Posted on 04/06/2018 4:33:20 PM PDT by ebb tide
For the past five years the Pope of “the peripheries” has ignored the peripheries (especially the prelates of Africa) while allying himself with the government-subsidized corrupt German hierarchy in an insane drive to convert the Catholic Church into a kind of Protestant denomination.
Now seven German bishops, five from Bavaria, are attempting to resist the Bergoglian juggernaut by appealing to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith against the decision of the German bishops’ conference, led by Cardinals Marx and Kasper, to extend the already-implemented admission of Holy Communion to public adulterers in “second marriages” to Protestants who are married to Catholics in “certain cases,” presumably including those in “second marriages” with Catholics who are civilly divorced and “remarried.”
Bergoglio is the author of this catastrophe. His subversive notion of “discernment,” introduced via Amoris Laetitia, which enshrines the neo-Modernist moral nonsense of Cardinal Kasper, opens the way to “discerning” innumerable “exceptions” to the application of exceptionless moral norms. As the arch-Modernist subversive Cardinal Marx puts it: “We are talking about decisions in individual cases that require a careful spiritual discernment.” In other words, some people are to be deemed exempt from obedience to the moral law, which ultimately means all people, the end of morality in practice, and the reduction of the Ten Commandments to The Ten Ideals.
Now, on the heels of Bergoglio’s reported denial of the existence of hell and the eternal torments of the damned—an opinion he has not in the least rejected or retracted a week after its publication by Scalfari, leaving Greg Burke to issue a slithery non-denial—even Cardinal Burke is admitting that the situation this maniacal Pope has provoked is nothing short of apocalyptic.
During a recent interview (translation by Diane Montagna), the Cardinal finally presents the matter squarely as what it always was: the imperative of direct opposition to a Pope who is spreading heresy throughout the Church. Quoth the Cardinal in pertinent part (paragraph breaks added):
“What happened with the last interview given to Eugenio Scalfari during Holy Week and published on Holy Thursday went beyond what is tolerable.”
“This playing around with faith and doctrine, at the highest level of the Church, rightly leaves pastors and faithful scandalized.”
“The confusion and division in the Church on the most fundamental and important issues — marriage and the family, the Sacraments and the right disposition to receive them, intrinsically evil acts, eternal life and the Last Things — are becoming increasingly widespread. And the Pope not only refuses to clarify things by proclaiming the constant doctrine and sound discipline of the Church… but he is also increasing the confusion.”
“Many people who were baptized in a Protestant ecclesial communion, but then entered into the full communion of the Catholic Church because their original ecclesial communities abandoned the Apostolic Faith… perceive that the Catholic Church is going down the same road of abandoning the faith.”
“This whole situation leads me to reflect more and more on the message of Our Lady of Fatima who warns us about the evil — even more serious than the very grave evils suffered because of the spread of atheistic communism — which is apostasy from the faith within the Church. Number 675 of theCatechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that ‘before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers’ and that ‘the persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the ‘mystery of iniquity’ in the form of a religious deception [impostura religiosa or religious imposture, meaning the conduct of an imposter] offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth.’”
“In such a situation the bishops and cardinals have the duty to proclaim true doctrine. At the same time, they must lead the faithful to make reparation for the offenses against Christ and the wounds inflicted on His Mystical Body, the Church, when faith and discipline are not rightly safeguarded and promoted by pastors.”
“The great canonist of the thirteenth century, Henry of Segusio, also known as Hostiensis, facing the difficult question of how to correct a Roman Pontiff who acts in a way contrary to his office, states that the College of Cardinals constitutes ade facto check against papal error.”
“It is the essential service of the Pope to safeguard and promote the deposit of faith, true doctrine and sound discipline consistent with the truths believed.”
In the interview with Eugenio Scalfari quoted above, the Pope is referred to as “revolutionary.” But the Petrine Office has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with revolution. On the contrary, it exists exclusively for the preservation and propagation of the immutable Catholic faith, which leads souls to conversion of heart and leads all humanity to the unity founded on the order inscribed by God in His creation and especially in the heart of man, the only earthly creature made in the image of God.”
The Pope, through the divine will, enjoys all the power necessary to safeguard and promote the true faith, true divine worship, and the sound discipline required…. This power belongs not to his person but to his office as Successor of St. Peter. In the past, for the most part, the popes did not make public their personal acts or their opinions precisely so as not to risk the faithful being confused about what the successor of St. Peter does and thinks.”
“At present there is a risky and even harmful confusion between the person of the Pope and his office, that results in the obscuring of the Petrine Office and in a worldly and political idea of the service of the Roman Pontiff in the Church.”
“Any act of a Pope that undermines the salvific mission of Christ in the Church, whether it be a heretical act or a sinful act in itself, is simply void from the point of view of the Petrine Office. Therefore, even if it clearly causes very serious damage to souls, it does not command the obedience of pastors and faithful.
“We must always distinguish the body of the man who is the Roman Pontiff from the body of the Roman Pontiff, that is, from the man who exercises the office of St. Peter in the Church. Not to make this distinction means papolatry and ends up in the loss of faith in the Divinely Founded and Sustained Petrine Office.”
“A Catholic must always respect, in an absolute way, the Petrine Office as an essential part of the institution of the Church by Christ…. This respect also includes the duty to express the judgment of a rightly formed conscience to the Pope, when he deviates or seems to deviate from true doctrine and sound discipline, or to abandon the responsibilities inherent in his office.”
“If the Pope does not fulfill his office for the good of all souls, it is not only possible but also necessary to criticize the Pope.”
“Some have criticized those who have publicly expressed criticism of the Pope, saying it is a manifestation of rebellion or disobedience, but to ask — with due respect for his office — for the correction of confusion or error is not an act of disobedience, but an act of obedience to Christ and thus to His Vicar on earth.”
Note well the statement that “the College of Cardinals constitutes ade factocheck against papal error.” Is this an indication of impending action by certain members of the College in the form of a demand that Bergoglio retract and make amends for his heterodox pronouncements and machinations prejudicial to integrity of the Faith?
As Antonio Socci reported days ago, “an important cardinal (not Italian) contacted some of his colleagues and then, also in their name, indicated to Bergoglio what that interview [with Scalfari regarding hell] could signify (to profess heretical theses is one of the four causes of cessation of the papal office).”
Was Burke that non-Italian cardinal? Perhaps in a few days, during the summit meeting in Rome being covered by Edward Pentin, we will know the answer. And perhaps, given the attendance of Burke and two other Cardinals at that meeting, we will see at last, from at least some members of the College of Cardinals, a formal correction of the most wayward Pope in Church history.
This much is certain: humanly speaking, there is no way to halt the madness of Bergoglianism besides overt opposition by members of the upper hierarchy. Failing that, the end of this madness will be imposed from on high under the most dramatic circumstances for the Church and the world.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
"Cardinal Burke, Alluding to Fatima, Calls for Hierarchical Opposition to the Errors of Bergoglianism
Why do you imagine this can be a "Catholic Caucus" thread when the article denigrates "Protestant ecclesial communion(s)" as abandoning the Christian faith?
It’s his own private little blog spot.
I missed that. I have asked the moderator to remove the caucus designation.
typically the excerpt ends with a plea to Mary to preserve their church...
Do you READ the articles you post???
Unfair. Once in awhile this happens, but I have noticed that ebb tries to do a better job of catching this. He made a mistake. Let it go.
Let it go? It was in the very first sentence of the article! That’s why I asked if it was read before it was posted.
Yes, let it go. You didn’t ask if he read this article. You asked whether he reads the articles he posts...plural. I’m sure he read the article. He messed up this time. I know that there are times when I slip up when I post in a Catholic Caucus and refer to non-Catholic churches/religions. Sometimes I catch myself, sometimes I don’t.
Why don't you backtrack a little (this isn't a long thread) and see the CONTEXT of why I asked the question. Rather than picking on poor ET - like you seem to be implying - it was a legit question. He opened this thread as a Catholic Caucus (a category we already know is used to avoid dissenting dialog). That's why I challenged it:
2 posted on 4/6/2018 7:49:14 PM by boatbums (The Law is a storm which wrecks your hopes of self-salvation, but washes you upon the Rock of Ages.)
As you can see it was a legitimate question to ask seeing the word "Protestant" was in the first sentence, it has happened more than a few times and this poster has a regular habit of attacking non-Catholic Christians. Maybe you should "let it go".
Actually the quote you cited doesn’t say the Protestant ecclesial communion(s) “abandoned the Christian faith”, rather that the converts to the Catholic Church believe they did. It’s a subtle yet distinct difference which in my opinion would have still permitted the Caucus label.
But I guess that horse has done left the barn already. So, on with the usual bash fest (from both “sides” mind you), full steam ahead!
Why is it a "bash fest" just because a non-Catholic disagrees with a Catholic??? I think people who cry "bashing, bashing" whenever their beliefs are challenged lack the temperament to participate on OPEN RF threads. P or C. It doesn't have to be like that.
I didn't say your concern wasn't legitimate. What I did say was let it go. Because, by the time I posted that, you were still harping on the issue...to the point where you questioned whether he read ANY of the articles he posted, not just this one.
Well, just keep bumping the thread so everyone can follow it, too. Why can’t YOU let it go?
Within 30 minutes of your first post, #2, I asked the moderators to remove the caucus designation and I responded to you. Yet over 2 hours after that, you refused to “let it go” in your post #6.
There are reason why I caucus some of my threads, you are one of them.
Read it again. It doesn't say the "Christian" faith, it says the Apostolic faith.
Read boatbums' post #2 again; and then read the article again.
It was she who replaced "Apostolic Faith" with "Christian faith".
Nah...I think the TRUE reason is that you cannot tolerate anyone disagreeing with you. Those who are secure in their faith and know why we believe what we believe are not afraid to participate on open religion forum threads. Are you claiming you have never tried to sneak anti-Protestant thoughts into Catholic Caucus threads? Your reputation is not ahead of you on this.
I don’t care what you think.
Additionally, I don’t camp on Free Republic or the Religion Forum. When I replied to your post doesn’t matter. You said you “missed it” that the article talked about Protestants. I asked how you could have missed it when the very first sentence contains the word. It wasn’t the first time you have posted Catholic Caucus threads that had to be changed to OPEN, was it?
Here’s a thought...why don’t you just open and post on Catholic Trad/SSPX Caucus threads that way you won’t have to defend your beliefs from non-Catholic Christians OR Roman Catholics who don’t agree with you?!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.