nowire2.jpg



Time to catch up on the latest madness...

FRANCIS WATCH:
Francis' Dogma Death Squad Strikes Again!

francis-insane2.jpg


Listen on Demand at any time:

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN
Link is fully functional now — in page that appears, scroll down to where it says “Podcast Player” and click to play or download to your computer:

francis-watch-player.jpg

Click to enlarge


Restoration Radio presents another episode of the “Francis Watch” series, a monthly show dedicated exclusively to all things Bergoglio. Tune in live each month or listen on demand at your convenience for a truly Catholic perspective on Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Anti-Catholic Modernist who falsely claims to be the Pope of the Catholic Church.

In this month's episode, host Justin Soeder covers the latest flood of Bergoglian errors, heresies, and impieties, with his guests Bp. Donald Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada, who provide razor-sharp analysis and commentary from the perspective of the traditional and true Roman Catholic religion, the Faith as it was known and proclaimed by all Catholics until the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.

The show begins with a discussion of a couple of late breaking news stories that came out on October 28, 2014, including Francis saying that God is not “some magician with a wand able to do everything,” as he reconciled the evolutionary “big bang theory” with that of Divine Creation – saying the two are not incompatible. The host and guests also cover Francis’ October 10 meeting at Casa Santa Marta, where Francis conducted an ecumenical love fest with the Communion of Episcopal Evangelical churches.

Other Show Highlights:

  • Francis’ brilliant warning that a “God Spray” does not exist!
  • Bergoglio’s October buzzwords: “Theological Byzantisms” and “Graduality”
  • Francis’ claim that the Church should not retreat into dogmas
  • Bergoglio’s assertion that divisions in Christian unity are based upon pride & egoism
  • Francis’ “customs house” …. of Modernism!
  • Francis’ declaration on obsolete laws
  • Following Laws and Reciting Creeds are not enough
  • Kasper’s declaration that “You can’t just quote old texts”
  • Review of the October Synod documents on the Family
  • The Synod’s idea that elements of sanctification and truth are found in cohabitation and adultery
  • The backing of Sacraments for the divorced and remarried
  • The claim that the Church must learn from the “experience of the people”
  • Kasper’s marriage doctrine logic: “It does not change but can be made different”
  • Reactions to the Synod from the media and commentators
  • And much more!

 

Novus Ordo Watch is pleased to be the sponsor of this Francis Watch season on Restoration Radio. For a well-written summary of the first 11 months of the Revolution of “Pope Francis”, please see The Strange “Papacy” of Jorge Bergoglio.

Other select Restoration Radio Broadcasts and Related Links:


Gushes over his “hero”...

Elton John on Francis: 
“Make This Man a Saint now, okay!?”

francis-elton-john.jpg


Great Britain’s most famous “married”-with-kids sodomite, Reginald Kenneth Dwight, who goes by the stage name “Elton John”, has once again sung the praises of the head of the Vatican II Church, Jorge Bergoglio, who goes by the stage name “Pope Francis.” Echoing his words from earlier this year, Sir Elton John called Francis “my hero” at the annual fundraiser for his Elton John AIDS Foundation. He pleaded, “Make this man a saint now, OK?”, in reference to Bergoglio’s “new tone” of acceptance of unrepentant perverts in what the world believes to be the Catholic Church.

More details can be found at this article:


Since his election on March 13, 2013, Francis has distinguished himself for his openness, in words and actions, towards people who practice this particular sin that cries to heaven for vengeance. In 2013, he appointed the known sodomite “Mgr.” Battista Ricca head of the Vatican Bank. Even before his election as “Pope”, Bergoglio was instrumental, in various ways, in getting unnatural vice integrated and accepted in his archdiocese of Buenos Aires.

Related Links:


“Heresy” is soo yesterday...

Francis tells Protestants:
“We all have the Holy Spirit within us”


Earlier this month, the head of the Vatican II Sect, “Pope” Francis, met with members of the Ark Community, co-founded by the recently deceased Evangelical-Anglican “Bishop” Tony Palmer. A video clip (above) of some of the conversations has now been released. The following link has the background story: 

In addition, there is now a transcript available, as well as lots of photos, at the Call Me Jorge blog here. Remember, this is the same Francis who doesn’t care what religion you are and adheres to the heresy that faith without works is not true faith.

francis-protestants.jpg

Francis and his fellow-Protestants

Reality Check:

“Even on the plea of promoting unity it is not allowed to dissemble one single dogma; for, as the Patriarch of Alexandria warns us, ‘although the desire of peace is a noble and excellent thing, yet we must not for its sake neglect the virtue of loyalty in Christ.’ Consequently, the much desired return of erring sons to true and genuine unity in Christ will not be furthered by exclusive concentration on those doctrines which all, or most, communities glorying in the Christian name accept in common. The only successful method will be that which bases harmony and agreement among Christ's faithful ones upon all the truths, and the whole of the truths, which God has revealed.”

—Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Orientalis Ecclesiae (1944), n. 16; underlining added


“…[B]e on guard lest, on the false pretext that more attention should be paid to the points on which we agree than to those on which we differ, a dangerous indifferentism be encouraged, especially among persons whose training in theology is not deep and whose practice of their faith is not very strong. For care must be taken lest, in the so-called ‘irenic’ spirit of today, through comparative study and the vain desire for a progressively closer mutual approach among the various professions of faith, Catholic doctrine — either in its dogmas or in the truths which are connected with them — be so conformed or in a way adapted to the doctrines of dissident sects, that the purity of Catholic doctrine be impaired, or its genuine and certain meaning be obscured.”

—Holy Office under Pope Pius XII, Instruction Ecclesia Catholica (1949), sec. II; underlining added

The Catholic Church against Ecumenism:



news-digest2.jpg

     Published October 28, 2014
    Novus Ordo Watch Tip: Too much to read? Can't keep up? Use Readability!


The world is laughing: Klemen Slakonja parodies Francis in “Modern Pope”


He who has eyes to see, let him see...

The Great Comparison:
The Traditional Latin Mass vs.
the New “Mass” of Paul VI (1969)

The following video provides an excellent 10-minute audio-visual comparison of the Holy Catholic Mass of the ages — aka the “Traditional Latin Mass” — with the 1969 Novus Ordo Missae promulgated by the False Pope Paul VI, a rite that even then-“Cardinal” Ratzinger admitted was a “banal on-the-spot product” yet which he claimed later as “Pope” Benedict XVI was “one and the same rite” with its Traditional Latin counterpart.


Not only does Paul VI’s Novus Ordo Missae (“New Order of Mass”) represent a substantial change in Catholic belief and practice, it is also definitely invalid in most vernacular tongues, specifically in English, as was proved as early as 1968 — even one year before it was imposed as an official rite — by the late Patrick Henry Omlor (+2013).

On September 25, 1969, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Cardinal Antonio Bacci, and a group of Roman theologians wrote an open letter to “Pope” Paul VI to summarize the doctrinal and liturgical problems presented by the Novus Ordo rite, underscording that it “represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent” (see “The Ottaviani Intervention”).

A helpful video that explains what takes place at the Traditional Latin Mass, and what the beautiful rite means, can be viewed here:


Many beautiful and liturgically significant gestures and details were eliminated from the Traditional Catholic Mass under the impious pretext of them being “useless”, and a lot of prayers were either removed altogether, or dumbed down, or rewritten in such a way that nothing distinctly Catholic remained in them. This accounts for the disastrous state of “Catholicism” in the United States today, and throughout the world at large.

So, for example, words such as “sacrifice,” “guilt,” “reparation,” “fires of hell,” “eternal punishment,” “true faith,” and “enemies” were systematically eradicated, as explained in our blog post “The Revised Prayers of the New Mass.” The main architect of this liturgical revolution, which was necessary to instill in people’s minds and souls the new religion of Vatican II, was Fr. Annibale Bugnini, whom “Pope” Paul VI rewarded for his liturgical destruction by making him an “archbishop” in 1972. Later it was proved that Bugnini was a member of the anti-Catholic sect of Freemasonry, and Paul VI had no choice, for the sake of appearance, to exile him to Iran, where he died in 1982. The facts on Bugnini are competently recounted in the article “The Bugnini File” by John Weiskittel (PDF).

For the most current, most complete historical study of the problems with the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI, see Fr. Anthony Cekada’s Work of Human Hands (2010). You can watch, free of charge, video overviews of the chapters of the book, at this link. This is a great way to get a summary of the contents of Work of Human Hands to understand why the “New Mass” is deadly and not Catholic. In addition, Restoration Radio provides numerous recorded radio broadcast episodes in which Fr. Cekada discusses the differences between the True Roman Catholic Mass and the Novus Ordo counterfeit. These episodes can be listened to at any time and are free of charge.

Lastly, please don’t let yourself be deluded by Benedict XVI’s machinations with his Motu Inapproprio Summorum Pontificum. Understand why this document is not a good thing at all and must be unacceptable to any Catholic. We offer a feature article on the subject here:


It’s time to look the facts in the eye and consider what has really happened to the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council, or, more precisely, since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958 and the bizarre events that unfolded afterwards. If you’re wondering where to go and what to do, take heart. Do not be afraid. Our article “Now What?!” provides hope and consolation.

May God bless you.

See Also:


Since everyone is talking about it...

The Tap-Dancing “Priests”
in the Church of Joy

Bergoglio’s ‘Church of Joy’ is back in the news, loaded with various contributions from that “god of surprises” Francis likes to talk about. We were going to mention the “tap-dancing priests” only in a News Digest, but since everyone is apparently now talking about this, and it’s going viral, we might as well put up a brief post on the matter with the relevant videos.

The background story to these clips can be found here.






The Novus Ordo Sect is full of celebrity presbyters and religious who dance (see above and don’t forget the “bishops” in Brazil), sing (Suor Cristina, “Fr.” Stan Fortuna), blog (“Father Z”), play in rock bands (Benedictine Abbot Notker Wolf, Spanish band La Voz del Desierto). Tending to the salvation of souls with sound doctrine, valid sacraments, and salutary church discipline and right morals? Not so much.

What a circus. Get out of it while you can and be a real Catholic.

Reality Check:


See Also:


Concluding Commentary

Oh, the Drama!
The Synod is Over — For Now

Thank goodness, the Synod in Rome is finally over: Two weeks of speculation, intrigue, accusations and denials, and pseudo-theological hysteria that culminated in the blasphemous and sacrilegious “beatification” of the False Pope Paul VI (Giovanni Battista Montini) are finally at an end. What was supposed to be an episcopal discussion group on theological matters turned out to be a wild soap opera of Hollywood proportions — and it’s far from over.

This assembly in Rome was merely the first, “extraordinary” part of a larger, two-synod event which will conclude in October 2015 with an “ordinary” synod at which the attendant Novus Ordo bishops will submit final recommendations to Francis with regard to the topics under discussion, after which the “Pope” will then release a so-called “post-synodal apostolic exhortation” as he did in 2013 with the heretical and turgid Evangelii Gaudium. Who knows, maybe at next year’s synod Francis will also declare Montini to be a “Saint”, as he did with Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) and Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II) earlier this year.

vatican-twilight.jpg

So, let’s take a moment to recap and reflect on what happened these last 2-3 weeks. After über-liberals such as “Cardinal” Walter Kasper, “Cardinal” Lorenzo Baldisseri, and “Archbishop” Bruno Forte were placed in strategic positions to direct the synod’s proceedings and discussions in Francis’ clearly preferred direction, chaos ensued when on Oct. 13 the first draft document was released, the Relatio Post Disceptationem. The document was so bad that the secular press erupted in joy about the church’s apparent new-found “opennness” towards perverts of various stripes, while reaction among “conservative” and “traditionalist” members of the Novus Ordo Sect was mostly one of outrage and firm denunciation (see our coverage here).

“Cardinal” Gerhard Muller, the Modernist Vatican’s heretical chief “guardian of orthodoxy”, was said to have denounced the Synod’s first document as “shameful”, “undignified”, and “completely wrong”, something Vatican spokesman “Fr.” Federico Lombardi later claimed Muller denies having said, however.

Vienna’s back-stabbing “Cardinal-Archbishop” Christoph Schonborn, like Muller ironically a member of the Vatican’s department charged with overseeing and ensuring orthodoxy in doctrine, took the opportunity to point out how he personally knows a sodomite couple in the Austrian capital that contains elements (!) of “exemplary human behavior” that he classifies as “saintly”, while the traditionalist (by Novus Ordo standards) “Cardinal” Raymond Burke revealed that Francis had demoted him from being the church’s highest Supreme Court judge to the ecclesiastical equivalent of presiding over the monthly parochial Bingo night.

In the midst of all this, we found out that Francis had decided the Sistine Chapel was a fit venue for a Porsche corporate event, as long as the German automaker would fork over some cash to support the homeless in Rome. Even the secular press finds this extremely odd and is only happy to point out that this is “the first time in history” that the Sistine Chapel was used for such a purpose.

Oh, and then there was the controversy over “Cardinal” Walter Kasper’s remarks regarding African culture and homosexuality. In an unguarded moment, Kasper revealed to British journalist Edward Pentin that he thinks African bishops shouldn’t really have much say in the Synod on the topic of homosexuality since this is a taboo in their country and the Synod shouldn’t be held to African cultural standards. Though these words were unjustly labeled as “racist” by most bloggers — let’s be real: they were arrogant and wrong but not racist — the real story is that Kasper later denied making these remarks, only to have Pentin produce the audio recording proving that Kasper had been quoted accurately. Oops! (Kasper has since apologized to the Africans, see here.)

But it gets even wilder. The Italian newspaper La Repubblica revealed on October 19 that several “cardinals” had gone to see Benedict XVI (remember him?) to ask him to intervene and essentially “correct” or “criticize” Francis with regard to the issues being discussed at the synod. Benedict is quoted as having replied, “I am not the Pope; do not ask me”, something Francis could truthfully say of himself as well.

As we had pointed out just before the synod, there seems to be a schism in the making, and now more and more often we not only witness the kind of tensions that tend to create a schism but even hear the word “schism” used in connection with it. The secular French paper Le Figaro mentioned “schism” in connection with a “crisis in the Church”, and now even former U.S. presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan has weighed in with some criticism of Francis, going so far as to state openly that if Francis were to declare heresy, he would thereby demonstrate that he is “not a valid Pope and [that] the Chair of Peter is empty. We would then be reading about schismatics and sedevacantists.” Regardless of what one thinks about Buchanan’s position on Francis, it is highly significant that words like “schism” and “Sedevacantism” now keep coming up, even in secular publications.

Buchanan ought also to be given kudos for astutely pointing out that it was Pope Clement VII’s “hostile rigidity” towards King Henry VIII’s attempts to have a valid marriage declared null that caused the Anglican schism and made the Catholic Church lose essentially all of England. Does anyone seriously believe that Henry VIII couldn’t have gotten his “annulment” today from Novus Ordo authorities? There’s not a snowball’s chance in hell he would not have gotten one!

At the heart of the synod controversy was the curious “elements” theology, enunciated by “Abp.” Forte and lauded by “Cardinal” Schonborn, according to which there exist “elements of sanctification and truth” in gravely immoral situations (adultery, fornication, sodomy), such that the church should recognize these, emphasize them, and make use of them to draw the erring couple to the “ideal” form of living. We had already pointed out the outrageous absurdity of this theory in prior blog posts (see here and here) and will, in the very near future, publish another commentary on it. Not only did Francis himself, as “Cardinal” Bergoglio, essentially endorse the theory, it actually is but a logical application of Vatican II’s new doctrine on the nature of the church, according to which a little bit of the Catholic Church exists in every religion.

francis-communion-chalice.jpg


In
his closing speech, Francis made a shrewd move. In a prepared text that sounded quite different from what we have been accustomed to hearing from him, and that was perhaps written by someone else, the Argentine antipope decided, all of a sudden, to present himself as the great “guarantor of orthodoxy” that protects the “deposit of faith” from false doctrines, as though it wasn’t he himself who had engineered and planned the synod beforehand, stacking the deck with super-liberals like Forte and Baldisseri, and especially Kasper, whose false theology he had endorsed explicitly earlier in the year (see here). Yet Francis still managed to include some of his pet liberal ideas, masking them under a veneer of orthodoxy.

Let’s look at a few excerpts from Francis’ speech:

...And since it is a journey of human beings, with the consolations there were also moments of desolation, of tensions and temptations, of which a few possibilities could be mentioned:

 - One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.


Ah yes… the “god of surprises!” Such foolish talk has never before been heard from a papal claimaint in the history of the church. Francis paints a picture of God as a jovial jack-in-the-box that you open with excitement and suspense, never quite knowing what you’re going to get. Should you disagree with this concept, Francis will denounce you as being “not docile to the Holy Spirit” and as resisting the divinely-willed “newness” that reflects the “scent of the people.” A poet he is; a theologian he ain’t. 

Such tripe, of course, is carte blanche for imposing any novelty whatsoever on the faithful and then blasphemously ascribing it to the Holy Ghost. It is clear that Bergoglio’s “god of surprises” is not the God of Pope St. Pius X, who declared in his landmark encyclical against Modernism: “Far, far from the clergy be the love of novelty!” (Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, n. 49). In the same encyclical, the Pope quoted also his predecessor Leo XIII, who said:


It is impossible to approve in Catholic publications a style inspired by unsound novelty which seems to deride the piety of the faithful and dwells on the introduction of a new order of Christian life, on new directions of the Church, on new aspirations of the modern soul, on a new social vocation of the clergy, on a new Christian civilization, and many other things of the same kind.

(Pope Leo XIII, qtd. in Pope Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, n. 55)

 
Apparently the “god of surprises” hadn’t come out of the box yet in the early twentieth century. 

Francis continued his speech:

 - The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo], that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”


This is very shrewd to say of Francis. Every liberal tries to make himself look like a “middle-of-the-roader”, steering the course between “rigidity” and “laxism”, but this is appearance more than reality. The last 19 months leave absolutely no doubt as to which side Bergoglio is on, nor do his years in Buenos Aires. This is mere smoke and mirrors, but by appearing to denounce both “traditionalists” and “liberals”, he gives an apparent victory to both, yet also enabling each side to claim that the other was criticized. This is perfect to create more confusion while also giving people sufficient hope so as not to cause any great trouble in the next 12 months.

Bergoglio further:

 - The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei” [the deposit of faith], not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it]; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing! They call them “byzantinisms,” I think, these things…


…And of course when you think “guarding the deposit of faith,” you think Jorge Bergoglio, right? No? Didn’t think so. His heresy on the Old Covenant, his heresy on faith and works, and his laughable denunciation of priests imposing Catholic morality in the confessional as “spiritual harassment” don’t make him a viable candidate for receiving a Credibility in Religion award.

In addition, consider that the amusingly ironic criticism of people who “say so many things and [yet] say nothing” comes from a man who wrote over 50,000 words in Evangelii Gaudium that contained such brilliant paragraphs as this one:

A constant tension exists between fullness and limitation. Fullness evokes the desire for complete possession, while limitation is a wall set before us. Broadly speaking, “time” has to do with fullness as an expression of the horizon which constantly opens before us, while each individual moment has to do with limitation as an expression of enclosure. People live poised between each individual moment and the greater, brighter horizon of the utopian future as the final cause which draws us to itself. Here we see a first principle for progress in building a people: time is greater than space.

(Francis, “Apostolic Exhortation” Evangelii Gaudium, n. 222)


Got it?
 Looks like the “god of surprises” struck again. By contrast — and this is very apropos — Pope St. Pius X denounced “evil and error” that are “presented in dynamic language” while “concealing vague notions and ambiguous expressions with emotional and high-sounding words” (St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Our Apostolic Mandate [1910], par. 1). Oops. Needless to say, Francis hasn’t quoted St. Pius X lately, and in fact entirely ignored the 100th anniversary of the sainted pontiff’s death on August 20 of this year. But don’t worry: There is full continuity between the Catholic Church and the Novus Ordo Sect — Mark Shea guarantees it and is happy to share with you a snarky meme to prove it!

In an article in Libero on October 19, 2014, Antonio Socci, author of the new bestselling anti-Francis book Non E Francesco, anticipates the results of the synod in these words: “In the end, there is only one sure outcome: the split of the Church, and great confusion in her Magisterium” (source).

Yes, the outcome for now is simply more of what we’ve been seeing already: Chaos, confusion, no clear direction, making it appear as though Church teaching and/or pastoral practice were up for majority vote. You see, even though several paragraphs regarding homosexuality and communion for adulterers in the controversial Relatio document were not accepted by the required two-thirds majority of bishops, they nevertheless got more yea’s than nay’s, and in any case these texts remain in the document “for discussion purposes” (wink, wink). In other words, the damage done will be just the same, but with the convenient cop-out that “this isn’t approved” or “this isn’t official”, which you know conservative Novus Ordo apologists will harp on endlessly.

Already we are reading about alleged “setbacks” and “numerical defeats” Francis has supposedly suffered, but people tend to forget that a Pope — and such Francis claims to be — does not need a majority vote for anything, much less a two-thirds majority. The Church isn’t a democracy. It doesn’t matter how much “backing” Francis has for anything he may decide to do, though of course the more support he has for his revolution, the less trouble or interference there will be for him. Therefore, expect to see more personnel shuffles in the Vatican II Church — fewer people like “Cardinal” Burke and more people like “Cardinal” Wuerl, “Archbishop” Forte, and “Bishop” Cupich in positions of influence. In fact, we predict that Francis will make Forte, the author of the homo-friendly paragraphs in the scandalous Relatio document, a “cardinal” at the next consistory.

One very frightening aspect to all the drama of the last 2-3 weeks is that heretics like “Cardinals” Muller and Burke and former “Popes” Benedict XVI and John Paul II now look like arch-conservative, exemplarily-orthodox heroes. It is unfortunate but not surprising given the Novus Ordo Church’s decades-long brainwashing of souls that people nowadays tend to consider someone a Catholic not if he refuses to deny one dogma, but if he affirms just one dogma, especially on matters of sexual morality (abortion, divorce, marriage, contraception). 

Yet to be a Catholic one must adhere to all dogmas, not merely to some. There are no “half-heretics” or “half-Catholics.” Catholicism does not exist in degrees — it is an all-or-nothing deal, as Pope Benedict XV emphasized in his inaugural encyclical: “Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected” (Pope Benedict XV, Encyclical Ad Beatissimi, n. 24). Likewise it was Pope Leo XIII who, quoting an unnamed early Christian author, warned: “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 9).

In other words, it is those Vatican Modernists that appear “conservative” that are a much greater danger to souls than the open Christ-hating liberals like Kasper, Forte, Schonborn, etc., because the former disguise their rejection of Catholicism under a veneer of orthodoxy whereas the latter put it on display for all to see. Clearly the bottle of poison that has a warning label on it is a lot less dangerous than the bottle that says “fruit juice” on it.

So, chaos it has been, and chaos it will be. One “cardinal” put it in a humorous way when he commented on the endless confusion under Bergoglio thus: “I used to think there was a plan underneath the chaos … now I’m wondering if the chaos is the plan” (source). Echoing similar sentiments is “Bishop” Thomas Tobin of Providence, Rhode Island. In a recent blog post, he said: "Pope Francis is fond of ‘creating a mess.’ Mission accomplished” (source). Hey, we called him “Chaos Frank” from the beginning!

Unlike so many Novus Ordo pundits, bloggers, and loudmouths, The Week’s Damon Linker has figured Francis out. Analyzing the contradictory messages coming from the Synod, the columnist reaches the following spot-on conclusion:

I submit that there is only one way to make sense of the pope's actions, and it goes like this:

Francis would like to liberalize church doctrine on marriage, the family, and homosexuality, but he knows that he lacks the support and institutional power to do it. So he's decided on a course of stealth reform that involves sowing seeds of future doctrinal change by undermining the enforcement of doctrine today. The hope would be that a generation or two from now, the gap between official doctrine and the behavior that's informally accepted in Catholic parishes across the world would grow so vast that a global grassroots movement in favor of liberalizing change would rise up at long last to sweep aside the old, musty, already-ignored rules.

If this is what Pope Francis is going for, I don't blame conservatives for beginning to express serious misgivings. It's a brilliant, clever, supremely Machiavellian strategy — one that promises to produce far-reaching reforms down the road while permitting the present pope both to claim plausible deniability ("I haven't changed church doctrine!") and to enjoy nearly constant effusive coverage in the secular press.

What's happening in Rome isn't yet "revolutionary change." But it just may be what eventually prepares the way for exactly that.

(Damon Linker, “Pope Francis' Machiavellian strategy to liberalize the Catholic Church”, The Week, Oct. 15, 2014)


All in all, then, nothing has really changed: It’s theological and pastoral mayhem on stilts in the Vatican II Church, with both “conservatives” and “progressives” having their supporters and cultivating the hope that their position will prevail before long, and thus it has ever been since the 1960s. It is, in fact, exactly what Francis needs to be able to get through the next 12 months before the 
ultimate Synod in October 2015. 

And then watch out — Francis will pull out his “god of surprises” again, and then Heaven help us because it will be anyone’s guess as to what this “god” will produce. One thing is for sure: It won’t be Roman Catholicism.

frank-in-the-box.jpg

The “God of Surprises”? Frank-in-the Box!


Related Links:


Now it’s “Madonna”...

She’s Baaaaack!!!
Suor Cristina returns with
“Like a Virgin”


Novus Ordo lunacy knows no bounds. You may remember that during Lent of this year, a wanna-be-singer Novus Ordo nun participated in the Italian secular singing contest Voice of Italy. She ended up winning the thing, though this victory can reasonably be ascribed to her “singing nun” stardom more than to her singing talent. This was in June.

sister-cristina-album.jpg

Well, guess what: It’s October now, and she’s back. Her first album, quite appropriately named after her only (“Sister Cristina”), will be available in the United States on November 10 and can already be pre-ordered on Amazon (no, we won’t link it — “Fr.” Zuhlsdorf can do that).

One of the songs on this album is a cover version of the raunchy 1984 hit “Like a Virgin” by the blasphemous shock artist “Madonna”. Though with lyrics slightly modified, this “Catholic nun” sings a song the world knows as the popular hit of a woman who has made a career glorifying impurity, destroying innocence, breaking new ground on indecency, and mocking God, our Lady, and the Catholic Faith. The video clip above shows the official music video of Cristina’s rendition of Like a Virgin.

[A Note of Caution: The remainder of this post contains (links to) content that could cause temptations or occasions of sin in some — please proceed with caution or do not read further.]

The lyrics to the original Madonna song can be read here (CAUTION! immodest photos) — the last paragraph and two other words were omitted by Cristina. The lyrics were written by Billy Steinberg and Tom Kelly. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Steinberg explained them as follows:


I wasn't just trying to get that racy word virgin in a lyric. I was saying ... that I may not really be a virgin — I've been battered romantically and emotionally like many people — but I'm starting a new relationship and it just feels so good, it's healing all the wounds and making me feel like I've never done this before, because it's so much deeper and more profound than anything I've ever felt.

(source — CAUTION! immodest photos)


So, yes, these lyrics seem like they’re just perfect for a cover by a Novus Ordo religious, huh? As the Wikipedia article from which the above quote is taken points out: “The song is noted for its profound effect on society.” Clearly, it had its effect on Sister Cristina as well.

Madonna herself will probably be quite proud of the rocking nun, since she is bringing raunchy songs into Catholic (or at least Novus Ordo) minds and hearts in a way the impure pop icon never could. The fact that Cristina has modified the lyrics a bit is practically irrelevant because most people won’t notice the modifications, the very association with the Madonna version of the song is plenty scandalous already, and people who hear it will be reminded of the indecent original and perhaps call it to memory (and possibly also their own sinful past that that they may associate with this song).

The Call Me Jorge blog has dug up additional information on this ignominy and provided an English translation of an interview with her entitled “Me, Madonna, and my true Goals”:


It is a crying shame that this woman, who consider herself consecrated to God, can stoop so low as to take an impure song and, omitting a few words, offer her own cover version to the world. This is nothing short of scandalous and another grave offense against Almighty God, who is already so much offended, and for this “rocking nun”, this isn’t a first-time offense (see more on that below). If Sr. Cristina wants to praise God through her singing, let her sing edifying, pious songs, hymns and canticles that will draw souls to heavenly things (cf. Col 3:2).

cristina-virgin.jpg

Flyin’ High: Suor Cristina in the music video for “Like a Virgin”

Something that we already said in one of our many prior posts on this disgraceful “nun” bears repeating. We had noted:

In the 1980s, it was the blasphemous American singer Madonna who dressed up as a nun in some of her appearances to mock the Catholic religion; but it seems now we have 'real' nuns doing a fine job all by themselves... during Holy Week, no less -- when Cristina should have been prayerfully comforting her Divine Lord instead of jumping around on a stage making a fool of herself and the religion she supposedly represents.

...

What will she sing next? Madonna's disgusting Like a Prayer? We can already hear her Novus Ordo apologists rushing to her defense: "But look... she's singing about prayer!!"

(“Nuns Just Want to Have Fun”, The Novus Ordo Wire, Apr. 20, 2014)


So far, she hasn’t sung “Like a Prayer”, but anything is possible at this point. We fully expect to see plenty of Novus Ordo commentators and bloggers again extol Cristina for “using her talents” in this way (“Look, she’s trying to get people to love virginity!”).

During the singing competition on Italian television earlier this year, Cristina performed cover versions of Girls just want to have Fun, Flashdance, The Time of My Life, Livin’ on a Prayer, and other popular hits (see links below).

There is simply no Catholicism left in the adherents of the Novus Ordo Sect.

Our Other Suor Cristina Posts:


“Blessed” my Eye...

Francis Declares Paul VI “Blessed”,
Benedict XVI Attends Ceremony

paul6 broken cross.jpg


Time for a Shocking Reality Check


The Modernists in the Vatican are laughing at all you people who believe they are legitimate Roman Catholic authorities. Giovanni Battista Montini (“Pope” Paul VI) was the single one figure in Church history most responsible for creating/shaping the apostate Vatican II Sect in Rome. Vatican II was his council (he’s the only “Pope” who signed its documents). The
Novus Ordo Missae was his “Mass.” The New Sacraments were his rites, most notably the new ordinations, which are invalid and confer no grace and make no priests or bishops (see details here). He took true Catholicism and trashed it, transforming it from being God-centered (theocentric) to being man-centered (anthropocentric). This sorry mockery of the true Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII that you now see in Rome, is Montini’s creation, as it were. True, “Saint” John XXIII really started it, but he was laying its groundwork more than anything else, preparing the way, so to speak, for the one who would really give it shape and identity: Giovanni Montini, “Blessed” Paul VI.

During the early days of the Second Vatican Council, some conservative bishops referred to John XXIII as the “precursor of the Antichrist” and “Cardinal” Montini as his “crown prince” (source), which was very much to the point, knowing what we know now. Just before promulgating the remaining documents of Vatican II in December of 1965, Paul VI said to his friend Jean Guitton: “I am about to blow the seven trumpets of the Apocalypse” (source).

But now “Pope” Francis has “beatified” Montini, declaring him “blessed”, and it is most likely that the same Giovanni Montini will be declared a “saint” within the next 12 months. 

Here is a video recap of the “beatification” ceremony held today in the Vatican:


There is a photo gallery of the shameful event available here, and Francis’ sermon for the occasion, in which he claims “God is not afraid of new things”, can be read here.

Now, for those who are inclined to forget: It was Benedict XVI who, two years ago, made this “beatification” possible to begin with, signing the official decree that recgonized the “heroic virtue” of Montini.

What follows below are some highlights — lowlights, really — of evidence that Paul VI (“Paul the Sick”, as Dr. Thomas Droleskey calls him) was most definitely not a Catholic saint, nor a Blessed, nor anyone that could be held up as a model of virtue, holiness, or Catholic doctrine. We provide this evidence to prove that the Novus Ordo “beatification” of the man is bogus (Francis being, of course, an antipope, not a true Pope). If he was such a holy man worthy to be venerated by the faithful, then the evidence below ought to be easily refuted. 

The Real Paul VI — 
Reality Check on “Blessed” Giovanni Montini

Summary of the Charges against Paul VI, provided by Chiesa Viva of the recently deceased Fr. Luigi Villa, who had been formally tasked by Pope Pius XII with exposing Freemasons within the Catholic Church:


Book-Length Evidence: Fr. Luigi Villa proves Paul VI was not a Catholic Saint but a destroyer of Catholicism, a blasphemer, a heretic and more

"Paul VI: Beatified?" by Dr. Luigi Villa

Paul VI ... Beatified?
by Fr. Luigi Villa

Free PDF Download of entire book here - lots of shocking photos

Buy this book here - other items available also

Book Review: R. Siscoe reviews Paul VI: Beatified? - "Who was Paul VI?"

Available also in Spanish, Italian, French - More Information and Related Books at these sites:



And then there’s this inconvenient video:

Oops: “Blessed” Paul VI was a Homosexual


It gets even wilder: Paul VI Responded to Accusations, Denied being a Homosexual



For those who may have forgotten, let’s take a look at what “Blessed” Paul VI did to Roman Catholic churches:

Don’t Forget:
The Roman Catholic Sanctuary


Before Paul VI...

Traditional Roman Catholic Sanctuary

Genuine Roman Catholic Sanctuary


...After Paul VI

Novus Ordo “sanctuary”

Novus Ordo "Sanctuary": a new sanctuary for a new religion


No doubt, there was some seriously “heroic virtue” going on in this man. But now let’s have a look at how this “almost-Saint” died….


Paul VI’s Death in 1978:
“As though He had Exploded from Within”

Giovanni Battista Montini's biographer, Peter Hebblethwaite, relates the following about the soul-destroying Antipope's death in a 1993 book:

paul6-hebblethwaite.jpg


"As Mass ends Paul has a massive heart attack. It is as though he had exploded from within. [Rev. John] Magee thinks he would have been thrown out of bed had his hand not been held"
(Peter Hebblethwaite, Paul VI: The First Modern Pope, p. 710).


The Broken Cross of False “Pope” Paul VI

Let us never forget the hideous and blasphemous so-called "Broken Cross" Paul VI introduced and used as his crozier. It is a bent cross with Our Lord's Body displayed in a repulsive fashion. This impious crozier has also been used by John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, and, after a hiatus, has recently been brought back by Francis.

See Also: Henry Makow: "Is the Pope a Catholic?"



Best of all, when Paul VI lay in state at St. Peter’s Basilica, his skin started to turn black:

“BLESSED”?
Clearly No Transfiguration for Paul VI

"Pope" Paul VI lying in state on August 10, 1978

Giovanni Battista Montini died on August 6, 1978,
the Feast of the Transfiguration


See Also: Freaky Painting of Paul VI Celebrates 30 Years in the Vatican



And now for some details regarding the rotting corpse of Paul VI: The odor of sanctity or the stench of damnation? You decide…

Antipope Paul VI lying in state

Before the funeral, Paul VI's body had to be injected with more formaldehyde because it was already decomposing as it was being transported a mere 15 miles from Castelgandolfo to St. Peter's! (Source: TIME Magazine, "In Search of a Pope", Aug. 21, 1978) Verbatim: "With the Pope garbed in a red chasuble, slippers and gloves and a gold-and-white miter on his head, some 60,000 mourners filed past his body. Then, with more than 5,000 soldiers and police standing guard against Italy's unpredictable terrorists, a hearse drove the body along the 15-mile route to St. Peter's. For a time the body was sealed in its casket. But when Cardinals arriving in Rome voiced disappointment, it was again put on view—in front of the high altar, where only the Pope or his delegate may say Mass. (The body had to be injected with more formaldehyde because it was already decomposing in the late summer heat.)"

Pope St. Pius X also died in the hot summer month of August (1914) and did not decompose -- he, a true saint (canonized by Pius XII in 1954), is incorrupt! (More info here) See this beautiful photo of St. Pius X shortly after he went to His Eternal Reward — what a contrast to the rotting and rotten Paul VI!

See Also:


By the way, in December 2012, under Benedict XVI, the Novus Ordo cardinals voted unanimously in favor of declaring Paul VI to be a Catholic Saint, to which this “beatification” is the necessary prelude:


So, let’s recap: In the New Church of Vatican II, you can institute and preside over the Great Apostasy, let loose a deluge of heresy, impiety, and sacrilege on the faithful, be a practicing sodomite - and get rewarded with "sainthood" and recognition of "heroic virtue" in the end. This says all you need to know about the abominable Vatican II Sect. To say that this impious cult could be the product of the Holy Ghost, the Roman Catholic Church, is blasphemy!

Since the creation of the Novus Ordo Church in 1958, every single deceased "Pope" has been either “beatified” (Paul VI) or “canonized” (John XXIII, John Paul II), or is on his way to either (John Paul I). What's going on here? It's clear: They want to and need to "canonize" the Vatican II council and the New Church. Though the Catholic Church only produced 2 canonized saint Popes between 1566 and 1958 (Pius V and Pius X), the Novus Ordo church claims, essentially, to have had nothing but "sainted Popes" since then. How much more laughable can it get?!

"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities." (Apoc 18:4-5)

All you need to do now is connect the dots (John Vennari, are you listening?):

connect-dots.gif


In the 1970s, a Mexican priest by the name of Fr. Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga figured out that Paul VI could not possibly be a true Pope and that he was the creator of a new religion. Fr. Saenz courageously published a book exposing the “New Montinian Church”:


The New Montinian Church
by Fr. Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga

saenz-book.jpg


This is an exposition of the False New Church — the Vatican II Church — of Giovanni Battista Montini, otherwise known as "Pope" Paul VI, published first in 1971. 

Fr. Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga

About the author: Mexican Fr. Saenz y Arriaga was perhaps the first publicly sedevacantist priest. He was "excommunicated" by the Novus Ordo Church for exposing Montini/Paul VI and his new religion. In 1973, Saenz published a follow-up work called Sede Vacante: Paulo VI no es Papa legítimo (Sede Vacante: Paul VI is not a legitimate Pope), a sedevacantist manifesto. Read more about Fr. Saenz y Arriaga and his work here.

Used hardcopies of The New Montinian Church are difficult to obtain, but you can look for one here.

Reality Check: "Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you." (Mt 5:10-12)

And now for some great photos...

paul6-goofy.jpg

Who needs a tiara?! Not a false pope, that’s for sure! (You might be laughing, but if you believe he was a valid Pope, the joke’s on you)


paul6-hall.jpg

This backdrop graces the “Paul VI Hall” in the Vatican, where the “Pope” holds his audiences — it is entitled “The Resurrection”


paul6-statue.jpg

This statue of Paul VI gives a fairly accurate representation of this diabolical man, though it is supposed to “honor” him, of course. It was made in 1984 and is located in Brescia, Italy.


One thing is for certain: Paul VI is not a “Blessed”!


A typical Modernist...

In Final Speech, Francis warns of “Temptations”, criticizes “Traditionalists” and “Liberals”

janus-francis.jpg



[LAST UPDATED: 19-OCT-14 01:35 GMT - Full Speech below]

In a sly move, “Pope” Francis addressed the Synod in Rome at its closure and criticized both liberals and conservatives for succumbing to certain “temptations” — thus allowing both sides to claim victory in a sense, and thus perpetuating the problem and the controversy until the Ordinary Synod scheduled for October 2015. This way, he has averted a schism at least until then, when final decisions will be made and Francis will release a so-called “Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation” that whichever side wins will say is “the Pope speaking” and the losing side will claim is “just a non-binding exhortation” (which is precisely what we saw with regard to the heretical 2013 exhortation Evangelii Gaudium).

In other words, it’s business as usual and the circus will continue as before, at least for the time being.

Here is Francis’ closing speech, now available in full English translation via Vatican Radio:

Dear Eminences, Beatitudes, Excellencies, Brothers and Sisters,

With a heart full of appreciation and gratitude I want to thank, along with you, the Lord who has accompanied and guided us in the past days, with the light of the Holy Spirit.

From the heart I thank Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, Secretary General of the Synod, Bishop Fabio Fabene, under-secretary, and with them I thank the Relators, Cardinal Peter Erdo, who has worked so much in these days of family mourning, and the Special Secretary Bishop Bruno Forte, the three President delegates, the transcribers, the consultors, the translators and the unknown workers, all those who have worked with true fidelity and total dedication behind the scenes and without rest. Thank you so much from the heart.

I thank all of you as well, dear Synod fathers, Fraternal Delegates, Auditors, and Assessors, for your active and fruitful participation. I will keep you in prayer asking the Lord to reward you with the abundance of His gifts of grace!

I can happily say that – with a spirit of collegiality and of synodality – we have truly lived the experience of “Synod,” a path of solidarity, a “journey together.”

And it has been “a journey” – and like every journey there were moments of running fast, as if wanting to conquer time and reach the goal as soon as possible; other moments of fatigue, as if wanting to say “enough”; other moments of enthusiasm and ardour. There were moments of profound consolation listening to the testimony of true pastors, who wisely carry in their hearts the joys and the tears of their faithful people. Moments of consolation and grace and comfort hearing the testimonies of the families who have participated in the Synod and have shared with us the beauty and the joy of their married life. A journey where the stronger feel compelled to help the less strong, where the more experienced are led to serve others, even through confrontations. And since it is a journey of human beings, with the consolations there were also moments of desolation, of tensions and temptations, of which a few possibilities could be mentioned:

 - One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.

 - The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo], that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”

 - The temptation to transform stones into bread to break the long, heavy, and painful fast (cf. Lk 4:1-4); and also to transform the bread into a stone and cast it against the sinners, the weak, and the sick (cf Jn 8:7), that is, to transform it into unbearable burdens (Lk 11:46).

 - The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, and not stay there, in order to fulfil the will of the Father; to bow down to a worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God.

 - The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei” [the deposit of faith], not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it]; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing! They call them “byzantinisms,” I think, these things…

Dear brothers and sisters, the temptations must not frighten or disconcert us, or even discourage us, because no disciple is greater than his master; so if Jesus Himself was tempted – and even called Beelzebul (cf. Mt 12:24) – His disciples should not expect better treatment.

Personally I would be very worried and saddened if it were not for these temptations and these animated discussions; this movement of the spirits, as St Ignatius called it (Spiritual Exercises, 6), if all were in a state of agreement, or silent in a false and quietist peace. Instead, I have seen and I have heard – with joy and appreciation – speeches and interventions full of faith, of pastoral and doctrinal zeal, of wisdom, of frankness and of courage: and of parresia. And I have felt that what was set before our eyes was the good of the Church, of families, and the “supreme law,” the “good of souls” (cf. Can. 1752). And this always – we have said it here, in the Hall – without ever putting into question the fundamental truths of the Sacrament of marriage: the indissolubility, the unity, the faithfulness, the fruitfulness, that openness to life (cf. Cann. 1055, 1056; and Gaudium et spes, 48).

And this is the Church, the vineyard of the Lord, the fertile Mother and the caring Teacher, who is not afraid to roll up her sleeves to pour oil and wine on people’s wound; who doesn’t see humanity as a house of glass to judge or categorize people. This is the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and composed of sinners, needful of God’s mercy. This is the Church, the true bride of Christ, who seeks to be faithful to her spouse and to her doctrine. It is the Church that is not afraid to eat and drink with prostitutes and publicans. The Church that has the doors wide open to receive the needy, the penitent, and not only the just or those who believe they are perfect! The Church that is not ashamed of the fallen brother and pretends not to see him, but on the contrary feels involved and almost obliged to lift him up and to encourage him to take up the journey again and accompany him toward a definitive encounter with her Spouse, in the heavenly Jerusalem.

The is the Church, our Mother! And when the Church, in the variety of her charisms, expresses herself in communion, she cannot err: it is the beauty and the strength of the sensus fidei, of that supernatural sense of the faith which is bestowed by the Holy Spirit so that, together, we can all enter into the heart of the Gospel and learn to follow Jesus in our life. And this should never be seen as a source of confusion and discord.

Many commentators, or people who talk, have imagined that they see a disputatious Church where one part is against the other, doubting even the Holy Spirit, the true promoter and guarantor of the unity and harmony of the Church – the Holy Spirit who throughout history has always guided the barque, through her Ministers, even when the sea was rough and choppy, and the ministers unfaithful and sinners.

And, as I have dared to tell you , [as] I told you from the beginning of the Synod, it was necessary to live through all this with tranquillity, and with interior peace, so that the Synod would take place cum Petro and sub Petro (with Peter and under Peter), and the presence of the Pope is the guarantee of it all.

We will speak a little bit about the Pope, now, in relation to the Bishops [laughing]. So, the duty of the Pope is that of guaranteeing the unity of the Church; it is that of reminding the faithful of  their duty to faithfully follow the Gospel of Christ; it is that of reminding the pastors that their first duty is to nourish the flock – to nourish the flock – that the Lord has entrusted to them, and to seek to welcome – with fatherly care and mercy, and without false fears – the lost sheep. I made a mistake here. I said welcome: [rather] to go out and find them.

His duty is to remind everyone that authority in the Church is a service, as Pope Benedict XVI clearly explained, with words I cite verbatim: “The Church is called and commits herself to exercise this kind of authority which is service and exercises it not in her own name, but in the name of Jesus Christ… through the Pastors of the Church, in fact: it is he who guides, protects and corrects them, because he loves them deeply. But the Lord Jesus, the supreme Shepherd of our souls, has willed that the Apostolic College, today the Bishops, in communion with the Successor of Peter… to participate in his mission of taking care of God's People, of educating them in the faith and of guiding, inspiring and sustaining the Christian community, or, as the Council puts it, ‘to see to it... that each member of the faithful shall be led in the Holy Spirit to the full development of his own vocation in accordance with Gospel preaching, and to sincere and active charity’ and to exercise that liberty with which Christ has set us free (cf. Presbyterorum Ordinis, 6)… and it is through us,” Pope Benedict continues, “that the Lord reaches souls, instructs, guards and guides them. St Augustine, in his Commentary on the Gospel of St John, says: ‘let it therefore be a commitment of love to feed the flock of the Lord’ (cf. 123, 5); this is the supreme rule of conduct for the ministers of God, an unconditional love, like that of the Good Shepherd, full of joy, given to all, attentive to those close to us and solicitous for those who are distant (cf. St Augustine, Discourse 340, 1; Discourse 46, 15), gentle towards the weakest, the little ones, the simple, the sinners, to manifest the infinite mercy of God with the reassuring words of hope (cf. ibid., Epistle, 95, 1).”

So, the Church is Christ’s – she is His bride – and all the bishops, in communion with the Successor of Peter, have the task and the duty of guarding her and serving her, not as masters but as servants. The Pope, in this context, is not the supreme lord but rather the supreme servant – the “servant of the servants of God”; the guarantor of the obedience and the conformity of the Church to the will of God, to the Gospel of Christ, and to the Tradition of the Church, putting aside every personal whim, despite being – by the will of Christ Himself – the “supreme Pastor and Teacher of all the faithful” (Can. 749) and despite enjoying “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church” (cf. Cann. 331-334).

Dear brothers and sisters, now we still have one year to mature, with true spiritual discernment, the proposed ideas and to find concrete solutions to so many difficulties and innumerable challenges that families must confront; to give answers to the many discouragements that surround and suffocate families.

One year to work on the “Synodal Relatio” which is the faithful and clear summary of everything that has been said and discussed in this hall and in the small groups. It is presented to the Episcopal Conferences as “lineamenta” [guidelines].

May the Lord accompany us, and guide us in this journey for the glory of His Name, with the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of Saint Joseph. And please, do not forget to pray for me! Thank you!

[The hymn Te Deum was sung, and Benediction given.]

Thank you, and rest well, eh?


(Vatican Radio, “Pope Francis Speech at the Conclusion of the Synod”, Oct. 18, 2014)



The Synod’s final document as it was voted on is available in the original Italian at the Vatican web site here. The paragraphs that talk about “Communion” for adulterers and about homosexuals, in English translation, can be found here. (Note that they did not receive the required two-thirds majority.)

[UPDATE 30-OCT-2014: Official English Translation of Synod’s Final Document now available here]

We’ll reserve commentary on this until next week.

Meanwhile, Voice of the Family says that the final synod report “fails to resolve confusion” — which is exactly how Francis wants it: no decisions, no clear statements, no line of sight — just a lot of fog.

See Also:


Accepting Bergoglio as Pope has consequences...

burke1.jpg


“Cardinal” Burke Confirms Demotion
— Neo-Traditionalists in Shock


The following is a post we published on Sept. 17, 2014, regarding reliable rumors of “Cardinal” Raymond Burke’s impending removal from the Vatican’s Supreme Court, the Apostolic Signatura, by “Pope” Francis. This rumor is a rumor no longer — now Burke himself has confirmed that he has been demoted:


[original post of 17-SEP-14:]

Apparently the Neo-Traditionalists in the Vatican II Sect are just now beginning to wake up to the fact that when you accept a Modernist as Pope, you also have to accept the Modernist consequences. The well-informed and reliable Vaticanist Sandro Magister reports on September 17 that “Pope” Francis is going to severely demote the American “Cardinal” Raymond Burke from his post of Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura (the ecclesiastical Supreme Court) to being the Cardinal Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Magister rightly calls this a “decapitation” and an “exile” for Burke, as his new post is merely honorary and practically irrelevant. At age 66, such a transfer from judge of the church’s supreme court to that of “cardinal patron” of a military order is a real slap in the face.

Magister writes:

If confirmed, Burke’s exile would be even more drastic than the one inflicted on Cardinal Piacenza, who, transferred from the important congregation for the clergy to the marginal apostolic penitentiary, nevertheless remained in the leadership of a curial dicastery.

With the shakeup on the way, Burke would instead be completely removed from the curia and employed in a purely honorary position without any influence on the governance of the universal Church.

This would be a move that seems to have no precedent.

In the past, in fact, the title of “cardinalis patronus” of the knights of Malta, in existence since 1961, like the previous one of Grand Prior of Rome, has always been assigned to the highest ranking cardinals as an extra position in addition to the main one.

...

Burke is 66 years old, and therefore still in his ecclesiastical prime. Ordained a priest by Paul VI in 1975, he worked at the apostolic signatura as an ordinary priest with John Paul II, who made him bishop of his native diocese of La Crosse, Wisconsin in 1993. It was again pope Karol Wojtyla who in 2003 promoted him as archbishop of the prestigious see, once cardinalate, of St. Louis, Missouri. Benedict XVI called him back to Rome in 2008, and made him a cardinal in 2010.

(Sandro Magister, “Exile to Malta for Cardinal BurkeChiesa, Sep. 17, 2014)


For more information and full context, be sure to read Magister’s entire piece.

As of right now, Burke has not been removed yet from his position as head of the Apostolic Signatura — in fact, the Vatican has yet to announce or confirm Magister’s report, which, however, should only be a matter of time, given Magister’s connections and reliability. In fact, about 18 hours after Magister posted his article, the U.S.-based LifeSiteNews.com reported that “sources in Rome have confirmed” to them that Burke’s removal is indeed forthcoming.

What remains to be seen at this point is whether the demotion will be effective before or after the upcoming Synod on the Family, which would make a considerable difference to the influence Burke would have over its proceedings. As the head honcho of the Knights of Malta, he probably wouldn’t even be invited to attend.

francis-waves.jpg

Bye, bye, Raymond!


Reaction from the Neo-Traditionalist camp is mostly one of shock and outrage, as can be seen from various blog posts, tweets, and articles that have appeared since Magister broke the story. For example, the popular “buy-me-something-from-my-Amazon-wishlist” blogger
John Zuhlsdorf (“Fr. Z”) has a spittle-flecked nutty in his commentary on the matter (but not without an AmaZon sales link!):


Apparently even Mr. Zuhlsdorf has now given up on “reading Francis through Benedict”, which was his mantra for over a year. Now that’s really saying something!

To give you more of a sample of how “conservative” Novus Ordos and Semi-Traditionalists in the Vatican II Sect are trying to cope with this news of Bergoglio vs. Burke, here are further interesting links to various bloggers and commentators sounding off:


The expected removal of Mr. Burke — “ordained” to the priesthood in the invalid Paul VI rite in 1975 — comes as no susprise to those who have been paying attention and actually adhere to traditional Catholic principles. The real story here is not that Burke has been exiled, but that many Neo-Trads are shocked about it. Have they been living under a rock? Do they not understand how a hierarchical church works (which they claim to believe in)? Do they not realize that the Pope, who Francis purports to be, can promote and demote people as he sees fit, and doesn’t care about silly democratic petitions or what internet pundits think?

Ah, but of course they know that a Pope has such power, they just didn’t think Francis would use it in this way. But why shouldn’t he? He’s a Modernist to the core, and Modernist thought leads to Modernist action. Besides, he knows he can do as he pleases, for many people have long made up their minds they will never be sedevacantists, no matter what the evidence. So what would be stopping him from going full-steam ahead with the next phase of the apostasy?

The Semi-Traditionalists live in a fantasy world. The church they believe in does not exist, that is, it does not exist with Francis as Pope. The church they believe in is a church that is identical to the Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors, but one in which the true Pope is now Jorge Bergoglio, in which some ecumenical councils can be ignored by the faithful, and in which papal teaching and disciplinary decisions are subject to review by a lawyer from Virginia or a journalist from Minnesota. We hate to break it to them, but such a church does not exist, and the sooner they realize it, the better.

Perhaps it has not occurred to them yet that Francis is simply now doing for the Vatican II Liberals and Modernists what Benedict XVI did for the Neo-Trads when he was in charge. But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander: The Recognize-and-Resist traditionalists had their field day with Ratzinger in 2005-2013, and now it’s the liberals’ turn. Did Ratzinger fans not realize that what one “Pope” can institute, another can take away? That what one can permit, another can forbid? That a person one Pope can appoint, another can remove? That if they can have a field day, so can their liberal counterparts?

We remember very well when, after Benedict’s election in 2005, The Remnant and many like-minded people switched into “It’s the Restoration of Tradition - Go, Benny, go!” mode, and praised the old Modernist Ratzinger to the skies, spinning him as a great defender of Catholic Tradition, when he was nothing of the sort. But he used the traditional externals they like so much, so that all reason, all cool analysis, and all Catholic principle went out the window for a great many “traditionalists”, who lost themselves in the puffs of sweet-smelling incense that now billowed forth from the German “Pope’s” Modernist thurible.

It just had to be the Great Restoration of Tradition now, and facts to the contrary just weren’t supposed to get in the way. And so they began to interpret all the news and facts through that dogmatic and irrevocable narrative, and they ignored, minimized, distorted, under-reported, or otherwise dismissed typical Modernist shenanigans in Benedict’s reign, such as his visit to the Blue Mosque in Turkey, his claim in a Jewish synagogue that whoever meets Christ meets Judaism, his new Good Friday prayer composed at the behest of the Talmudists, his Assisi interfaith prayer event, his blasphemous declaration that the Novus Ordo Missae constituted “the same rite” as the Traditional Catholic Mass, and so forth. These things weren’t supposed to get in the way of the great “Restoration of Tradition”, so they dealt with them accordingly. They even came up with a long-running “Benedict vs. the Vatican” narrative, in which a super-orthodox Ratzinger was the poor, innocent victim of evil Vatican bishops hell-bent on preventing his defeat of Modernism and his planned restoration of all things Catholic.

Here are a few essays we published during this time, trying to make people realize that their beloved Benedict was neither a Pope nor a Catholic, and the fabled “Restoration of Tradition” was nothing but a speed bump on the way to hell:


What has changed since then is that Jorge Bergoglio now sits in the Vatican claiming to be the Pope, and though he is very different from his immediate predecessor, the two are also very much the same. Both are Modernists in essence, differing only perhaps in degree, but definitely not in kind. What distinguishes them is how openly and brazenly they are willing to display their Modernism. Benedict XVI preferred to be sly and hidden about it, using the trappings of traditional externals to get good-willed souls to swallow his anti-Catholic poison, whereas Francis is in-your-face about it and openly flaunts his hatred for Catholicism. This difference in the external display is what causes the public perception of there being such a stark contrast between the two, but as far as their Modernism goes, they are both identical.

The great nineteenth-century Spanish priest Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany wrote about the different “classes” of Modernists, who were called simply “Liberals” in his day:

We are surrounded by Liberalism in all its shapes and varieties, and it behooves us to be on our guard against its subtle dangers. To lay down special rules by which we may detect it in its shadings and minutiae is neither practical nor necessary. But some general directions may be given. Their application must be left to each one's proper discretion.

To facilitate the matter, we will divide Liberals, whether persons or writings, into three classes:

1) Extreme Liberals; 2) Moderate Liberals; 3) Quasi Liberals, or those only tainted with Liberalism.

We will essay a description of each of these types. The study of their physiognomy will not be without interest and profit, for in the types we shall find a rule for our guidance in distinguishing Liberalism in its practical details.

The Extreme Liberal is easily recognized; he does not attempt to deny or conceal his perversity. He is the declared enemy of the Pope, of priests, of everything ecclesiastical; a thing has only to be sacred to rouse his implacable wrath; "priestcraft" is his favorite shibboleth. He subscribes to all the most violent and incendiary journals, the more impious and blasphemous, the better to his liking. He is ready to go to the furthermost conclusions of his baneful system. His premise of destruction once laid down, his conclusion of nihilism is a mere matter of logic. He would put it into practical execution with pleasure and exultation if circumstances permitted. He is a revolutionist, socialist, anarchist. He glories in living a life devoid of all religion. He belongs to secret societies, dies in their embrace and is buried by their ritual. He has always defied religion and dies in his defiance.

The moderate Liberal is just as bad as his extreme confrere, but he takes good care not to appear so. Social conventionalities and good manners are everything to him; these points secured, the rest is of little importance. Provided his iniquity is kid-gloved, it finds ready extenuation in his own mind. The niceties of polite society preserved, his Liberalism knows no bounds. He would not burn a convent — that would appear too brutal, but the convent once burned, he has no scruple in seizing upon the outraged property. The cheap impiety of a penny paper grates on his well-bred nerves; the vulgar blasphemy of Ingersoll he deprecates; but let the same impiety and the same blasphemy appear in the columns of a so-called reputable journal, or be couched in the silken phraseology of a Huxley in the name of science, and he applauds the polished sin. It is with him a question of manner, not matter. At the mere mention of the name of a nihilistic or socialistic club, he is thrown into a cold sweat, for there, he declares, the masses are seduced into principles which lead to the destruction of the foundations of society; yet, according to him, there is no danger, no inconvenience in a free lyceum where the same principles are elegantly debated and sympathetically applauded; for who could dare to condemn the scientific discussion of social problems? The moderate Liberal does not detest the Pope; he may even express admiration for his sagacity; he only blames certain pretensions of the Roman Curia and certain exaggerations of Ultramontanism, which do not fall in with the trend of modern thought. He may even like priests, above all, those who are enlightened, that is, such as have caught the twang of modern progress; as for fanatics and reactionaries, he simply avoids or pities them. He may even go to Church and, stranger still, sometimes approach the Sacraments; but his maxim is, in the Church to live as a Christian, outside of the Church to live as the world lives, according to the times in which one is born and not obstinately to swim against the stream. He dies with the priest on one side, his infidel literature on the other and imagines that his Creator will applaud his breadth of mind.

The Catholic simply tainted with Liberalism is generally a good man and sincerely pious; he exhales nevertheless an odor of Liberalism in everything he says, writes, or takes up. Like Madame de Sevigne, he can say, "I am not the rose, but standing by it, I have caught some of its perfume" This courageous man reasons, speaks, and acts as a Liberal without knowing it. His strong point is charity; he is charity itself. What horror fills his soul at the exaggerations of the Ultramontane press! To treat as a liar the man who propagates false ideas is, in the eyes of this singular theologian, to sin against the Holy Spirit. To him the falsifier is simply misguided; it is not the poor fellow's fault; he has, simple soul, been misled. We ought neither to resist nor combat him; we must strive to attract him by soft words and pretty compliments. 

(Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism is a Sin, Chapter 16)


With just some little adaptation to the circumstances of our own times and applying it to the heresy of Neo-Modernism that rules our day, we can quickly recognize that Fr. Sarda’s definition of the “Extreme Liberal” describes,
mutatis mutandis, the man Jorge Bergoglio, whereas his description of the “Moderate Liberal” fits the man Joseph Ratzinger. (The “Catholic simply tainted with Liberalism” accurately describes many good-willed Novus Ordos.)

Which of these three is the most dangerous one? It is the Moderate Liberal, of course, because he is secretive and dishonest about his real beliefs, whereas the Extreme Liberal shouts his Modernism from the rooftops. Fr. Sarda explains: 

The extreme Liberal roars his Liberalism; the moderate Liberal mouths it; the tainted Catholic whispers and sighs it. All are bad enough and serve the devil well. Nevertheless, the extreme Liberal overreaches himself by his violence; the fecundity of the tainted Catholic is partially sterilized by his hybrid nature; but the moderate is the real Satanic type; his is the masked evil, which in our times is the chief cause of the ravages of Liberalism

(Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism is a Sin, Chapter 16; underlining added.)


For those who are not familiar with Fr. Sarda’s work, not only does it bear the obligatory imprimatur, it was actually examined by the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation of the Index under Pope Leo XIII and received the Holy See’s direct approval and recommendation, as noted in the preface of the work. The text is available online for free (click here); if you prefer to purchase a paperback copy, you can do so at a very low cost
through this link.

The point here is simply this: All who are shocked or outraged at Francis’ demotion of “Cardinal” Burke seem not to understand that as long as they accept a Modernist as Pope, they will always be at the mercy of a Modernist, for what one Pope can graciously concede, another can stubbornly deny; what one Pope can give, another can take away. That’s how the papacy works in the Catholic Church. This is never a problem for a Catholic, however, who can rest assured that no Modernist will ever validly occupy the Holy See — the Pope will always be Catholic, or else cease to be Pope. And when a true Pope does make a decision we disagree with or we think is imprudent, there is only one way: that of submission and obedience (not to a sinful command, of course, but to one we don’t think is a good idea). Remember Pope Clement XIV’s suppression of the Jesuits in 1773? If you were a Jesuit, you had to comply, whether you liked it or not (note well, SSPXers!).

Those in the Vatican II Church during the Ratzinger years who rested in great confidence that all was going to be well now because Benedict XVI had granted them this or that permission, or promoted this or that supposedly wonderful cleric to an influential position, etc., obviously did not understand that in essence, nothing had changed: A Modernist had simply chosen to grant their wishes on a particular matter; there was absolutely no reason to think that another Modernist — or even the same one — could not later rescind it all again. In other words, the principle hadn’t changed at all, only a particular instance of the exercise of this principle was different. (As someone once said, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but at the end of the day, it’s still a pig.”)

With Francis, we see the same principle at work, but this time favoring the other side. By 2012, the Neo-Trads were on cloud nine, so to speak — but when Bergoglio came on the scene in 2013, suddenly it became apparent that despite eight years of Benedict XVI, they were quickly headed back to 1971 all over again. Déjà vu!

francis-70s-show1.jpg

That Seventies Show: Directed by “Pope” Francis, since 2013


In the 1880s, Pope Leo XIII penned two important Apostolic Letters that we have made available in their entirey for all to read, in English translation. In these two documents, both of which appeared in the official collection of the Holy See’s documents (the 
Acta Sanctae Sedis at the time), the Pope teaches clearly what the obligation is on the part of the faithful to submit to and obey their rightful bishops and the Pope, who possesses the divine mission to keep watch over the flock entrusted to him:


This is the true teaching on the necessary subjection to the Pope. You won’t see any of those Neo-Traditionalist pundits apply it to Francis, however, we guarantee you! It’s so much easier to say Francis is the Pope than to act like it! (John Vennari, for example, is on record stating that he would not even so much as permit Francis to teach religion to his children!)

It is high time that all who accept Francis’ claim to be the Vicar of Christ actually put their money where their mouth is and acted in accordance with it. Francis doesn’t like “Cardinal” Burke, so he has to go. By contrast, take a look at some high-profile clerics Francis will not demote or exile:


burke2.jpg

To be exiled by Francis: “Cardinal” Raymond Burke


Considering the prelude so far, the upcoming Synod on the Family promises to be spectacular. Francis’ true colors are so obvious at this point, and the deception of his false pontificate so easily visible and out in the open, that one begins to wonder: Who benefits from this deception? For one thing, of course, Francis and his gang of theological thugs. But in addition to that, there is another one benefiting, perhaps not so much from the deception itself as from its gradual and clear disclosure: the “Pope Emeritus”, Benedict XVI. He looks like a super-Catholic hero now. Neo-Trads in the Novus Ordo are falling down before him, and some even claim his resignation wasn’t valid and he is still Pope.

We predict that if the outcome of the synod is revolutionary enough, a schism will emerge within the Vatican II Church: It will be Bergoglio followers vs. Ratzinger followers. A lot of people have long been restless over the Argentine apostate and his openly Modernist program, and no doubt many are waiting for “just one more thing” before definitively abandoning his claim to be Pope. The speculations about the validity of Ratzinger’s resignation will come in real handy for these people then, because when the truth is inconvenient enough, it is easier to replace one lie with another.

Hold on to your hats, folks: The Synod is right around the corner. It’s going to be a wild October!

See Also:


Chaos Frank strikes again...

Francis Rents Out Sistine Chapel
for Private Corporate Event

sistine-rent.jpg



No, this isn’t satire. This isn’t a joke. This isn’t fiction. No one could make this stuff up. Francis, as head honcho of the Novus Ordo Sect and therefore de facto owner of the Sistine Chapel in Vatican City, has decided to rent this sacred and magnificent building to Porsche for a private corporate event at which 40 high-paying guests will be listening to a concert given by a Roman choir as they gaze at the gorgeous paintings of this holy Catholic place.

The event is scheduled for Saturday, Oct. 18, and advertised at the Porsche corporate web site, on this page.

According to a report filed by Nick Squires of The Telegraph, the Vatican has not revealed how much revenue it will take in from the Porsche event but has stated that all proceeds received will go to charity:

The Vatican would not divulge how much it will earn from the event, but the five-day tour of Rome arranged by the Porsche Travel Club costs up to 5,000 euros per head, meaning an overall price of 200,000 euros [approx. $255,000 USD].

Participants are promised "a magnificent concert in the Sistine Chapel, with its ceiling frescoes painted by Michelangelo”.

The concert will be performed by a choir from the Accademia di Santa Cecilia in Rome, which traces its origins back to the 16th century.

Monsignor Paolo Nicolini, the administrative director of the Vatican Museums, said firms like Porsche would be asked to make a donation for the use of the Sistine Chapel, with the money then passed onto Catholic charities of the Pope's choice.

"It is an initiative which will support the Pope's charity projects. It is aimed at big companies which, through the payment of a fee, can contribute to charity activities," he said.

Concerts have been held in the Sistine Chapel before, but they have been for private Church audiences, including events held in honour of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

It is believed this is the first time that the chapel, which was built by Pope Sixtus IV between 1473 and 1484, has been leased out to a company for a commercial event.

The Vatican would not say whether it was planning to strike similar deals with other companies….

(Nick Squires, “Pope Francis allows Sistine Chapel to be rented out for private corporate event, The Telegraph, Oct. 16, 2014)


Meanwhile, Religion News Service has published a brief article on this disgraceful story, quoting the same “Mgr.” Nicolini to the effect that the Sistine Chapel was not available for rent but that this “initiative is organized directly by the Vatican Museums” (source).

Though many people will dismiss this as being of no great concern because “it’s for charity,” our Blessed Lord Himself insisted: “Make not the house of my Father a house of traffic” (Jn 2:16). The motive for this act does not cancel out the act itself.

The Sistine Chapel, or Sacellum Sixtinum, is named after Pope Sixtus IV and was solemnly consecrated on August 15, 1483. The beautiful frescoes that grace the inside were painted by the famous Michelangelo under Pope Julius II in the early 16th century, as recounted in the popular movie The Agony and the Ecstasy. Aside from the various artistic works found in it, the Sistine Chapel is well-known for being the place where papal elections (“conclaves”) are held after a Pope dies.

Over the last 19 months, and in his years as “archbishop” of Buenos Aires, Francis has shown that he has no regard for the honor of God, no sense of the sacred, and no respect for Catholic doctrine or morals, as is clear from the links offered below. This latest attack on what Catholics hold dear is no surprise, therefore, though one shudders to imagine what might be next.

In 1994, a French priest mystically received knowledge of what purported to be the true Third Secret of Fatima given by Our Lady to Sr. Lucia in Portugal in 1917. The text, which can be read in English here, predicts horrendous evils afflicting the Catholic Church in the future (i.e. after 1917): “The church will bleed from all her wounds. There will be a wicked council planned and prepared that will change the countenance of the Church. Many will lose the Faith; confusion will reign everywhere. The sheep will search for their shepherds in vain. A schism will tear apart the holy tunic of My Son…” (full text here).

We do not know whether this is truly what it claims to be, namely the Third Secret of Fatima, but if it is, it is clear that we have been living through it.

May Almighty God in his mercy deign to deliver us from the False Church of Vatican II and its false shepherds, especially Jorge Bergoglio, Antipope Francis!

UPDATE 20-OCT-14: Porsche Event in Sistine Chapel took place as planned

Related Links:


Vienna’s Homo-Heretic weighs in...

schonborn.jpg

“Cardinal” Schönborn Lauds “Exemplary Behavior” of Homo-Couples who “Faithfully Care” for One Another


It’s the last thing we needed: Vienna’s pervert-endorser-in-chief, Mr. Christoph Schonborn, opened his mouth again in favor of sodomite couples. In the October 14 edition of Corriere della Sera, the “cardinal-archbishop” of Vienna praised the “human values” supposedly found in homosexual unions that are “based on lifelong fidelity and mutual caring.” He claimed that our Lord Jesus Christ opened Heaven even for tax collectors and prostitutes, without, however, mentioning the minor detail that Christ was referring to repentant sinners, rather than those who persist in mortal sin (“Go, and now sin no more” — Jn 8:11). 

Apparently Schonborn also never came across St. Paul, who said in rather politically-incorrect words, “Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10). Nothing in there about “lifelong fidelity” or “mutual caring” which some of these idolaters, drunkards, perverts, etc. no doubt exhibited!

Schonborn insisted on separating the perverse sexuality from the positive “human values” found in such relationships, going so far as to claim that oftentimes bishops and priests have cause to “bow down in reverence” before the “exemplary human behavior” of practicing sodomites. In other words, he sees fidelity as a good in itself, regardless of what someone is actually faithful to, such as, in this case, mortal sin, fleshly lusts so perverse that they cry to Heaven for vengeance, meriting from Almighty God merciless destruction by fire and brimstone (see Gen 19:24)! Somehow our Lord must have forgotten to take into consideration the “care” and “loyalty” some of these perverts no doubt had for each other!

Schonborn further related that he himself knows of such an “exemplary” homosexual couple living in a civil union in Vienna that exhibited precisely such “human values”: When one of the two fell seriously ill, the other faithfully remained at his side: “It was wonderful, in a human as well as a Christian sense, to see the one care so much for the other”, the Austrian apostate said, while also “clarifying”, of course, that the church could not accept homosexuality.

The full interview, currently only available in Italian, can be accessed here:


For those who don’t know the man, Schonborn is no insignificant little oddball — he’s a giant in the New Church. Here’s some background:


In short, Schonborn is Satanic. But wait — there’s more! Ready for the best one?


You can’t make this stuff up!

Related Links:


It was “Mad Monday”...

The Day After:

francis-waves.jpg

Surveying the Landscape after the First Synod Document causes Chaos in Novus Ordo Land


Ladies and gentlemen, it’s a
bloodbath. When the first synod document was released yesterday, Oct. 13, there was no stopping the avalanche of shock, horror, outrage, confusion, bewilderment, and — from the other Novus Ordo side — glee, excitement, and (dare we say it?) triumphalism!

Chaos Frank has struck again, and this time perhaps more than ever before in his 19-month reign as the leader of the institution that falsely claims to be the Catholic Church. We’d like to take a moment now and survey the landscape, so to speak, of reaction among the Novus Ordo populace, especially those who have been trying most vociferously to defend the more and more obviously ludicrous idea that Jorge Bergoglio is actually the Pope of the Catholic Church.

About a week ago, we published a timely post entitled, “How Long Until Schism? The Novus Ordo Sect on the Brink of Chaos.” On cue, just like clockwork, it all seems to be happening more or less exactly the way we predicted it. There is chaos, confusion, lots of tension, and now the threat of schism is starting be talked about more openly than before. Read on.

The morning of Oct. 13, the Vatican released the first synod document, a sort-of “mid-term report” filled with summaries of the salient points of the different ideas offered during the first week of discussions that took place in the assemblies. This document, known as the Relatio Post Disceptationem (“Report after Discussions”), serves as the fundamental working paper for further discussion at the synod. Though it is by no means a “magisterial” document, it certainly signals the general direction in which things are headed.

This document is available on the Vatican web site here:

Our initial commentary and analysis of the document can be found here:


Shortly after the document was released, and people had a chance to peruse it, a flood of reactions began to pour in. Vatican commentator John Thavis called it a “pastoral earthquake”, and the leftist Tablet referred to the paper as heralding a “major shift in the Church’s pastoral care.” The indult blog Rorate Caeli denounced the document as creating a “New Gospel” while “Fr. Z” (Rev. John Zuhlsdorf) warned his readers of a “Synod of the Media”.

The U.K. blogger Mundabor accused Francis of dancing Tango with Satan (see Part 1 and Part 2) while Louie Verrecchio pointed out that excrement had begun to hit the fan. A newly-formed pro-family group called Voice of the Family quickly issued a statement on the document, calling it a “betrayal” of Catholic parents worldwide.

Michael Voris intrepidly reported directly from Rome on the Synod’s “Confused, Contradictory Chaos”, yet conveniently failed to mention Francis’ involvement in the whole spectacle (we call his program The Ignore-tex for a reason). At the same time, Jimmy Akin offered another 12 Things to Know and Share, and Christopher Ferrara is praying for a miracle as he denounces this “devilish piece of trash.”

At one point, “Cardinal” Peter Erdo, official rapporteur of the Synod, was asked to clarify the document’s outrageous and explosive statements on homosexuality and sodomitical behavior, yet refused, instead pointing the reporter to “Archbishop” Bruno Forte, identifying him as the author of the controversial paragraphs. (Background information on this episode has since been provided by Sandro Magister, here.) What must not be glossed over here is that Forte is known to be an extreme liberal, and it was none other than then-“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger who personally consecrated him a “bishop” in 2004. Chris Ferrara at The Remnant blasted Ratzinger for this at the time (see “Ratzinger Personally Consecrates Neo-Modernist Bishop”), denouncing him as a conniving “ecclesial termite”, only to begin hailing him as the great stalwart of Tradition (“Pope Benedict XVI”) a few weeks later, when the wind blew in a different direction.

John Vennari of Catholic Family News came up with the ultimate solution: Write your Nuncio! Vennari posted:

URGENT – SYNOD POISED TO SURRENDER CATHOLIC TRUTH!

Send Your Concerns Immediately to the U.S. Apostolic Delegate

WRITE TO United States Nuncio to demand NO CHANGE WHATSOVER on the Catholic teaching and practice on marriage, family life and perverse lifestyles, and to demand absolute fidelity to the received teaching of the Church, as found in Pius XI’s Casti Cannubii [sic].

(source)


Yeah,
that’s it! See, if only a few more people had signed The Remnant’s grand petition to “Stop the Synod” — it didn’t even get 1,400 signatures by October 5 — all this chaos could perhaps have been averted! Maybe Vennari forgot that the nuncio has a boss, and his name is “Pope Francis,” the one whom Vennari has forbidden from teaching religion to his children. We’ve said it before and say it again to all those Neo-Trads: Actions have consequences. If you accept a Modernist as Pope, then you must live with the Modernist consequences. Stop complaining — you are the problem just as much, because without people’s acknowledgement of the man as the head of the Catholic Church, he would have no power whatsoever! All the strength of his revolution lies in the idea that he is the head of the Catholic Church. The more people abandon this silly idea, the more quickly this whole mess will come to an end.

Later on October 13, Vatican Radio released an interview with the head of the conference of Polish Novus Ordo bishops, who said the Synod document was “unacceptable” and it contradicted the teaching of John Paul II. (Never mind it contradicting the true Catholic teaching before Vatican II — at this point, the situation is so bad they can’t even get continuity within their own Modernism!)

francis-scary.jpg

Kelly Bowring, a Modernist theologian with sympathies for real Catholicism and an ardent promoter of end-times prophecy (danger! stay away!), published a brief blog post asking whether a new schism had just begun, and he answers in the affirmative: “Quite likely yes.” Just a few days before, Bowring had released an explosive “Open Letter to Pope Francis” in which he threatened schism should Francis continue to go down the road he has indicated in so many ways. Our analysis and commentary of Bowring’s manifesto can be found here.

Speaking of schism…. This past Thursday, the Paraguayan Opus Dei “bishop” whom Francis just removed from office, Rogelio Livieres Plano, used his blog to openly warn of an emerging schism, saying: "The situation is very grave and I’m not the first to notice that, regretfully, we’re facing the danger of a great schism” (source). We’ve been saying for a while now that a schism among Novus Orods is inevitable, and in fact has already begun in a microscopic way in the “Resignationists” who believe Benedict XVI is still Pope, or that “Cardinal” Scola was really elected (more on that here). Journalist Antonio Socci’s book disputing the validity of Francis’ election adds fuel to this fire, which, it seems, must soon cause a gigantic explosion. There are more and more people who simply cannot take Francis’ daily open trashing of Catholicism any longer.

On October 14, The Catholic World Report published a mini-interview with “Cardinal” Raymond Burke, pretty much the last great hope of the Novus Ordo neo-conservatives in this whole spectacle, but whose position of influence in the Vatican has been waning under Francis:


This does not, of course, prevent some others from being in denial about what is happening. The “iPadre” Rev. Jay Finelli still believes all will turn out well, and of course Mark Shea, who draws a paycheck from EWTN, always has an answer for you — it’s all a matter of you getting it all wrong, you not knowing what the Gospel really is, you needing to be educated by people like him!

Whew, are you exhausted yet? This is just the beginning. If all this happens from a single draft document, can you imagine what will happen when a real text is released? You can’t make this stuff up!

And now for a few concluding thoughts.

At World Youth Day in Rio 2013, “Pope” Francis said to the participants, “Make a mess! I want a mess!” Well, he got one. We’ve been calling him “Chaos Frank” since almost the beginning, because the signs were there. Chaos indeed he has unleashed, and it will only get worse. He didn’t come this far only to make a U-turn now.

The Modernist Revolution has been with us since it began in 1958, so that’s nothing new. What’s new is that things are so blatant and so advanced now that a rift is beginning to occur within the Modernist Vatican II Church itself, between those who would rally behind Francis and accelerate the apostasy even more, and those who would gather behind Benedict XVI, so to speak, mistakenly thinking that in him and the Novus Ordo Sect before Francis they will find the solution and salvation they seek, but which was just the necessary transitional prelude to the Bergoglian Church.

By the way, this outrageous idea of finding “elements” of Holy Matrimony in fornication-cohabitation which the Synod document talks about, isn’t new. Jorge Bergoglio himself mentioned it approvingly in a book he published in 2010, and this is something we blasted him for from the very beginning, when people like Chris Ferrara at The Remnant were still busy trying to spin the man as a Catholic and complaining that people like us were just rushing to judgment about Francis, when the proof was already in the pudding as his public record in Buenos Aires spoke for itself. But these people are now once again acting as though they are the ones everyone should listen to, when they first tried all they could to make Francis look like a Catholic and only turned on him once it became patently impossible to continue the charade. Buyer, beware!

francis-high-priest.jpg


It is an absolute theological freak show in Rome at this point. Finding “positive” aspects in fornication, adultery, sodomy? Poor St. John the Baptist (see Matthew 14) — he could have kept his head attached to his neck if only he had known about what the “Holy Spirit” would be telling the Vatican in the future. You see, if he had only avoided such “insensitive” language against King Herod, language that clearly “discriminated” against him, making him feel “unwelcome” and “judged”, oh, how much more could have been accomplished! If only the Baptist had recognized the “good elements” in the king’s adultery, all would have been well!
Mark Shea guarantees it!

Likewise, our Blessed Lord: Instead of “encouraging” the woman at the well to strive for the “ideal” of a valid marriage, He flat-out told her, "For thou hast had five husbands: and he whom thou now hast, is not thy husband” (Jn 4:18). That is so insensitive! What about the positive aspects of her adultery? What about the “fidelity” and “love” she was surely showing to her “Husband No. 5”? Wasn’t she making sacrifices and such? Didn’t she cook him meals? Clearly, the Holy Spirit of 2000 years ago hadn’t yet “smelled the scent of the people.” Good thing we’ve got Bergoglio now to straighten it all out! 

You can only laugh at this silly Francis Show in the Vatican. Whoever still believes that this sect of heretics and blasphemers is the Catholic Church, can’t be helped. And please don’t say, “There have been bad Popes before!” This isn’t about a Pope who is morally bad. This is about a man who does not hold the Catholic Faith. See our post explaining this crucial distinction here:

And in case you’re wondering, “Now What?”, we have some answers here

Fasten your seatbelts, for this is only the beginning!

Related Links:


First Document causes Chaos...

A Nod to Sin at the Synod:

Gathering finds “Elements” of Holy Matrimony in Fornication & Adultery, wants to “Accept & Value” Homosexual “Orientation”

synod2014.jpg


Vatican commentator John Thavis has called it a “pastoral earthquake”: The Extraordinary Synod on the Family currently underway in the Vatican has just released its first post-discussion document (relatio post disceptationem), an initial position paper, if you will, or draft of ideas and suggestions to be considered and discussed in the coming days at the synod itself and in the next 12 months before the final decisions are made at next year’s Ordinary Synod in October 2015.

As was to be expected, the document, which was read aloud at the assembly on Oct. 13, is filled with endless Modernist prattle about “mutual respect”, “cultural realities”, “socio-economic factors”, etc., ad nauseam. But the salient point of the relatio can be summed up thus: While paying lipservice to Catholic dogma, the document encourages “Catholics” to focus on the positive aspects supposedly found in “irregular” situations (read: fornication, adultery, sodomy) and thereby gradually help such people to embrace the Gospel’s teaching about marriage and the family. John Thavis summarized it this way:

While defending the traditional teachings that reject divorce and gay marriage, the synod said the modern church must focus more on the “positive elements” in such relationships, rather than their shortcomings, and open a patient and merciful dialogue with the people involved. The ultimate aim, it said, is to use these “seeds” of goodness to bring people more fully into the church.

(John Thavis, “A Pastoral Earthquake at the Synod”, Oct. 13, 2014)


Sound familiar? It’s Vatican II Reloaded. Just as the council discovered “elements” of “sanctification and truth” in other religions (see Lumen Gentium, n. 8; Nostra Aetate, n. 2), so today’s Novus Ordo bishops don’t see why such elements couldn’t also be found in people who are cohabiting without being married or who live in a state of adultery. Though the document does not explicitly say so, it hints at the same considerations applying to sodomitical unions, something that, in any case, would be merely a logical consequence of this principle. Hey, there’s a little bit of virtue in every vice, eh?!

We are reminded of the stern warning of the prophet Isaias: "Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” (Is 5:20). Sodomy is a sin crying to Heaven for vengeance!

Let’s have a look at some of the more explosive quotes from the Synod document (all underlining added by us):

In considering the principle of gradualness in the divine salvific plan, one asks what possibilities are given to married couples who experience the failure of their marriage, or rather how it is possible to offer them Christ’s help through the ministry of the Church. In this respect, a significant hermeneutic key comes from the teaching of Vatican Council II, which, while it affirms that “although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure … these elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward Catholic unity” (Lumen Gentium, 8).

In this light, the value and consistency of natural marriage must first be emphasized. Some ask whether the sacramental fullness of marriage does not exclude the possibility of recognizing positive elements even the imperfect forms that may be found outside this nuptial situation, which are in any case ordered in relation to it. The doctrine of levels of communion, formulated by Vatican Council II, confirms the vision of a structured way of participating in the Mysterium Ecclesiae by baptized persons.

In the same perspective, that we may consider inclusive, the Council opens up the horizon for appreciating the positive elements present in other religions (cf. Nostra Aetate, 2) and cultures, despite their limits and their insufficiencies (cf. Redemptoris Missio, 55). Indeed, looking at the human wisdom present in these, the Church learns how the family is universally considered as the necessary and fruitful form of human cohabitation. In this sense, the order of creation, in which the Christian vision of the family is rooted, unfolds historically, in different cultural and geographical expressions.

Realizing the need, therefore, for spiritual discernment with regard to cohabitation, civil marriages and divorced and remarried persons, it is the task of the Church to recognize those seeds of the Word that have spread beyond its visible and sacramental boundaries. Following the expansive gaze of Christ, whose light illuminates every man (cf. Jn 1,9; cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22), the Church turns respectfully to those who participate in her life in an incomplete and imperfect way, appreciating the positive values they contain rather than their limitations and shortcomings.

Truth and beauty of the family and mercy

The Gospel of the family, while it shines in the witness of many families who live coherently their fidelity to the sacrament, with their mature fruits of authentic daily sanctity must also nurture those seeds that are yet to mature, and must care for those trees that have dried up and wish not to be neglected.

In this respect, a new dimension of today’s family pastoral consists of accepting the reality of civil marriage and also cohabitation, taking into account the due differences. Indeed, when a union reaches a notable level of stability through a public bond, is characterized by deep affection, responsibility with regard to offspring, and capacity to withstand tests, it may be seen as a germ to be accompanied in development towards the sacrament of marriage.

A new sensitivity in today’s pastoral consists in grasping the positive reality of civil weddings and, having pointed out our differences, of cohabitation. It is necessary that in the ecclesial proposal, while clearly presenting the ideal, we also indicate the constructive elements in those situations that do not yet or no longer correspond to that ideal.

It was also noted that in many countries an “an increasing number live together ad experimentum, in unions which have not been religiously or civilly recognized” (Instrumentum Laboris, 81). In Africa this occurs especially in traditional marriages, agreed between families and often celebrated in different stages. Faced by these situations, the Church is called on to be “the house of the Father, with doors always wide open […] where there is a place for everyone, with all their problems” (Evangelii Gaudium, 47) and to move towards those who feel the need to take up again their path of faith, even if it is not possible to celebrate a religious marriage.

In the West as well there is an increasingly large number of those who, having lived together for a long period of time, ask to be married in the Church. Simple cohabitation is often a choice inspired by a general attitude, which is opposed to institutions and definitive undertakings, but also while waiting for a secure existence (a steady job and income). In other countries common-law marriages are very numerous, not because of a rejection of Christian values as regards the family and matrimony, but, above all, because getting married is a luxury, so that material poverty encourages people to live in common-law marriages. Furthermore in such unions it is possible to grasp authentic family values or at least the wish for them. Pastoral accompaniment should always start from these positive aspects.

All these situations have to be dealt with in a constructive manner, seeking to transform them into opportunities to walk towards the fullness of marriage and the family in the light of the Gospel. They need to be welcomed and accompanied with patience and delicacy. With a view to this, the attractive testimony of authentic Christian families is important, as subjects for the evangelization of the family.


Caring for wounded families (the separated, the divorced who have not remarried, the divorced who have remarried)

What rang out clearly in the Synod was the necessity for courageous pastoral choices. Reconfirming forcefully the fidelity to the Gospel of the family, the Synodal Fathers, felt the urgent need for new pastoral paths, that begin with the effective reality of familial fragilities, recognizing that they, more often than not, are more “endured” than freely chosen. These are situations that are diverse because of personal as well as cultural and socio-economic factors. It is not wise to think of unique solutions or those inspired by a logic of “all or nothing”....

Each damaged family first of all should be listened to with respect and love, becoming companions on the journey as Christ did with the disciples of the road to Emmaus. In a particular way the words of Pope Francis apply in these situations: «The Church will have to initiate everyone – priests, religious and laity – into this “art of accompaniment”, which teaches us to remove our sandals before the sacred ground of the other (cf. Ex 3,5). The pace of this accompaniment must be steady and reassuring, reflecting our closeness and our compassionate gaze which also heals, liberates and encourages growth in the Christian life» (Evangelii Gaudium, 169).

Various Fathers underlined the necessity to make the recognition of cases of nullity more accessible and flexible….

As regards matrimonial suits, the speeding-up of the procedure, requested by many, as well as the preparation of a sufficient number of operators, clerics and lay people, dedicating themselves to this, requires an increase in the responsibilities of the diocesan bishop, who in his diocese might charge a specially trained priest who would be able to offer the parties advice on the validity of their marriage….

In the same way the situation of the divorced who have remarried demands a careful discernment and an accompaniment full of respect, avoiding any language or behavior that might make them feel discriminated against. For the Christian community looking after them is not a weakening of its faith and its testimony to the indissolubility of marriage, but rather it expresses precisely its charity in its caring.

As regards the possibility of partaking of the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, some argued in favor of the present regulations because of their theological foundation, others were in favor of a greater opening on very precise conditions when dealing with situations that cannot be resolved without creating new injustices and suffering. For some, partaking of the sacraments might occur were it preceded by a penitential path – under the responsibility of the diocesan bishop –, and with a clear undertaking in favor of the children. This would not be a general possibility, but the fruit of a discernment applied on a case-by-case basis, according to a law of gradualness, that takes into consideration the distinction between state of sin, state of grace and the attenuating circumstances.

Welcoming homosexual persons

Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge. The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.

Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.

The transmission of life and the challenge of the declining birthrate

Probably here as well what is required is a In this light, we should go back to the message of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae of Paul VI, which underlines the need to respect the dignity of the person in the moral evaluation of the methods of birth control….


(Relatio Post Disceptationem, in “Family synod: full text of the mid-term report”, Catholic Herald, Oct. 13, 2014; some minor formatting and typographical edits made.)


Wow! What can one say to this? Perhaps we are supposed to be consoled and encouraged that the Vatican II Church still “affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman.” That’s nice to know: The abominable sin of sodomy is not exactly the same as the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony — how reassuring!

Notice also the blasphemous reference to Exodus 3:5, where God in the burning bush says to Moses: “Come not nigh hither, put off the shoes from thy feet: for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground” (source). The Synod’s Relatio, quoting Francis’ outrageous Evangelii Gaudium, applies this not to God but to man (“the other”), as though he were the “holy ground” before which one ought to remove one’s shoes! Once again Francis blasphemes, as he has done numerous times in the past, such as when he made the Crucifixion the punch line of a joke (see here).

With regard to fornication and adultery, then, the Synod’s position is that although these mortal sins may possess “elements” of marriage, nevertheless they do not have the fullness of married life, which subsists only in the Sacrament of Matrimony. As the text admits, this is simply a logical extension of Vatican II’s Frankenchurch heresy, because once you admit the principle of “elements of truth and goodness”, there’s no reason why it could apply only to some things and not to others. (For more on the Frankenchurch heresy, be sure to watch this exciting debate and read the documentation provided.)

These ideas, by the way, are 100% Jorge Bergoglio. In his 2010 book On Heaven and Earth, which he co-authored with his rabbi friend Abraham Skorka, the future “Pope” Francis wrote that fornication does not have the “fullness” or “greatness” of marriage and that a priest does not have the right to tell a penitent what to do because this would constitute “spiritual harassment” — see our post here:

Yes, this is like saying that sewage does not have the “greatness” of drinking water. It may be technically correct, but misses the point entirely and is dangerously misleading.

In practice, all this wordy pseudo-theology amounts to saying that married Catholics should tell people living in sin, “What you have is good, but what we have is better!” This sort of strategy, even if it were theoretically justifiable (which it is not), never works and is based on a denial of original sin and its consequences. It has been tried many times in the past, for example, with regard to not harping on the obligation to assist at Holy Mass on Sundays and rather casting it in the light of an invitation which people are merely “encouraged” to accept. What happened? Empty churches. Invitations, you see, can be declined. Duh!

So, we are once again seeing Vatican II — in its teachings and its methods — being offered as the great “solution” to the problems which the Council and the whole Novus Ordo Sect themselves have brought about or fostered. The disease is again being offered as the cure.

We all know, then, where this is going, and it’s not anywhere good. Just a few days ago we renewed our prediction that a schism is forming within the Vatican II Church, and it seems that this schism has just come a lot closer. And so we ask once again: “How long until Schism?”

>>> MORE COMMENTARY HERE: THE DAY AFTER (Follow-Up Post)

Reality Check:


Related Links:


Looking for More? We only keep the 15 most recent blog posts on this page. For more, check the monthly Wire Archive...


...as well as the News Archive, which we maintained before our Wire Blog:

2013: 01/1302/13
2012: 01-03/1204/1205/1206/1207/1208/1209/1210/1211/1212/12
2011: 02/1105/1108/1110/11
2010: 01/1002/1005/1006/1007/1008/1010/1012/10
2009: 01/0902/0903/0904/0905/0907/0911/09   
2008: 01/0802/0803/0804/0805/0806/0809/0810/0812/08

2007: 01/0706/0707/0708/0709/0710/0711/0712/07
2006: 01/0602/0603/0604/0605/0606/0607/0608/0609/0610/0611/0612/06
2005: 01/0502/0503/0504/0505/0506/0507/0508/0509/0510/0511/0512/05
2004: 01/0402/0403/0404/0405/0406/0407/0408/0409/0410/0411/0412/04
2003: 01-03/0304-05/0306/0307/0308/0309/0310/0311/0312/03

2002: 10-12/02

Disclaimer:
We are not responsible for the content of externally-linked web pages. We do not necessarily endorse the content linked, unless this is explicitly stated. When linked content is endorsed by Novus Ordo Watch, this endorsement does not necessarily extend to everything expressed by the organization, entity, editor, or author of said content.

Fair Use Notice:

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.