Where does he criticize Francis and Amoris Latitia?
I urge my Catholic friends to look up the Popes from the Medici Family and see how badly that ended. It wasn't pretty but it ultimately saved the church and reformed it into a force for good.
It’s interesting that this writer presents Cardinal Henri de Lubac as being a a virtual defender of the Church. Moreover, the writer disingenuously implies that the “doctrinal confusion and moral chaos” that followed Vatican II, was between the “true teachings” of the Church prior to Vatican II, and the false teachings that followed. Nothing could be further from the truth.That was not Father de Lubac’s belief at all. Following Vatican II, all but a handful of bishops (such as Archbishop Lefebvre) had accepted the teachings of Vatican II as being orthodox. The fight in which de Lubac was taking sides was between the “Modernists” who promoted Vatican II. If this were a political setting, some might say that this is a FAKE NEWS.
To begin with, faithful Catholics should well understand that Henri de Lubac was a Modernist of the first order his entire life––including so at the time of his death in 1991. Indeed, Pope Pius XII authored his encyclical, Humani Generis, in direct response to de Lubac, who wrote that the Church is the “community of the whole people of God”, rather than the Mystical Body of Christ. Father de Lubac’s confused position of the Church went on further to falsely equate the role of the laity as being effectively equal to that of the clergy. Shortly thereafter, the Holy See prohibited any publication of de Lubac’s writings, and he remained virtually silenced until 1958, the year Pope Pius XII died.
When the Modernists gained control of the Vatican, thereafter, de Lubac and many other Modernists were miraculously rehabilitated. Father de Lubac was named as an “expert” on the Council, and eventually made a cardinal. The quote attributed to de Lubac is accurate enough, but the writer confuses his readers when he takes it out of context. When de Lubac criticized the “new Church”, he was not complaining that the followers of Vatican II were abandoning the “true teachings” of the Church, his complaint was with the split that was developing between the different Modernist bishops that were all a part of Vatican II.
That well known split related to the creators of a publication known as the “Concilium”, and involved Father Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) et al, on the one side, and Father Edward Schillebeeckx, et al, on the other side. All of these men were Modernists, but much in the same way that the Protestant religions began breaking apart immediately after Martin Luther’s Revolution, the Modernist bishops of Vatican II began to split apart almost immediately after the Council concluded it’s work in 1965. The disagreement involved the now infamous “Spirit” of Vatican II.
And yes, there is another split developing within the Church at this time, albeit at a much higher level in that this time it involves the pope. But faithful Catholics should be aware that the split (and potential schism) is among the “modern” Catholics who have blindly followed the false teachings of the Second Vatican Council. Traditional Catholics, who continue to adhere to the immutable doctrinal truths of the Church pre-dating Vatican II, are not involved in this food fight. Michael Voris and his team perform no service for faithful Catholics by suggesting that some of the “modern” bishops are following the “truth” on this issue. They may be right for opposing Armies Laetitia, but they’re far from correct on holding fast to Vatican II.
So, in this time, when misleading statements on doctrine and morality in the Church are rife, how do we stay true to Christ and help our families survive with our faith intact? Sacred Scripture is full of guidance for such times and tips about how to save souls from being trapped in error and sin.
The Bible doesn’t say what we think it says and says a lot of things that offends my human nature.
From the comments at the site:
Well, I for one look forward to the second part of this article, because, left by itself, this first part is, for me personally, more upsetting than enlightening. Who will call out the false prophets for us by name? Who will tell us with authority what teachings are NOT consistent with the Church’s authentic Magisterium? Is each faithful Catholic left abandoned like a Protestant to decide for himself who is true and who false? As has been said so often by so many, it comes down to the Holy Father to declare truth with clarity;
I would suggest there are options other oneself or the Holy Father? False dichotomous decision and what is the source of that lie?
I would suggest a reminder:
Jer_31:33 “But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,” says the LORD. “I will put My instructions deep within them, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be My people.
Heb_10:16 “This is the new covenant I will make with My people on that day, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.”
Ears to hear. Jesus used the term A LOT. But notice how it changed in the book of Revelation. We don’t lean on our own understanding and we don’t lean on the Pope.
Luk_14:35 Flavorless salt is good neither for the soil nor for the manure pile. It is thrown away. Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand!”
Rev_2:7 “Anyone with ears to hear must listen to the Spirit and understand what He is saying to the churches. To everyone who is victorious I will give fruit from the tree of life in the paradise of God.