On Cardinal Burke's call for resistance

     According to Pope Pius XII, no Catholic can resist or oppose the teaching of a Pope once it becomes official (is entered in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis). If Pope Francis officially approves, as a result of the upcoming Synod on the Family, that the divorced and remarried, or those living in irregular unions, can receive Communion, and enters this in the Acta, then no Catholic can legitimately resists this teaching. 

      Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis:
"But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians." 

      On the other hand, Cardinal Burke has famously announced his reaction, if Pope Francis insists on his progressive path regarding Communion: "I will resist. I cannot do anything else. " Link.  Others are supporting  Burke's stance, saying they too will resist: See e.g.

      But as stated so clearly by Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton in the American Ecclesiastical Review :
     "Thus, according to the clear teaching of the Humani generis, it is morally wrong for any individual subject to the Roman Pontiff to defend a thesis contradicting a teaching which the Pope, in his "Acta," has set forth as a part of Catholic doctrine.  It is, in other words, wrong to attack a teaching which, in a genuine doctrinal decision, the Sovereign Pontiff has taught officially as the visible head of the universal Church.  This holds true always an everywhere, even in those cases in which the Pope, in making his decision, did not exercise the plenitude of his apostolic teaching power by making an infallible doctrinal definition."

      Consequently, if one still feels compelled to resist an official papal teaching in accordance with one's personal Sensus Catholicus, then the only intellectually honest approach would be to consider that such a pope, who one believes officially errs in a matter of faith or morals, must be a false pope.  For a brilliant and clear explanation and discussion of this approach, see this article.

      St. Padre Pio:  "Do not cease in seeking the truth or in acquiring the greatest good.  Be docile to the impulse of grace, following its inspirations.  Do not be ashamed of Christ or his doctrine. "

Submitted 02/10/2015 by Frank Rega, www.frankrega.com

     

The Church flowed from the Second Vatican Council?

Archbishop Romero is portrayed as a martyr of "the Church that flowed from the Second Vatican Council"

 Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia on Archbishop Oscar Romero:
“He was killed at the altar,” Archbishop Paglia said, instead of when he was an easier target at home or on the street. “Through him, they wanted to strike the Church that flowed from the Second Vatican Council.” 
http://www.catholicsun.org/2015/02/04/archbishop-romeros-beatification-will-be-soon/

From another news article:
Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the Vatican official who is leading Romero's sainthood cause, put it this way Wednesday: Romero was "a martyr of the church of the Second Vatican Council." The Salvadoran's murder, Paglia said, was part of a "climate of persecution against a pastor that followed the evangelical experience, the documents of the Second Vatican Council, of Medellin [and] had chosen to live with the poor to defend them from oppression."
http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-oscar-romero-martyr-church-second-vatican-council

     This is all very telling.  Archbishop Paglia has perhaps inadvertently exposed and revealed what is at the root of the crisis in the Church today, when he speaks of the "Church of the Second Vatican Council."  What is the difference between a Church that flowed from and was defined by the Second Vatican Council, vs. the Church was born of the blood of the Sacred Heart of Jesus on Calvary?  The Church formed by Jesus is concerned with the glory of God and the salvation of souls.  That of the Council is concerned with man's well-being in the material world - more with the poverty of "things" than with poverty of spirit; more concerned with man being accepted by others than being accepted by God.  One Church seeks the conversion of all men to the true faith, and opposes the worship of false gods.  The other Church teaches that the Triune God of the Christians is the same as that of Islam (who has no Son), and therefore dialog and not conversion is the appropriate approach.

     When I pray to St. Francis of Assisi to intercede for the conversion of the Muslims, it is for conversion to the Church that flowed from the side of Christ, not the one that flowed from the Second Vatican Council! That is, to the Church that flows from the Blood of a Divine Person, rather than one flowing from the documents of men.

     Here is what St. Augustine had to say about the former:

     "When He slept on the Cross, He bore a sign, yea, He fulfilled what had been signified in Adam: for when Adam was asleep, a rib was drawn from him and Eve was created; Genesis 2:21-22 so also while the Lord slept on the Cross, His side was transfixed with a spear, and the Sacraments flowed forth, John 19:34 whence the Church was born. For the Church the Lord's Bride was created from His side, as Eve was created from the side of Adam. But as she was made from his side no otherwise than while sleeping, so the Church was created from His side no otherwise than while dying."   St. Augustine.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801127.htm

Nota Bene: This post is not about the martyrdom or non-martyrdom of Romero.   It concerns Abp. Paglia's statement about the church that flowed from the Second Vatican Council.  It is an admission that the Vatican II Church is not the same as the one that preceded it.

Our Lady of Good Success for Our Times

     Catholic writer James Larson has recently written an extensive article based on the revelations of Our Lady of Good Success, at Quito, Ecuador.   He attempts to determine "God's secret designs" for our times by analyzing these revelations. His position is that no matter how bad things become, even if we are critical of the highest levels of the hierarchy, we should not accept the alternatives of either the SSPX or of  Sedevacantism.  Rather we must carry the cross of a Church "which has descended from the glories of the past to the prostitution of the present" and remain in "Christ’s Mystical Body which is established upon the rock of obedience and submission to the Papal Primacy of Government and Discipline of the Church."  Following is a short excerpt from this very long article (over 40 pages printed).

 

                                        http://www.traditioninaction.org/OLGS/D003olgs_Novena_Day1.htm

At one point  in the article he writes:

     It is the will of God that all Catholics be subject to the discipline and government of the reigning Pontiff, even when that government and discipline might be considered unjust.

Some pages later he continues:

 

     Just and temperate criticism of the errors of members of the hierarchy, especially when these involve the teachings of our Faith, is the right, and can be the responsibility, of any of the members of the Church. It does not, when done rightly, break the unity and charity of the Mystical Body of Christ; and it can even be an obligation of charity. We see this, for instance, in Paul resisting Peter “to the face”, of St. Catherine of Siena’s severe criticisms of such Popes as Gregory XI and Urban VI, and especially in her scathing denunciations of the Cardinals who elected the Antipope Clement VII.

     Thus, we see that there is no conflict between what Our Lady speaks of as “full obedience”, on the one hand, and that lucid perception of the truths and realities of our faith which permits, and can even require, criticism of our superiors, including the Pope himself. But we will never find a St. Paul, St. Catherine of Siena, or Mother Mariana proposing the consecration of bishops expressly against a Papal mandate not to do so, the forming of what St. Augustine termed “conventicles” independent of the Pope’s jurisdiction, or claiming of the position of Sedevacantism.

     What this entails is that the primary form of victimhood which now descends upon the laity, in tandem with their defense of the Faith, is their union with the Church. I have already detailed what this cost Mother Mariana – including deprivation of the right to assist at Mass and receive Holy Communion. There is no telling how far such deprivations can go. There are innumerable gifts which have come to us through Christ and His Church which we have come to assume that we have inalienable rights, but to which we have no absolute right, and which God can will to deprive us of in chastisement for our sins, and in imitation of His own Passion. This can certainly include deprivation of the Traditional Mass, and much else. If we think carefully about all this, we should conclude that everything could conceivably be taken away except the grace of baptism, and the grace of faith.     These we can only lose through the exercise of our own free will.

 

 

     In addition, there is no guarantee that members of the hierarchy, from the Pope on down, cannot embrace philosophical and theological concepts and pastoral practices which profoundly contradict the necessary implications of magisterial doctrine. Such is precisely what is happening with the Synod on the Family. Such also are the disastrous acts of ecumenism engaged in by recent Popes. Interestingly enough, probably the first recorded example of such magisterial contradiction by a Pope was Peter. While having been the first to teach that Christ’s redemptive act was for all men, and that “God is not a respecter of Persons” (Acts 10:34), he yet refused to eat with the Gentiles in Galatia “fearing them who were of the circumcision.” His action was definitely in contradiction to the magisterium, but did not violate the magisterium itself. The Church is now immersed in such contradictions.

     All of this can cause us to enter into deep levels of spiritual, intellectual, and emotional deprivation and confusion. It threatens our faith and charity, and presents powerful temptations towards those disastrous excesses to which such movements as the SSPX and Sedevacantism have succumbed.

 

http://www.ourladyofgoodsuccess.com/frames-3-4-2005/aaa.htm

 

     For those who choose not to abandon the Cross, however, it is within the depths of this suffering that is to be found the grace of victory. As to the possible extent of these sufferings, we need only consider the case of Mother Mariana as a victim soul suffering five years in Hell for the soul of the “Captain”. Even though her sufferings were more intense, and accompanied by extraordinary phenomena (especially in the physical realm), they also speak fully of what is “human” in all of us when the soul is immersed in darkness. She speaks of tedium in all things spiritual, and of being “completely insensible to her God”. Descending even deeper into this darkness, she experienced hatred, fury, “unending rage and despair”, and a “total suspicion with regard to God.” In a Church which has descended from the glories of the past to the prostitution of the present, having to pass through such spiritual, mental, and emotional anguish and confusion is not inconceivable for any one of us.

     This is the ultimate test of our faith, and it is where love proves true. Herein lies God’s secret designs of victory.

 

The full title of  James Larson's article is:

Our Lady of Good Success And God’s Secret Designs of Victory
The online article is here: http://www.waragainstbeing.com/node/56

Padre Pio: 8 children ideal; Pope Francis: Irresponsible!

Padre Pio's blessing on newlyweds: "May you have eight children!"
Pope Francis: ". . . like rabbits.  No.  Responsible parenthood!"

“After the death of his wife, Padre Pio's brother Michele moved to San Giovanni with his daughter Pia, who, in a ceremony attended by many American servicemen, was married in May 1945, with her uncle [St. Pio] officiating, to Mario Pennelli, a teacher. Pia and Mario were to raise a family of eight children, which Padre Pio considered the ideal size for a family. A spiritual son recalled that Pio usually told newlywed couples, “May you have eight children!”

Source: Rev Bernard Ruffin, Padre Pio: The True Story, Our Sunday Visitor Press, p. 270.
           
From transcript of Pope's recent interview:

Therefore, to give you an answer, they key word is the one the Church always uses all the time and even I use it: it is responsible parenthood. how do we do this? With dialogue. Each person with his pastor seeks how to do that responsible parenthood.

That example i mentioned shortly before about that woman who was expecting her eighth (child) and already had seven who were born with caesareans. That is an irresponsibility (That woman might say) 'no but I trust in god' But God gives you methods to be responsible. Some think that, excuse me if i use that word, that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood! This is clear and that is why in the church there are marriage groups, there are experts in this matter, there are pastors, one can seek and i know so many, many ways out that are licit and that have helped this. you did well to ask me this.

 

Link is Here.

                                                   Picture from http://www.padrepiosworld.com/page33.php

 

St. Francis of Assisi Supported the Crusades

St. Francis did not consider preaching the Gospel to save Muslim souls to be incompatible with the use of force to defend Christian lives

He respected the Pope's call for military action to protect Christian lives and property in the Middle East.  Yet at the same time Francis attempted to convert Muslims to Christianity, and risked martyrdom himself in order to do so.

Documentation for the saint's support of the Fifth Crusade, upon which he embarked in 1219, comes from numerous sources.  Pope Innocent III  had initially laid the plans for this Crusade,  but it was Pope Honorius III who launched it in 1217.  Two years later, St. Francis along with a dozen followers, embarked on one of the galleys comprising the Crusader fleet, as it left Ancona, Italy.  He disembarked in Syria to visit his friars of his Order in that area, and then resumed his journey on another Crusader vessel.  He finally reached the city of Damietta in Egypt, a Muslim port city on the Nile under siege by the Crusader army.  The main Muslim force, led by their king, Sultan al-Kamil, was encamped further up the river.

Risking martyrdom, during a temporary truce he crossed over to the camp of the Sultan's army.  Francis and one other member of his Order (who probably was the interpreter), were captured by the sentries, beaten, and carried in chains to al-Kamil, after indicating that they wanted to speak to him.  He explained to the Sultan that he was not an emissary sent by the Crusaders, but was sent by God to proclaim the gospel message of salvation taught by Jesus Christ.  Impressed by the courage of Francis, the Sultan listened to him intently as the Faith was preached to him and his attendants, apparently over a number of days.

The saint did not directly attack the religion of Mohammed, but confined his discourse to expounding the truths of the Christian religion.  He told the Sultan that he was concerned about his salvation, since if the Sultan refused to believe, God would not accept his soul.  In addition he said that it was just that the Christians invade the land his followers inhabit, since they blaspheme the name of Christ and alienate everyone they can from His worship. 

A foremost expert on Francis and the Fifth Crusade, Professor James Powell, wrote: "Francis of Assisi went to Damietta on a mission of peace. There can be no question about this.  We should not however try to make him a pacifist or to label him as a critic of the crusade."  Another leading crusade scholar, Christoph Maier, was even more explicit: "Francis thus accepted the crusade as both legitimate and ordained by God, and he was quite obviously not opposed to the use of violence when it came to the struggle between Christians and Muslims."  Another historian noted that "unreserved support of the crusade had become normative in the Order."

Detailed references for the sources mentioned are available in my work, St. Francis of Assisi and the Conversion of the Muslims, published by TAN Books.

Global warming - is it really man-made? -Updated

. . .  Or is it primarily the result of climate changes caused by the Biblical Flood?

Scientist and engineer Walter T. Brown (Ph. D. MIT) is a young-earth creationist and director of the Center for Scientific Creation. An expert on the biblical flood accounts, he developed the “hydroplate theory” to account for the flood-caused geological upheavals.

According to Dr. Brown, global warming is occurring, but it is a centuries-long process that is primarily due to post-flood climate changes, and only secondarily caused by man. It began at the peak of the Ice Age, thousands of years before the start of the Industrial Revolution and its resulting atmospheric pollution.

The burning of fossil fuels does contribute to increased amounts of carbon dioxide in the air, but most of that increase comes from gases released by the warming of the oceans, which contain fifty times more carbon dioxide than the atmosphere.

In Brown's hydroplate theory, the planet-wide great flood caused extreme geological plate movement, resulting in buckled-up and elevated mountains and continents. Simultaneously, volcanic magma was released which spilled into and warmed the earth's waters. The cooler higher continents and the warmer oceans generated wind systems of moist air, resulting in extensive snowfall rates over elevated land masses that led to glacier build-up. Eventually ice depth peaked, as the land and water temperatures moderated and snowfall amounts were reduced.

“Then, as snow and ice decreased on earth, less of the sun's radiation was reflected off ice sheets and back into space. More of the sun's heat warmed the earth, so even more ice melted, and the warming continues. This cycle will continue unless cost-effective ways are found to reduce the warming.” This quote and most of the above information is from this page of his online book.

Update:  Thanks to the Institute for Creation Research for pointing this out:  "After the Flood, God promised Noah that Earth would have predictable patterns of climates and seasons: “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night shall not cease.” [Genesis 8:22]. This promise is trustworthy because God is trustworthy, and He controls Earth’s climates and seasons."

The Synod, the Bishops, and the Catholic Mind

     To really understand the seriousness of the fact that the majority (104 out of 178) of the Catholic Bishops at the recent Synod on the Family actually voted in favor of admitting the divorced and remarried to Sacramental Communion, one must examine the origins and reasons for their Modernist mindset. “It is in the mind and writings of Joseph Ratzinger that we will find the explanation.” To date, I have read no better explanation for this betrayal of the traditional Catholic position than a recent article by noted commentator James Larson, from which the above quote is taken. Mr. Larson, a frequent contributor to journals such as Christian Order, is an expert on Catholic philosophy and the thought of Fr. Ratzinger.

     Larson begins by discussing Ratzinger's now famous 1972 article, in which he had initially concluded that reception of the Eucharist for those in the divorced and remarried situation “seems to be nothing more than fair,” and is in keeping with Church tradition. While this conclusion has been deleted in the new edition of his complete works, Larson shows that deleting the conclusion “solves nothing,” since the entire article is devoted to proving why pastoral practice can tolerate such a situation. What is needed is an admission that the entire article is wrong, and its renunciation.

     Larson then delves into the former Pope's writings, and illustrates by direct quotations that essential Catholic concepts are rejected in them: specifically the absoluteness of Divine Revelation, the principle of non-contradiction, and the Catholic concept of substantiality. These foundational principles which are necessary for “thinking with the Church,” have been uprooted from Catholicism by reductive science and technology, and their denial can only be counteracted by a return to Thomistic Metaphysics. Their rejection has so imbued the contemporary Catholic that Larson writes that “It can seriously be doubted, therefore, if there was even one bishop in the Synod who fully 'thinks with the Church,' despite the fact that there was a significant minority that possessed the good will to accede to traditional Catholic doctrine."

     The Church's teaching on the absolute indissolubility of the marriage bond is the foundation of the entire structure of the family. This teaching “now hangs upon a delicate thread,” and the means being used by Satan to sever this thread “is the Catholic episcopate itself.”

     Here is the Link to the article, which is part of Larson's web site, www.waragainstbeing.com.