Opposing the "false mercy" Agenda

As the battle lines continue to form, traditionalists are turning to their blogs and social media to counteract what they see as an agenda of “false mercy” being promoted by supporters of the progressive camp. The liberal wing, following the lead of Pope Francis and Cardinal Kasper, hopes to use the upcoming Synod on the Family to further erode the bastions of Catholicism, by minimizing the sanctity of the sacraments of the Eucharist and of marriage. Their intent, as is well known, is to permit those in irregular marital situations or relationships, of varied types, to receive the Eucharist without qualms to their conscience.

The worst-case scenario of embarking on this slippery slope is tragic. Why shouldn't an unhappy Catholic couple just get divorced, since they can still receive Communion anyway? Why should Catholic couples or divorced-remarried Catholics bother with annulments if they will still be in sacramental Communion with the Church? Why should one be concerned at all about divorcing and re-marrying if communion with the Church via the Eucharist is still possible?

As the battle heats up, two Catholic bloggers/writers in particular have undertaken concrete attempts to defend the bastions. James Larson, who maintains the website "The War Against Being," has initiated a Children's Crusade of Prayer for the Holy Father. He writes:

I plan to send the following short letter to Pope Francis. It will be accompanied by a picture taken this past Christmas of all my children, their spouses, and grandchildren. I think that pictures are crucial. I believe that every Catholic website and blog should promote such a "children's crusade" (variations are of course desirable) from now until the closing of the Synod. The address of the Holy Father should also be provided.

His Holiness, Pope Francis

Apostolic Palace

00120 Vatican City 
 

Holy Father,

Our children, and our entire family, are praying the rosary with the following intention:

"For Our Holy Father, Pope Francis, that he might not promote a false mercy, but that he might do what is necessary in order to protect both the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Marriage from sacrilege."

Larson hopes that It will be difficult for Pope Francis to dismiss such children and their families as "self-absorbed, Promethian, Neo-pelagians," which is the way traditionalists are often characterized.




In his “From Rome” blog, Franciscan Brother Alexis Bugnolo, writes that Catholics must band together in a world-wide network. He writes: “To be quiet now, is to tacitly succumb. If you don’t declare your side publicly now, it will be too late to recruit an army when the battle starts. Indeed, the fundamental problem today in the Church arises from the cowardice of too many clergy to speak out and take initiatives to oppose the errors.”

Bugnolo is promoting the Veri Catholici Association, which takes up the call to preserve the Faith as it has been handed down through the ages. Members and supporters are specifically concerned with preserving the Apostolic Eucharistic doctrine:

We are zealously devoted to the defense of the doctrine revealed by God through St. Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, in his First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 11, verses 26-27, which is:

26: For howsoever often you will have eaten this Bread and drink this Chalice, you announce the Death of the Lord, until He comes.

27: And so, whosoever will have eaten the Bread and/or have drunk the Chalice of the Lord will be liable for the Body and Blood of the Lord.

(Translation from the Vulgate text)

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

The "Shield of Faith" blog contends that according to Catholic teaching, when the perennial ecclesiastical Magisterium speaks it must be obeyed, even if it is not a formal infallible definition of doctrine on faith or morals (see this link).  In this case it is a question of the traditional doctrine on the immorality of the reception of Holy Communion while in a state of mortal sin. Therefore the time to object and put a stop to the progressive “false mercy” agenda is now, before there is any change in pastoral practice touching on the doctrine of the moral requirements for the reception of Holy Communion.

 

Posted on St. Patrick's Day, March 17, 2015 by Frank Rega, www.frankrega.com

Meditating on Our Lord's Passion and Death

In my admittedly biased view, there is no greater, more inspirational, more fruitful, more important way to meditate on Our Lord's Passion during Lent than by reading Luisa Piccarreta's Hours of the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Our Lord told Luisa: “Oh, how I would love that even one single soul for each town did these Hours of my Passion! I would hear Myself in each town, and my Justice, greatly indignant during these times, would be placated in part.”

At the age of 17, Our Lord invited the Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta to meditate continuously on the last 24 hours that He suffered during the course of His Passion, beginning with the moment when He said good-bye to His Mother (that is, before instituting the Eucharist) and ending with the moment when He was buried.

After Luisa Piccarreta had been living continuously the Hours of the Passion for over thirty years, Saint Hannibal Maria Di Francia, who had been appointed as the Ecclesiastical Censor for all her writings, commanded her under Holy Obedience to put them into writing. Seeing the wealth of its content and glimpsing all the good that they would do to our souls, Saint Hannibal began having the Hours of the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ printed. One chapter is devoted to each of the 24 hours (events) of His Passion in chronological order.

This book has Church approval and in fact received the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat six separate times between 1915 and 1938, in both Italian and German editions.

Luisa wrote in 1914:

Another time I was lamenting to Jesus, because after so many sacrifices to write these Hours of the Passion, very few were the souls who were doing them. And He: “My daughter, do not lament - even if there were only one, you should be content. Would I not have suffered my whole Passion even if one soul alone were to be saved? The same for you. One should never omit good because few avail themselves of it; all the harm is for those who do not take advantage of it. And just as my Passion made my Humanity acquire the merit as if all were saved, even though not all are saved, because my Will was to save everyone, and I received merit according to what I wanted, not according to the profit which creatures would draw; the same for you: you will be rewarded depending on whether your will was identified with my Will in wanting to do good to all. All the harm is for those who, though being able to, do not do them. These Hours are the most precious of all, because they are nothing less than the repetition of what I did in the course of my mortal life, and what I continue to do in the Most Holy Sacrament. When I hear these Hours of my Passion, I hear my own voice, my own prayers. In that soul I see my Will - that is, wanting the good of all and repairing for all - and I feel drawn to dwell in her, to be able to do what she herself does within her. Oh, how I would love that even one single soul for each town did these Hours of my Passion! I would hear Myself in each town, and my Justice, greatly indignant during these times, would be placated in part.” Oct. 1914, vol 11.

Some of the above information came from this web site: http://www.passioiesus.org/en/horasdelapasion/que_son.htm

Online versions of the Hours are available at the above website and also at http://catholicdivinewill.blogspot.com/2008/06/twenty-four-hours-of-passion.html

Check Amazon.com for printed copies. 

Nota Bene: I have been informed that an authoritative source states that the Hours of the Passion are not included in the so-called moratorium on publishing Luisa's writings. The Archbishop responsible for the Cause of the Beatification of Luisa Piccarreta has issued the moratorium, pending final Church approval of her books and the appearance of an official translation. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzO24tYoe_9TLW1QZUsxN21rVWc/edit?pli=1

Posted on Ash Wednesday, Feb 18, 2015 by Frank Rega, www.lifeofluisa.com

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.