beat inside. Anyway, I wrote to my tutor, that wonderful canon lawyer - Father John Redwood (RIP). I quoted the troubling sentence to him. He wrote back, "I agree with you. Ratzinger's statement that Mary was the mother of that man who was entirely at one with God" is ambiguous. She was the mother of the man who WAS God!" The ever so subtle and  carefully worded answer from Cardinal Ratzinger is a Christological heresy denying that Jesus Christ IS God! So, does Pope Benedict believe that Jesus is God? It would seem not - according to his reply to Mr Seewald. 

Another interesting article on Pope Benedict's theology was written by late Father Luigi Villa in December 2011, where he critiques a book by Pope Benedict, called, "The God of Jesus Christ" - the title alone gives the heebie jeebies! That title alone says that Jesus is NOT God. Here is the link - please read it! So if this is the case, then Pope Benedict is a subtle Arian. No one has picked up on this except Fr Villa - who held a doctorate in theology.

http://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/uploads/A_return_to_paganism-final-1.pdf

Another interesting podcast I listened to today was a criticism of Catholic bloggers who blog anonymously. And there are many of them! Good writing and all that, but they hide behind anonymity. I blog under my real name and yes it has got me into 'trouble' of course it has! I have lost friends yes. My blog eventually caused me to leave Opus Dei. But I refuse to be anonymous. 

There is a lot of nostalgia for Pope Benedict, while Pope Francis causes havoc with his many plane interviews and apostolic exhortations. But this nostalgia is quite odd IF Pope Benedict is a crypto Arian.

This non Catholic man is calling Pope Francis to act like a pope.

A very short video by a non Catholic - who actually makes really good points. It seems that Pope Francis is comparing Our Lord and Saviour to the extremist ISIS group! If that's the case then how dare he blaspheme God! That is beyond the pale. I mean if Amoris blooming what not wasn't bad enough!

Dear Lord please spare us from this Pope! I beg you.

Of course it was Cardinal Pell who said that we have had 47 antepopes in the history of the Catholic Church. Was he implying that Pope Francis might be no 48? Otherwise why would he have come out with that fact out of the blue?! I mean the cardinal just blurted it out. It was totally out of context too.

Only 3 minutes long.

Anonymous comments are not usually published

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-YXOT0HtCE&feature=share

John Smeaton of SPUC on fire in this video - demanding the immediate withdrawal of the Pope's document - Amoris Laetitia

John Smeaton is head of SPUC - the Society for the protection of unborn children. The charity has supporters from all faiths and none. 

Among other things it highlights the moral evil of the contraceptive mentality so prevalent in our culture. The natural law pre-dates all religions, and contraception goes against the natural law, by separating the procreative from the unitive. 

The society also exposes the  insidious sex education in schools, which crush our children's innocence. Even many Catholic schools promote a values-free sex education agenda. Catholics now contracept, abort, co-habit, divorce, use IVF, enter into same-sex marriage, as much as non-Catholics. This was never the case before 1965. Unfortunately our Catholic hierarchy including the Vatican have been impotent in stemming this tide of hedonistic behaviour amongst its flock.

Sorry to say but the latest document from Pope Francis has drawn the line in the sand. It is a horrific document and possibly - in my opinion, the most dangerous piece of writing from any pope past or present. A retired priest said on Sunday that the title says it all - Amoris Laetitia really means, "The Joy of Sex" and that we must not follow it! He described it in his sermon as "weird".

So I will stop banging on and just say do watch this incredible video of John Smeaton, who passionately asks the pope to withdraw this dangerous document as of immediate effect.

John Smeaton has also said it is now time for the laity to rise up and form a resistance movement - I have joined. I encourage you to join.

https://youtu.be/y8wp2s_J4IA

Anonymous comments are not usually printed

Date of the conference in Rome, to condemn the heresies in Amoris Laetitia - 25th June 2016

This conference is taking place on Saturday 25th June in Rome. The venue isn't known yet as the numbers of people attending are not known.

I am hoping to attend. 

Brother Alexis Bugnolo - former Franciscan Friar of the Immaculata is organising this event, as he currently resides in Rome.

Useful website - post Amoris Laetitia

I am sure my blog has lost me many friends - that is par for the course when you write controversial articles. But I don't do this blog to be popular!

This is a website which I find useful, and I am sure I will lose more friends. Too bad.

We live in unprecedented times in the Catholic Church.

God help us!



www.biblefalseprophet.com

Conference in Rome to show the heresies in Amoris Laetitia

This vital event is being organised by Brother Alexis Bugnolo


https://vericatholici.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/invitation-to-international-conference-to-condemn-amoris-laetitia/

Novos Ordo Watch website

After the ambigous document which Pope Francis produced in early April 2016, something occurred to me. Popes are not supposed to produce ambigous documents - popes are meant to clarify teachings not muddy the waters. Many church men and well known Catholic journalists are doing flip flops trying to explain this document - "Amoris Laetitia". It's civil war in the Catholic Church and it's going to get nasty. Cardinal Burke says this document is not part of the infallible teaching office, so basically he is saying in the politest way, that we can ignore this document. Other cardinals like Shonborn are saying that it is a marvellous radical departure and a "linguistic event" - whatever that means! 

Of course Vatcan 2 was a language event too. If you read the documents you will notice they are written in a new language, and indeed these can be read in both a heterodox way and an orthodox way - think of the 2 pronged fork analogy.

 But church documents should be clear NOT ambiguous. Before Vatican 2, church documents were crystal clear. I urge readers to compare documents before and after 1962.

A very good website has many good articles about the changes in the church since the close of the Second Vatican Council. It is called Novos Ordo Watch.

Before this awful document came out I would have hesitated to promote this website, but after much prayer and discernment I am going to put the address here. I have to admit I don't know what's going on in the Catholic Church - are the liberals right? I don't know, they might be. Are the conservatives right? I don't know, they might be. Are the SSPX right? I don't know, they might be. Are the sedevacantists right? I don't know, they might be. But all I do know, is that God has allowed this confusion and infighting in His Church for a considerable amount of time, for reasons I don't know why, but hopefully one day we will know the reasons. I cling to the daily rosary and my scapular medal and pray pray pray for this diabolical confusion to end.

novosordowatch.org

Another good one is padrepioandchiesaviva.com

Anonymous comments are not usually printed.

Golly! Even EWTN are criticising the Pope's document Amoris Laetitia.

Good for Raymond Arroyo in this. They are presenting the serious errors in the Pope's recent apostolic exhortation "Amoris Laetitia". 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=E5Avd7bCiV0

Venerable Archbishop Sheen said the false prophet would be a Catholic bishop

Please watch this 4 minute utube - which quotes Archbishop Fulton Sheen - on the subject of both antichrist and the biblical false prophet - by the way - these characters are not myths - they have been taught infallibly in the Catholic Church. There really will be 2 men, 1 the false prophet, and the other the antichrist.

The narrator cites his source - which is a book, and states the name and pages quoted.

http://youtu.be/gmmESCWl8Co

Amorous document - AKA Amoris Laetitia

I'm I am not going to write much on this now rather infamous document by Pope Francis. Excellent bloggers have already written brilliant insights - Italian journalist Antonio Socci has written a very apt piece, Sandro Magister and Roberto de Mattei are others who offer good insights.

This document which is the size of a novel apparently, has been 3 years in preparation. It is the result of the 2 Synods at the Vatican. None of us should be surprised at its contents, which are being interpreted in wildly different ways.

No we should not be surprised at all. It is the natural child of Vatican 2, which was also interpreted in wildly different ways, from very liberal to conservative, depending on one's viewpoint. No council in the history of the Catholic Church has EVER had different interpretations, because every council prior to Vatican 2 was written in clear language, without ambigous sophistries.

The bottom line of this entire document can be summed up in one paragraph.

This document is really about the elevation of the cult of man and how man's conscience can be his supreme judge in all matters of his behaviour. This document does away with sin and the 10 Commandments of God. It is actually an insult to God our Creator. It is a most outrageous offence to God. It uses obfuscated language and mixes truth with lies - a wicked cocktail - with deadly consequences for souls. It enshrines the whole masonic principle, that man is his own god, and if his conscience says he can break the 6th Commandment, then he can go ahead and break the 6th Commandment. There are some good parts in the document but frankly the ambiguities and "nods and winks" in it kill it for me!

That is all.

Anonymous comments are not published.

Whistleblower talks about "child stealing" by social services

This video is less than an hour, and it is rather shocking. Carol - the interviewee talks about how children's documents are deliberately altered so that they can be taken away from their real parents, and given to childless couples. She was sacked from her job as a social worker, as she wouldn't go along with altering facts on the forms. These stolen children are called "children to order".

It is outrageous that this sort of thing is happening. It's wicked and evil. Carol is extremely brave - having endured a barrage of attacks from fellow workers, simply because she refused to lie on these children's forms.

I remember that journalist Christopher Booker has written about this in his column.

http://youtu.be/CN8dvWXyK-s

Excellent utube on why the cult of "pope worship" is utterly wrong

I don't usually promote the Michael Voris videos, but I do watch them, as he has some interesting and intelligent speakers on. 

This video is actually rather good and to the point.

Unfortunately since  Saint Pope John Paul II was elected, there has been a cult of "pope worship" - especially as he was the first pope to really travel the world, and he started these err World Youth Days, which made him into a media savvy "pop star". However, I have to say it was Pope John Paul 2 who made me realise how mortally sinful artificial birth control is, so I owe him a lot! I took my faith seriously when he was alive.

Sadly the way saints are made now is questionable, since the 'devil's advocate' was binned years ago. I am not that certain if I believe in all the newest saints, so I prefer to venerate the saints who were elevated in the correct way - that is, with a proper devil's advocate. Suffice to say I think Pope John Paul II was canonised far too quickly - revisionist historians are already finding evidence of some very  questionable things he said, did and wrote.  Needlesstosay there was no devil's advocate for Pope John Paul II. I find that disturbing.

So this video is good, as Michael Voris is correctly saying that no one has to hang on every utterance a pope makes and popes do say wrong things and even don't know their doctrine sometimes! So when a pope says something which brings up a 'red flag' just check the Denzinger book on Catholic dogma, and if a pope contradicts it, then he must in all charity be ignored! And charitably corrected too.

Did you know that in the past we have had popes who raped and murdered victims, one fathered several children! So let us strive to end this ridiculous cult of papalotria every time the pope opens his mouth! Especially on blooming planes! For everyone's sake!

Enjoy the utube!

http://youtu.be/tcge7eppKo4

Picture of a cake shop in Seville during Holy Week

A good talk on the madness of commemorating Luther - enemy of Catholicism

Michael Matt and Chris Ferrara give a brilliant analysis on why they think Pope Francis should not be celebrating the 500 year anniversary of Martin Luther's break with the Catholic Church. This duo are like 2 prophets in the hideous confusing wilderness of the "goings on" in Rome.

And what does Michael Voris of the Church Militant Apostolate think? And is Jimmy Akin going to do his "10 good things to learn and know about Martin Luther and the Deformation, sorry reformation?" 

Cuckoo cuckoo

It lasts under half an hour.

http://youtu.be/-W85Mair6Uc

Short documentary on changes to the Catholic Church since Vatican 2

A very interesting and informative 45 minute documentary on the changes which occurred in the Catholic Church since Vatican 2.

Whether or not you agree with any, some, or all of it, it certainly encourages debate. I am open minded about the charges in it. However, some of the charges are too generalised.

Disquieting at the same time. 

http://youtu.be/hJxM7Lo2URw

It's the sort of thing you can listen to while ironing.