AntiVatican To Host Euthanasia Conference | Ann Barnhardt

Well, that didn’t take long.

Before we go further, let us remind ourselves of two things:

  1.  Jorge Bergoglio is NOT the Pope.  He is an antipope.  Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger is the one and only living pope.  This whole situation with Antipope Bergoglio is a result of Pope Ratzinger’s failed attempt to “partially abdicate”.  Since his attempted abdication was made in substantial error, per Canon 188, his resignation was invalid, whether he likes it or not, and he is, and has been all along the one and only living Pope.

2.  Let us revisit Father Linus Clovis’ summation of the current situation:

“THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE ANTI-CHURCH CURRENTLY CO-EXIST IN THE SAME SACRAMENTAL, LITURGICAL AND JURIDICAL SPACE”.

Okay, now that we are all operating from a base premise rooted in truth and reality, let us see what the now-almost-certain False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist is up to, as called in this space just recently:

“Vatican Conference Invites Promoters of Euthanasia”.

In just a few days, from 16 to 17 November, the newly reformed Pontifical Academy for Life will host a conference in Rome on the topic of “Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Balancing Autonomy and Compassion.

Yeah, because murdering one’s self is totally a matter of finding that sweet, sweet middle-ground in the Hegelian Dialectic.  You know, BALANCE. That place between murdering yourself and not murdering yourself, wherein you totally murder yourself, because… compassion. And… discernment.

Tell me more about how Jorge Bergoglio is the Vicar of Christ on Earth, protected by the Holy Ghost per Our Blessed Lord’s promise to always and forever keep the Petrine See from heresy and error.  Tell me more about how I am just a stupid, uneducated convert because I actually have faith in Our Lord’s promises.  Tell me more about how I am an hyperuberultramontane because I actually believe that Our Lord’s promise to His Bride, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to always be with her and to protect her Vicar on Earth with a special, negative protection DOES NOT INCLUDE PETER BEING ABLE TO RAPE INTO A COMA AND THEN ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE TO COMMIT SUICIDE THE BRIDE OF CHRIST.

“Oh, but he didn’t make a formal ex cathedra statement, so he is totally the Pope, and it’s totally okay….”

No.  No, it really isn’t.  We have all the information we need to know for a moral certainty that Bergoglio is NOT the Pope.  So, what we must do then, knowing that Our Lord’s promises are surer and deeper than the foundations of the earth, is to work backwards and figure out where the FALSE PREMISE is.  And, what has been made so very, very clear – like lead crystal clear – is that Ratzinger’s attempt to partially cut-and-run and only partially resign while “expanding and transforming the papacy”, and his subsequent words, deeds and WARDROBE SELECTION makes it glaringly obvious that the false premise in all of this is that Ratzinger actually, validly resigned, and that Bergoglio was validly elected, which is CLEARLY FALSE. Ratzinger NEVER VALIDLY RESIGNED, AND IS NOW AND HAS BEEN ALL ALONG THE ONE AND ONLY LIVING POPE. Is Ratzinger the worst pope ever?  YES. YES HE IS.  By a long, long shot.

Bergoglio is NOT THE POPE, AND NEVER HAS BEEN.  One could even say, “non-canonically elected”, RIGHT? As in, Bergoglio is NOT the “TRUE SUPREME PONTIFF”, right?

Today is the feast of St. Josaphat, who was MURDERED in ARSH 1623 for his efforts to defend The Church.  Here is his festal collect:

Stir up within Thy Church, we beseech Thee, O Lord, the Spirit which blessed Josaphat, Thy Martyr and Bishop, was filled, when he laid down his life for his sheep: so that, through his intercession, we too may be moved and strengthened by the same Spirit, and may not shrink from giving our lives for the bretheren.  Through Our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who with Thee, in the unity of the same Spirit, liveth and reigneth, one God, forever and ever. Amen.

And here is the equally strong Postcommunion:

May this heavenly banquet impart to us the spirit of fortitude, which strengthened blessed Josaphat, Thy Martyr and Bishop, to do battle for the honor of Thy Church throughout his life down to the hour of his triumph. Through Jesus Christ, thy Son our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee, in the unity of the same Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

St. Josephat, pray for us.

St. Francis of Assisi, pray for us.

St. Peter, pray for us.

Christ, have mercy on us.

Cardinal Burke’s “Final Plea” to Pope Francis: Our Take

Steve Skojec11/14/2017

Yesterday afternoon, I received word through one of my sources that something would be coming today, at long last, in the ongoing and seemingly never-ending process that would move things in the direction of the highly-anticipated “formal correction” of the pope. I was told that it would not be the formal correction itself, but something preliminary to it. There was no clear indicator of just what, exactly, was to be expected, or when the formal correction itself would follow. Only that a statement of some kind would be issued today, November 14, 2017, exactly one year since the publication of the original five dubia on Amoris Laetitia. 

When Edward Pentin’s new interview with Cardinal Burke was published today at 3PM Rome time, we had our answer. Not only was it not the formal correction, it did not even mention those words. Our summary of the document this morning included a list of important post-exhortation milestones over the past year along the path to this moment, but it is clear that this path, such as it is, continues to wind forward — for how long, nobody seems to know — into the future.

In the interview, Cardinal Burke conveys, though somewhat mildly, that things have grown untenable. He uses terms like “increasing confusion” and “gravest of matters” and “the gravity of the situation, which is continually worsening.” As he did when AL was first published, Burke insists — standing in contradiction to a number of papal defenders — that the exhortation is non-magisterial. “The magisterium,” he says, “is God’s gift to the Church to provide clarity on issues that regard the deposit of the faith. By their very nature, affirmations that lack this clarity cannot be qualified expressions of the magisterium.” He speaks of the damage being done to teaching and sacraments, of a proposed “paradigm shift regarding the Church’s entire moral practice”, and of subversion of “essential parts of the Tradition”. He speaks of the moral implications of the reasoning deployed in the so-called pastoral care recommended in AL, asking “what would happen if this reasoning were to be applied to other cases, such as that of a medical doctor performing abortions, of a politician belonging to a ring of corruption, of a suffering person deciding to make a request for assisted suicide”?

In the end, he makes a “final plea” that the pope “confirm his brothers in the faith with a clear expression of the teaching regarding both Christian morality and the meaning of the Church’s sacramental practice”.

But if the plea is actually final, then what might we expect next? What would be the consequence of the pope ignoring yet another plea, as he has done so many times before?

It seems certain that Cardinal Burke — along with those who are supporting his efforts — wants to make certain that he has given the pope every possible chance to fix what he is breaking. But with no clear indication of the repercussions of failing to do so, it remains impossible to determine what incentive the pope has to even pay this “final plea” any attention at all.

This interview, if it is indeed a final warning, should perhaps have been labeled as such. Saying “Please stop” hasn’t worked as a strategy before now, and the urgency — is there a sense of urgency behind the calm restatement of the problem? — demands more. The time for deference and patience, I fear, has passed. The faithful are seeing the man on the Throne of St. Peter flouting divinely-revealed teaching and the safeguards of his divinely-assisted office — and getting away with it. And it is making many Catholics feel tempted to wonder: If Christ’s promises to the Church can be so easily broken, can any of what we believe can really be trusted? 

In that sense, the pope isn’t the only one responsible for “the gravity of the situation, which is continually worsening.” The cardinals and bishops who have delayed taking action until now are, in their own unintentional way, intensifying the scandalization of the faithful. What the pope is doing is wrong, the laity think, but when even the faithful and orthodox shepherds of the Church fail to properly address it, does that mean we have been abandoned?

And while these doubts about the Church’s indefectibility are being daily introduced into the minds of the faithful, bishops around the world continue to move forward with their own subjective interpretations of what Amoris Laetitia means for their flocks — all of which will have to be unwound once the Church regains her senses. Today, at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2017 General Assembly meeting, the agenda item of a “renewed pastoral plan on marriage and family life in light of Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation on ‘the Joy of Love’, Amoris Laetitia” was brought to the table by Bishop Richard Malone, who serves on the USCCB Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth. (For those who would like to hear the commentary themselves, you can follow it on video beginning here.)

Bishop Barron speaks about “seizing” the narrative on Amoris Laetitia away from the Catholic “blogosphere”

In the ensuing discussion, popular Catholic speaker Bishop Robert Barron lamented, “I just think it’s really been a tragedy that the reception of this document [Amoris Laetitia] has been so poor in our country. If you do a web search of Amoris Laetitia, you get a mountain of literature, but it’s all about a particular chapter and even a particular footnote within that chapter. As important as that question is, I think it’s led to a overlooking of this really extraordinarily rich document, so I think it’s good for us to seize control of that process, because I think we’ve been positioned by an awful lot of people in the blogosphere who are forcing people to read this document in a particular way.”

“An awful lot of people in the blogosphere”? I wonder who he might be referring to. “Forcing people”? With what, our incredible mind powers? “Seize control”? He actually went on to mention the word “seize” — which, if we want to talk about force, means to “take hold of suddenly and forcibly” — two more times in his brief comments.

I didn’t have the patience to listen to more of the discussion.

The firing of Professor Seifert. The shaming of Professor Stark. The firing of Fr. Thomas Weinandy. The campaign of sustained ad hominems against the dubia cardinals as well as every theologian, priest, and layman who supports the work of authentic criticism of the exhortation. The Vatican-promoted heterodox interpretations of the exhortation itself, along with Vatican-promoted articles to give cover to these interpretations through an intentional obfuscation of Church teaching and the parameters of Magisterial authority. The “climate of fear” at the Vatican, where any criticism is reported and people suspected of opposing the official agenda are monitored in ways reminiscent of the techniques of the KGB. The entire apparatus of the Dictatorship of Mercy. It is in these things where the true force in the matter lies. The only reason that the orthodox counter-narrative has been able to bubble up to the top at all is because those of us who care about the truth are relentless in our pursuit of it — and because God has blessed those efforts. But there is only so much we can do, and we’re all exhausted by being constantly outnumbered and isolated.

This is why, Cardinals Burke and Brandmüller, if you should happen to read this, you should know that time is of the essence. Perhaps you do. I continue to hear whispers that the formal correction itself is not far behind. But the question after that will be the same as now: then what? What happens when every effort is ignored? How will we move forward from here?

Will an imperfect council be called? Will the pope be declared to have deposed himself through pertinacious and obdurate heresy? Will a new conclave be assembled among the tiny remnant of the faithful bishops? Will we once again have two rival claimants to the Petrine See?

Or will it be something completely different?

Everyone wants to know what to expect. Everyone is wondering, and frustrated. Everyone is speculating on how difficult things might become, but nobody I’m hearing from seems to think that they will be worse than they are now. An uncomfortable certainty is far preferable to the interminable continuation of uncertainty and doubt.

Something has to give. Please, Lord, let it give soon. Grant the successors of your apostles the courage and wisdom to see this through and begin the work of restoring the Church.

“Has it worked?” the question we dare not ask | Fr. Ray Blake’s Blog

Monday, November 13, 2017

In this centenary year of the Soviet Revolution, it is worth reflecting that after 70 years the Russian people actually asked the question, “Has it worked?” It is the question an efficient business asks regularly, I suspect parents in a healthy family ask that question. it should be the fundamental question of the spiritual life.

Fifty years after the implementation of the liturgical changes, it is the question the Church should be asking itself, any business would have product tested before a change of brand. I suppose that Summorum Pontificum was Benedict’s way of doing this retrospectively.

Vatican II’s liturgical reforms were introduced en masse everywhere and within a few years of the Council, unlike the gradually introduced liturgical reforms of Pius V that percolated gradually as old books were slowly replaced but even then only where the Roman Rite was used, the Milanese, Lyonese, Bragans, Dominicans, Carthusian, for example, continued using their own Rites, and acted as a kind of quality control or reference point for the reformed Roman Rite.

There are two areas where, ‘has it worked?’ should be asked, the first is liturgical reform, the second is the modern use of the papal fiat that introduced them, it was an unprecedented use of papal power. The second of these, Pope Francis is dealing with very effectively by forcing even the most conservative to ask about the modern use of papal power, “has it worked?”. I half think that it is a deliberate policy, a reductio ad absurdum, that the Pope is raising with allies like Fr Spadaro and Dr Ivereigh and other cheerleaders. Are they cooperators who will heroically sacrifice their careers in a successive papacy. Dare one suggest that Magnum Principium might actually be a return of the Church to local Rites and Usages that are mutually enriching? I suspect not but it is a possibility. The Ordinariate Rite after all seems to have this effect where it is celebrated.

Apparently a large number of French Seminaries are closing, as are a whole lot of ancient monasteries and practically every convent has become a retirement home. I am not sure what the number is this year, but last year, in our diocese we had only 3 seminarians. Whilst I was at the seminary we had in this city of Brighton and Hove almost 30 priests, in 17 years time by the year 2030 we will be lucky to have 2 under 65, they will age prematurely out of exhaustion.

The thing is that there isn’t an absence of vocations, from my little parish we have three men, two preparing for the priesthood and one in a rather rigorous contemplative monastery but they were very much involved in the Old Rite and have gone to communities outside of the diocese. It isn’t even that there is an absence of contemplative religious, there are new convents opening in the Channel Islands and in the Diocese of Lancaster but again the sisters will worship according to Old Rite. The only monastery flourishing, without scandal, in Italy (despite episcopal opposition) is Old Rite, at Norcia. The same in France, where a quarter of this years ordinations were of priests attached to the Old Rite, and where monastic life is retracting but Old Rite monasteries like Fontgombault are actually making new foundations. I am quite willing to accept that it is not necessarily the Rite itself but if it is not then it is the theology that goes with the Rite, or the ‘ecclesiological experience’ that goes with it. On a practical level the Old Rite seems to work.

Why are we incapable of asking, “Has it worked?”, presumably it is because of an ideological attachment, rather like the politburo of the Soviet Union that will not allow itself to question givens until long after they had collapsed.

Posted by Fr Ray Blake

SOURCE: http://marymagdalen.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/has-it-worked-question-we-dare-not-ask.html

Justin Welby leading the Church of England into total insanity

Let little boys wear tiaras, says the Church of England: New advice on transgender bullying for teachers in Anglican schools | The Daily Mail

  • Instructions for the CofE’s 4,700 schools appear to give backing to ban on skirts
  • Some scrap the traditional girls’ uniform to avoid difficulty for trans pupils
  • Schools have been told they can’t use Bible as basis for gender identification 

Boys as young as five should be able to wear tiaras at school without criticism, teachers in Church of England schools are to be told.

Male pupils should also be free to dress up in a tutu or high heels without attracting any comment or observation, according to anti-bullying rules sent out by the Church yesterday.

The instructions for the CofE’s 4,700 schools said they should not require children to wear uniforms that ‘create difficulty for trans pupils’.

The new rules for faith schools say males should be able to wear items usually worn by females (picture posed by model)

The new rules for faith schools say males should be able to wear items usually worn by females (picture posed by model)

 This appears to give official backing to schools that ban skirts to avoid discrimination against transgender children.

Schools are also told they cannot use the Christian faith or Bible teachings to justify behaviour that is considered to amount to bullying – for example, identifying a transgender pupil by a sex other than the one they have chosen. The advice contains instructions on how to report bullying, including sample forms on which teachers are encouraged to name the alleged bully and their target, and use tick boxes to describe what happened.

Examples include name-calling, social media trolling, or insulting gestures.

The rules to ‘challenge homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying’ follow initial guidelines published by the Church three years ago which said being gay can be good and pupils should ‘revere and respect all members of the diverse community’.

The official teaching of the CofE, however, remains that gay sex is sinful and that members of the clergy should not be in an active sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. The Church also says marriage must continue to be between a man and a woman.

Conservative Christian activists condemned the new rules yesterday.

Andrea Minichiello Williams of Christian Concern – an evangelical member of the CofE’s parliament, the General Synod – said: ‘These rules are unkind, unloving and lacking in compassion. We are all against bullying, but the Church is using these guidelines to pursue an agenda that runs counter to the Church’s teaching.’

Justin Welby said: 'This guidance helps schools to offer the Christian message of love, joy and celebration of our humanity without exception or exclusion.’

Justin Welby said: ‘This guidance helps schools to offer the Christian message of love, joy and celebration of our humanity without exception or exclusion.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5075641/Let-little-boys-wear-tiaras-says-Church-England.html#ixzz4yGChjdUb

HAS THE ENTIRE WORLD GONE INSANE, OR WHAT?

Smoking and Saints | Fr. Z’s Blog

Pope Francis decided to ban, as of 2018, the sale of cigarettes in Vatican City (cheaper for employees which leads, of course, to a black market).  Cigarettes are bad for people and, probably, the environment.   Hence, they must be banned.

I saw on Twitter (where else) defenses of this enlightened choice including the suggestion from those who probably don’t think that contraception, adultery or abortion are mortal sins that smoking surely is.

If it is indeed the case that smoking is a mortal sin, then no person who smoked without amending his life could possibly have lived a life of heroic virtue.  What, then, to say about the beatified (for other than martyrdom) or the canonized whom we honor at the altar and whose lives are offered for our edification and imitation?

There came to mind Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati.  He smoked.  Surely he will never now be canonized.

He – oh the horror – smoked cigarettes!  And the priest is smiling?!?

He smoked a pipe!

He smoked cigars!

And… I  can barely bring myself to write… drank alcohol with friends!

And… oh the scandal… a Saint and a Pope is near a photo of Pier Giorgio with a cigar!

Now, along with the obscuring of John Paul II’s magisterium, his title will have to be stripped from the Album Sanctorum.  

Speaking of obscuring, look carefully at some of the images of Bl. Pier Giorgio and you will see… or not see… something interesting.  Here is a collage:

The pipe, cigar, cigarette… photoshopped out.

 

Please share!

Source: Fr. Z’s Blog | Formerly entitled: “What Does The Prayer Really Say?” – Clear, straight commentary on Catholic issues, liturgy and life by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf    o{]:¬)

By their Friends Shall Ye Know them: Mary Robinson, Friend of Francis, Champion of Abortion and Climate Change – The American Catholic

Mary Robinson, Friend of Francis, Champion of Abortion and Climate ChangePosted on Friday, November 10, AD 2017 by Bob Kurland, Ph.D.Mary Robinson, former president of that once Catholic country, Ireland, and champion of abortion rights and climate change alarmism, is featured in an article in “Vatican Radio”.     It’s interesting that Pope Francis, possibly following that non-Catholic principle, “The ends justify the means”, has held hands with many eminent folks who propose policies directly contrary to Catholic teaching.   Besides Mary Robinson, there is Hans Schellnhuber, German academic who advocates we do all to promote “Gaia” (sp?)–population control?  abortion? one-world control?, Sir Parth Dasgupta–a population control advocate, and who knows how many others. (See here.)  Why does the Church become involved in political issues of dubious validity?

Source: By their Friends Shall Ye Know them: Mary Robinson, Friend of Francis, Champion of Abortion and Climate Change – The American Catholic

The Pope has me confused ~ but I’m not amused

A few words from Fred.

I’m trying to cheer up Scoop but he seems despondent. Maybe if I take him for a walk he’ll feel better . . . or if I can pull it off, I’ll get Scoop to take me for a ride in our pickup truck.

More about photos during Mass and Pope Francis’ admonishment | Fr. Z’s Blog

The other day Pope Francis spoke out again taking photos at Mass or other liturgical moments.

Greg DiPippo at NLM has a good piece about this HERE.

He makes the distinction between this…

And this…

I would add any of myriad photos of beautiful sacred liturgical moments, Masses and more.

Two observations.

First, if Pope Francis doesn’t want all the photos during Masses etc., he might set an example by avoiding doing things like this, which surely fuel the photo flashing frenzy in his presence and elsewhere.

But we know that, selfies or not, nothing is going to turn this around.  Mobile phones are now the thing.

Next, we live in a time when beautiful sacred liturgy has been nearly forgotten or has, frankly, never been experienced by many.   Photos give people who have never known or nearly forgotten what the Church can offer to God as sacred liturgical worship are invaluable to instruct and, hopefully, inspire.

Provided that the photo takers are discreet, so as to not disturb others, I see no problem with taking the occasional pic.  However, then The Precious™ should be stowed and focus should be wholly in the sacred action.

As Greg put it over at NLM:

We do not live in a normal age in the Church’s life, and one of the things that makes it abnormal is the very widespread phenomenon of badly done and ugly liturgies; their ugliness is often far more distracting than any photographer, however poorly behaved. Photography is an extremely useful tool, I would say even a necessary one, for presenting people with models of liturgies which are well-done and beautiful. As long as they are taken with discretion, in a way that does not intrude upon the congregation’s ability to pray, I see no reason why we should have a problem with photographs taken during the liturgy. NLM will continue to publish such images, and we encourage others to do so. Photographs that have a documentary, historical, instructional or apologetic purpose, and serve as part of the Church’s evangelical outreach are one thing; photographs taken in function of the addictive selfie culture and digital tourism are another matter entirely.

Please share!
 SOURCE: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2017/11/more-about-photos-during-mass-and-pope-francis-admonisment/