Sts. Peter & Paul Sung Latin Mass

Sts. Peter & Paul Sung Latin Mass
Toronto Latin Mass

Monday, 26 June 2017

James Martin, S.J. "homosexual-sex obsessed" and the "ravings of a lunatic."

It's about time.

It's about time someone other than the poor suffering laity and Joseph Sciambra have called out James Martin, S.J., for his homosexual obsession.

Sometimes it takes hard, seemingly coarse language, such as the "ravings of a lunatic," to wake up the man at the core of the problem and his superiors.

James Martin is a priest in desperate need of correction. His Superiors have betrayed him just as he continues to betray Christ and His people, particularly those suffering from same-sex attraction.

James Martin, S.J., hates "gay" men. if he did not, he would not tweet his praise of "pride," as he did yesterday. James Martin is filled with rage, it is time for him to either get the deep spiritual and psychological help that is needed, preferable through a life of prayer and penance in a Cistercian traditionalist monastery far away from a computer or any other Jesuit!

James Martin hates himself. His actions, particularly of late, are the ravings of someone obsessed. Not with Jesus, not with truth, but with sex between men.

Enough of this rage James, enough!

Enough of your lies, your distortions, your embrace of homosexualism and the work of Satan, whom you have embraced as your god. 

Enough of your projection upon unsuspecting people who are lead astray by your distortions.



http://wdtprs.com/blog/2017/06/homosexual-sex-obsessed-jesuit-v-bp-paprocki-of-springfield-il-action-item/

Homosexual sex obsessed Jesuit v. Bp. Paprocki of Springfield, IL – ACTION ITEM!

action-item-buttonACTION ITEM at the end!
A little while ago, His Excellency Most Reverend Thomas John Paprocki, Bishop of Springfield in Illinois, issued a Decree “Regarding Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ and Related Pastoral Issues.”
This Decree reaffirmed Catholic teaching that a marriage is only possible “between one man and one woman.”
...
You saw how Ed Peters handled one critic HERE.
Immediately, homosexual sex obsessed Jesuit James Martin blasted Bp. Paprocki HERE:
If bishops ban members of same-sex marriages from receiving a Catholic funeral, they also have to be consistent. They must also ban divorced and remarried Catholics who have not received annulments, women who has or man who fathers a child out of wedlock, members of straight couples who are living together before marriage, and anyone using birth control. For those are all against church teaching as well. Moreover, they must ban anyone who does not care for the poor, or care for the environment, and anyone who supports torture, for those are church teachings too. More basically, they must ban people who are not loving, not forgiving and not merciful, for these represent the teachings of Jesus, the most fundamental of all church teachings. To focus only on LGBT people, without a similar focus on the moral and sexual behavior of straight people is, in the words of the Catechism, a “sign of unjust discrimination” (2358).
This, friends, is the raving of a lunatic.
For a complete review of homosexual sex obsessed Jesuit James Martin v. Bp. Paprocki, try HERE, a blog by a Catholic man who suffered with same-sex affliction and is now striving to live a holy life.
URGENT: In his post he makes a great suggestion: drop Bp. Paprocki a supportive note! The diocese’s contact form and addresses:

Pope Bergoglio refuses "dialogue" and "encounter"

Saturday, 24 June 2017

Pope Bergoglio's silence convicts him

The former Director of the Vatican Bank gives his opinion on the state of the Church under Pope Bergoglio.

What we and others have been saying for four years now is becoming clearer to more and more, nearly daily.

Featured Image


Pope Francis’ silence is a bold denial of objective truth: former Vatican Bank chief

Why doesn’t the Pope respond to the Dubia? The former director of the Vatican Bank thinks he knows why. In a biting essay in Italy’s La Verità, translated below, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi suggests that Francis is sending two messages through his silence: that he can contradict himself if he likes and that he wishes to impose a “New Catholic Morality” on the Church. This new morality would be based not on doctrine but on the subjective opinions of the individual conscience. Meanwhile, Amoris Laetitia’s denial of eternal damnation contradicts Jesus’ assertions in the Gospel that sinners are indeed in danger of this fate. Ultimately, Francis’ silence — which allows doubts to continue to flourish — is a denial of objective truth.  
June 23, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — I see two implicit messages in the Pope’s failure to answer the dubia. The first implicit message is “I can contradict myself if I want to.” At the start of the Synod on the Family (October 2014), the Pope invited the cardinals to speak openly and frankly, without fear of embarrassing the Pope (the famous parresia). And yet for months the Pope has refused to respond privately or publicly to the dubia expressed by four cardinals who represent a large part of the faithful.

Read the rest at: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/pope-francis-silence-is-a-bold-denial-of-objective-truth-former-vatican-ban

Friday, 23 June 2017

Oh, how these heretics in the Church hate Cardinal Sarah

The liberals and heretics in the Church are speechless. They are between a rock and a very hard place. They hate Cardinal Sarah, but they can't hate him too much because he is an African.  

You can thank Archbiship Marcel Lefebvre for these faithful Africans. May they come to rescue us from our modern paganism.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/june-23rd-2017/why-cardinal-sarah-terrifies-his-critics/


Why Cardinal Sarah terrifies his critics

Cardinal Sarah's opponents have attacked his views and called for his sacking. His response has been a gracious silence

A growing crowd wants Cardinal Robert Sarah’s head on a platter. Open a liberal Catholic periodical and you are likely to find a call for the dismissal of the Guinean cardinal who heads the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship: “It’s past time for [Pope Francis] to replace Cardinal Sarah” (Maureen Fiedler, National Catholic Reporter); “New wine might be needed at the Congregation for Divine Worship” (Christopher Lamb, the Tablet); “Curia officials who refuse to get with Francis’s programme should leave. Or the Pope should send them somewhere else” (Robert Mickens, Commonweal); “Francis must put his foot down. Cardinals like Robert Sarah … may feel that with a papacy heading in the wrong direction, foot-dragging is a duty. But that does not mean Francis has to put up with them” (The Editors, the Tablet).

Sarah was not always treated as the most dangerous man in Christendom. When he was appointed to his post by Pope Francis in 2014, he enjoyed the goodwill even of those who criticise him today. Mickens described him as “unambitious, a good listener and, despite showing a clear conservative side since coming to Rome … a ‘Vatican II man’ ”. Lamb was told by his sources that Sarah was someone liberals could like, the kind of bishop who was sympathetic to “inculturation”. John Allen summed up the consensus around the Vatican: Sarah was a low-profile bishop, “warm, funny and modest”.

All that changed on October 6, 2015, the third day of the contentious synod on the family. The synod fathers were riven by the seemingly competing demands of reaching out to people who felt stigmatised by the Church’s sexual teaching and boldly proclaiming truth to a hostile world. In what has come to be known as the “apocalyptic beasts” speech, Sarah insisted that both were possible. “We are not contending against creatures of flesh and blood,” he told his brother bishops. “We need to be inclusive and welcoming to all that is human.” But the Church must still proclaim the truth in the face of two great challenges. “On the one hand, the idolatry of Western freedom; on the other, Islamic fundamentalism: atheistic secularism versus religious fanaticism.”

As a young priest, Sarah studied at the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem and planned a dissertation on “Isaiah, Chapters 9-11, in Light of Northwestern Semitic Linguistics: Ugaritic, Phoenician and Punic”. So it is no surprise that he employed biblical language to make his point. Western freedom and Islamic fundamentalism, he told the assembly, were like two “apocalyptic beasts”. The image comes from the Book of Revelation, which describes how two beasts will attack the Church. The first comes out of the sea with seven heads, 10 horns, and blasphemy on its lips. The second rises out of the land performing great wonders, and persuades the world to worship the first.

This strange dynamic – one monstrous threat leading men to embrace the other – is what Sarah sees at work in our own time. Fear of religious repression induces some to worship an idolatrous freedom. (I recall the time I found myself the only man left sitting when Ayaan Hirsi Ali ended a speech by asking her audience to give an ovation “To blasphemy!”) On the other hand, attacks on human nature tempt some to embrace the false reassurance of religious fundamentalism, which has its most horrible expression under the black flag of ISIS. Each evil tempts those who fear it to succumb to its opposite. As with communism and Nazism in the 20th century, both must be resisted.

Archbishop Stanisław Gądecki, head of the Polish bishops’ conference, wrote that Sarah’s intervention was made at a “very high theological and intellectual level”, but others seemed to miss its meaning altogether. Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Brisbane decried the use of “apocalyptic language”. (One wonders what he makes of the rest of John’s Revelation.) “The boys don’t like to be reminded of judgment,” quipped one cardinal after Sarah spoke.

A prominent Vatican watcher wrote to me from Rome: “He stepped in it today by talking about the two beasts of the Apocalypse. His popable stock took a hit.” Fr James Martin SJ claimed that Sarah had violated the Catechism, “which asks us to treat LGBT people with ‘respect, compassion and sensitivity’ ”.

One sometimes wants to ask whether, for Catholics like Fr Martin, there are any words in which the Church’s sexual teaching can be defended – since they seem never to employ them. Still, the reaction to Sarah’s speech probably had more to do with simple illiteracy than any difference in principle. Cardinal Wilfred Napier of Durban said in the run-up to the synod that Europeans suffer from a “widespread ignorance and rejection not only of Church teaching but also Scripture”. He was right. Those who do not live in Scripture and know its figures first-hand are more likely to view biblical language as irrelevant or inflammatory.

On October 14, a week after Sarah’s speech, Cardinal Walter Kasper complained about African interventions at the synod. “I can only speak of Germany where the great majority wants an opening about divorce and remarriage. It’s the same in Great Britain, it’s everywhere.” Well, not quite everywhere: “With Africa it’s impossible. But they should not tell us too much what to do.”

Kasper’s dismissal of Sarah and the other Africans prompted an immediate outcry. Obianuju Ekeocha, a Nigerian Catholic who campaigns against abortion, wrote: “Imagine my shock today as I read the words of one of the most prominent synod fathers … As an African woman now living in Europe, I am used to having my moral views and values ignored or put down as an ‘African issue’.”

Cardinal Napier agreed: “It’s a real worry to read an expression like ‘the Pope’s Theologian’ applied to Cardinal Kasper … Kasper isn’t very respectful towards the African Church and its leaders.”

Kasper’s statement was like the breaking of a dam. Since then, a great wave of abuse has poured over Sarah. His critics have described him as uppity, uneducated and possibly criminal – or at least in need of a good beating.

Michael Sean Winters of the National Catholic Reporter reminded Sarah of his role (“Curial cardinals are, after all, staff, exalted staff, but staff”). La Croix’s Fr William Grim called his work “asinine … patently stupid … red-capped idiocy”. Andrea Grillo, a liberal Italian liturgist, wrote: “Sarah has shown, for years, a significant inadequacy and incompetence in the field of liturgy.”

In the Tablet, Fr Anthony Ruff corrected Sarah. “It would be good if he could study the reforms more deeply and understand, for example, what ‘mystery’ means in Catholic theology.” Massimo Faggioli, a vaticanist who haunts Rome’s gelaterias, innocently observed that Sarah’s apocalyptic beasts speech “would be subject to criminal charges in some countries”. (Having ministered for years under the brutal Marxist dictatorship of Sékou Touré, Sarah hardly needs reminding that open profession of Christian belief can be a crime.)

After Pope Francis rejected Sarah’s call last year for priests to celebrate mass ad orientem, contempt for Sarah broke out in a shower of blows: “It is highly unusual for the Vatican to publicly slap down a Prince of the Church, yet not entirely surprising given how Cardinal Sarah has operated…” (Christopher Lamb, Tablet); “the Pope slapped down Cardinal Sarah quite strongly, with only a bit of face-saving spared him,” (Anthony Ruff, Pray Tell); “Pope slaps down Sarah” (Robert Mickens, on Twitter); “Pope Francis … slapped him down” (Mickens again, in Commonweal); “a further slap-down” (Mickens once more, a few months later in La Croix). Added up, it makes for quite a beating.

Exchanging charges of insensitivity is probably not the best way to settle doctrinal disputes, but the rhetoric of Sarah’s critics reveals something important about Catholic life today: in disputes doctrinal, moral and liturgical, liberal Catholics have become ecclesial nationalists.

Traditional Catholics tend to support consistent doctrinal standards and pastoral approaches regardless of national boundaries. If they do not actually prefer the Latin Mass, they want vernacular translations to track the Latin as closely as possible. They are not scandalised by the way Africans speak of homosexuality or Middle Eastern Christians of Islamism.

Liberal Catholics, meanwhile, campaign for vernacular translation written in idiomatic style and approved by national bishops’ conferences, not by Rome. Local realities require truth to be trimmed whenever it crosses a border. Catholic doctrinal statements should be couched in pastorally sensitive language – sensitive, that is, to the sensibilities of the educated, wealthy West.

One of the advantages of ecclesial nationalism is that it allows liberals to avoid arguing on direct doctrinal grounds, where traditional “rigorists” tend to have the upper hand. If truth must be mediated by local realities, no man in Rome or Abuja will have much say over the faith of Brussels and Stuttgart (this was the point behind Kasper’s dismissal of Africans).

One sees this in writers like Commonweal’s Rita Ferrone, who says that rather than heeding Sarah, English speakers should be “trusting our own people and our own wisdom concerning prayer in our native tongue”. The “we” behind that “our” is not global and Catholic, but bourgeois and American.

What if instead of being put back in his place, slapped down and locked up for violating Western speech codes, Sarah becomes pope? This is what his critics fear most. Mickens writes of the dark possibility of a “Pius XIII (also known as Robert Sarah)”. Lamb says that Sarah may turn out to be “the first black Pope”. (That would be a beautiful thing – Sarah’s parents, converts in the remote Guinean village of Ourous, assumed that only white men could become priests and laughed when their son said he wanted to go to seminary.) The same well-connected Vatican watcher who told me that Sarah’s stock fell during the synod now says his fortunes are improving. “People have noticed all the attacks, and his gracious refusal to respond in kind.”

It is indeed remarkable that Sarah has suffered this hail of abuse with such grace. In his newly published book The Power of Silence, we hear his stifled cry of anguish:

I painfully experienced assassination by gossip, slander and public humiliation, and I learned that when a person has decided to destroy you, he has no lack of words, spite and hypocrisy; falsehood has an immense capacity for constructing arguments, proofs and truths out of sand. When this is the behaviour of men of the Church, and in particular of bishops, the pain is still deeper. But … we must remain calm and silent, asking for the grace never to give in to rancour, hatred and feelings of worthlessness. Let us stand firm in our love for God and for his Church, in humility.

Despite it all, Sarah is a man unbowed. His book reiterates his call for Mass ad orientem and the rest of the “reform of the reform”: “God willing, when he wills and as he wills, the reform of the reform will take place in the liturgy. Despite the gnashing of teeth, it will happen, for the future of the Church is at stake.”

If Sarah has refused to make himself pleasing to those who run Rome, he is not about to serve any other party either. In this wonderfully individual book, he tells old Islamic folktales, dotes on the suffering and weak, and decries military intervention: “How can we not be scandalised and horrified by the action of American and Western governments in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria?” Sarah views these as idolatrous outpourings of blood “in the name of the goddess Democracy” and “in the name of Liberty, another Western goddess”. He opposes the effort to build “a religion without borders and a new global ethics”.

If that seems hyperbolic, recall that six days after missiles hit Baghdad, Tony Blair sent George W Bush a memo saying, “Our ambition is big: to construct a global agenda around which we can unite the world … to spread our values of freedom, democracy, tolerance.” Sarah views this programme as something close to blasphemy.

He has equally pungent views on the modern economy: “The Church would commit a fatal mistake if she exhausted herself in giving a sort of social face to the modern world that has been unleashed by free-market capitalism.”

War, persecution, exploitation: all these forces are part of a “dictatorship of noise”, whose incessant slogans distract men and discredit the Church. In order to resist it, Sarah turns to the example of Brother Vincent, a recently deceased young man whom Sarah dearly loved. Only if we love and pray like Vincent can we hear la musica callada, the silent music the angels played for John of the Cross. Yes, this book shows that Sarah has a great deal to say: on the mystical life, the Church and world affairs. But for the most part he keeps silence – while the world talks about him.

Matthew Schmitz is literary editor of First Things and a Robert Novak Journalism Fellow


This article first appeared in the June 23 2017 issue of the Catholic Herald. To read the magazine in full, from anywhere in the world, go here

For God So Loved the World


Act of Consecration of the Human Race
to the Sacred Heart of Jesus

    Most sweet Jesus, Redeemer of the human race, look down upon us humbly prostrate before Thy altar. We are Thine, and Thine we wish to be; but, to be more surely united with Thee, behold each one of us freely consecrates himself today to Thy Most Sacred Heart. Many indeed have never known Thee; many too, despising Thy precepts, have rejected Thee. Have mercy on them all, most merciful Jesus, and draw them to Thy Sacred Heart.

   Be Thou King, O Lord, not only of the faithful who have never forsaken Thee, but also of the prodigal children who have abandoned Thee; grant that they may quickly return to their Father's house lest they die of wretchedness and hunger.

   Be Thou King of those who are deceived by erroneous opinions, or whom discord keeps aloof; call them back to the harbor of truth and unity of faith, so that soon there may be but one flock and one Shepherd.

   Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism; refuse not to draw them all into the light and kingdom of God. Turn Thine eyes of mercy toward the children of that race, once Thy chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may it now descend upon them a laver of redemption and of life.

   Grant, O Lord, to Thy Church assurance of freedom and immunity from harm; give peace and order to all nations, and make the earth resound from pole to pole with one cry: Praise to the Divine Heart that wrought our salvation; to It be glory and Honor forever. Amen.



Wednesday, 21 June 2017

Guest post: Patronising youth, even if by the Pope is still patronising

A guest post by Irenaeus, a 23 year old reader of Vox and more than slightly put off by the patronising of young Catholics as the new Synod soon comes upon us.





Birds, Bees, Youth, Youth Masses and Yutes

by Irenaeus

When I was in elementary school about ten years ago, sex ed was taught throughout Grades 6 to 8 in the Catholic Ontario school system, during puberty, at precisely the time we needed it. When we weren’t watching informative videos on the reproductive systems or labeling diagrams of said reproductive systems, we were given relative freedom to ask our burning questions about fertilization and the like. Never once did I ask – or hear anyone else do the same – when women and men should have their first child.

Until now.

In preparation for the much-hyped 2018 Synod on the Youth, Faith and Vocational Discernment, Il Vaticano has aggressively pushed for youth aged 16 to 29 to complete a survey which promises to “provide [them] with the opportunity to communicate, express and recount who you are and what you want to say about yourself.” It’s being lauded on social media as the best thing to happen to Catholic youth since sliced bread.

Newsflash: it’s not. And it’s time to stop treating youth like they need special treatment.

In addition to the odd question I mentioned above, the survey asks youth to rank characteristics they feel they consider themselves to possess on a 1-5 rating. Or rank their satisfaction with certain institutions. Indicate their sentiments about the working world. Explain why they live with their parents. Why they are unable to have children. If they involve themselves in society through “movements of some type.” If they are Catholic, and how often they participate in “religious services.” Use certain words to describe God. Describe their view of Jesus. Rank only three things (out of nine!) which they consider to be “of particular urgency for the Catholic Church today.” Describe their habits on “the social network” and view of its importance. You get the picture.

I have a couple questions of my own for the people who put this together, and make it look like it came out of Angus Reid. Who cares? Why is there such a willing desire to dumb things down and appeal to more than Catholic youth? Why do the youth deserve an entire synod devoted just to them?

I’ll tell you why: it’s because the youth have been indoctrinated to think they are special in the Catholic Church and will somehow become its saviours.

Hear me, fellow youth: You’re not. And we already have a Savior. His name is Jesus Christ, Supreme Creator and King of the Universe.

Take it from me. I’m in my early twenties – fitting the demographic range targeted for the survey – and I spend regular time with people who are at least ten years my senior who aren’t my parents. On a weekly basis. We talk about serious matters affecting the Church, and discussions are passionate. I’m spoken to as though I am older than I actually am. Things aren’t watered down for me because I’m younger. I’m given the straight up truth and I regularly peruse other materials to bolster my knowledge. In short, I am taken seriously.
Unlike the survey, which slathers on a veneer of respect in order to coerce youth to agree with its modernist, progressive, Novus Ordo-based ideology.

What deceit. What duplicity. Like those youth Masses which are all the rage. With its guitars. Pop-based music. Priests who step out of the sanctuary in order to connect more with the youth, with horrible, simpering sermons to boot. Along with a host of other abuses I’m not going to mention. The youth may come out, but how many actually stick with Catholicism past high school? Regularly attend Mass once they move away from home? Not become apostates? Or otherwise succumb to destructive ideologies currently running rampant on post-secondary campuses? Though there are some, it’s not as many as the droves of youth who come to your Saturday youth Masses, pastors and youth ministers.

As a youth, I stopped attending those Masses long ago. They are disrespectful to our Lord. They are also disrespectful to the youth, who come there looking for something solid and immutable when their lives are in a swirl of change. They don’t get that in Masses that blatantly ignore the reason we have a Mass in the first place. They don’t get that by being taught watered-down, Protestantized Catholic tenets, which ill-equips them for the real world, which is so anti-Catholic. They don’t get that in youth groups, where they are basically forced to agree with what everyone else is saying, even if they personally don’t. Quite simply, they don’t carry on the faith as they should when they receive “primacy of place” in a place where they shouldn’t. Back when I was a Novus Ordo Catholic, I was involved in these things, and it sickens me I used to think youth were the saviours of the Church.

Pastors and youth ministers, are you willing to take me up on a challenge?

Abolish youth ministry. Get rid of Lifeteen. EDGE. The horrible Alpha program. Pluck the youth Masses out of the Mass schedules. Disband the youth bands. Trash all the terrible, modernist music. Like a particular Jesuit who appears on this blog, you’re losing more souls than you’re saving. In the vacuum that results, have the Mass of the Ages – the Tridentine Latin Mass – and nothing else. Restore Gregorian Chant. Polyphony. Institute a rigid catechesis program. Teach yourself the many abuses of the Mass – anything that diminishes the sacred – and eradicate them.

It won’t be immediate. Or easy. But the return will be more than you’re getting now. Believe me. I’ve seen more return after almost a year of attending the TLM than almost four years of attending the Novus Ordo.

If we simply stopped putting youth on a pedestal, we wouldn’t need to deal with simpering surveys like the one put out by the Vatican. Or deal with priests that give lip service while ill-equipping their charges to face an anti-Catholic world. We need youth to become true Catholics who will carry on the faith after they stop being children. We need adults firm in their faith.

In the meantime, let’s stop using the word youth and replace it with the word ‘yutes.’ It’s what the survey wants us to do, anyway.



Tuesday, 20 June 2017

Saint Jude speaks to us today

Image result for st jude


Epistle of Saint Jude the Apostle

 [1] Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James: to them that are beloved in God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called. [2] Mercy unto you, and peace, and charity be fulfilled. [3] Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. [4] For certain men are secretly entered in, (who were written of long ago unto this judgment,) ungodly men, turning the grace of our Lord God into riotousness, and denying the only sovereign Ruler, and our Lord Jesus Christ. [5] I will therefore admonish you, though ye once knew all things, that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, did afterwards destroy them that believed not:

[6] And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. [7] As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. [8] In like manner these men also defile the flesh, and despise dominion, and blaspheme majesty. [9] When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee. [10] But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things soever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted.

[11] Woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain: and after the error of Balaam they have for reward poured out themselves, and have perished in the contradiction of Core. [12] These are spots in their banquets, feasting together without fear, feeding themselves, clouds without water, which are carried about by winds, trees of the autumn, unfruitful, twice dead, plucked up by the roots, [13] Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own confusion; wandering stars, to whom the storm of darkness is reserved for ever. [14] Now of these Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying: Behold, the Lord cometh with thousands of his saints, [15] To execute judgment upon all, and to reprove all the ungodly for all the works of their ungodliness, whereby they have done ungodly, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against God.

[16] These are murmurers, full of complaints, walking according to their own desires, and their mouth speaketh proud things, admiring persons for gain's sake. [17] But you, my dearly beloved, be mindful of the words which have been spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, [18] Who told you, that in the last time there should come mockers, walking according to their own desires in ungodlinesses. [19] These are they, who separate themselves, sensual men, having not the Spirit. [20] But you, my beloved, building yourselves upon your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,


[21] Keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, unto life everlasting. [22] And some indeed reprove, being judged: [23] But others save, pulling them out of the fire. And on others have mercy, in fear, hating also the spotted garment which is carnal. [24] Now to him who is able to preserve you without sin, and to present you spotless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, [25] To the only God our Saviour through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory and magnificence, empire and power, before all ages, and now, and for all ages of ages. Amen.

An abortion advocate is not enough, now he appoints a euthanasia advocate to the Pontifical Academy for Life

I am beyond words.

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/06/new-pontifical-academy-of-life.html

New Pontifical Academy of Life Appointee Supports Euthanasia by Starvation

An ethics study group for the Italian Jesuit magazine Aggiornamenti Sociali, headed by Fr. Maurizio Chiodi, a newly appointed member of the Pontifical Academy for Life and a theologian of the Northern Italian Theological Faculty of Milan, has joined Italian euthanasia activists in supporting a bill that would legalize physician assisted suicide and/or euthanasia in certain cases. The bill has already been approved by the House and is now before the Italian Senate. 

Fr. Chiodi's study group  cites "proportionalism" to argue that terminally ill cancer patients and those in a persistent vegetative state (like Terri Schaivo - pictured here) should have a legal right to refuse food and water, or to create an advanced healthcare directives for such a euthanasia by starvation and dehydration. Fr. Chiodi's group writes:
2. ... A democratic state is made up of citizens committed to respecting the different ethics, world views and religions, in a context of mutual inclusion and sincere hospitality without trying to impose itself on others..... 

5. A controversial issue concerns artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH), which the draft of the law includes among the treatments that can be refused in an AHD [advance healthcare directive] or advance planning. In Catholic thought it is often stated that these means are always obligatory; in reality, ANH [artificial nutrition and hydration]​ is a medical and technical intervention and as such does not avoid the judgment of proportionality. Nor can it be excluded that sometimes it is no longer able to achieve the purpose of providing nourishment to the patient or the alleviation of suffering. The former case can occur in the illness of terminal cancer; the second [can occur] in a vegetative state which is extend indefinitely, if the patient has previously stated that this prospect is unacceptable. Since it can not be ruled out that in cases like these the ANH [artificial nutrition and hydration] ​becomes a disproportionate treatment, its inclusion among the refusable treatments is correct."


​On the contrary Pope St. John Paul II clearly refuted Fr. Chiodi in this matter in a 2004 address:

4. Medical doctors and health-care personnel, society and the Church have moral duties toward these persons from which they cannot exempt themselves without lessening the demands both of professional ethics and human and Christian solidarity.

The sick person in a vegetative state, awaiting recovery or a natural end, still has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.), and to the prevention of complications related to his confinement to bed. He also has the right to appropriate rehabilitative care and to be monitored for clinical signs of eventual recovery.

I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.

The obligation to provide the "normal care due to the sick in such cases" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Iura et Bona, p. IV) includes, in fact, the use of nutrition and hydration (cf. Pontifical Council "Cor Unum", Dans le Cadre, 2, 4, 4; Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers, Charter of Health Care Workers, n. 120). The evaluation of probabilities, founded on waning hopes for recovery when the vegetative state is prolonged beyond a year, cannot ethically justify the cessation or interruption of minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and hydration. Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission.​

The Pontifical Academy for Life's 2000 Document, "Respect for the Dignity of the Dying" as confirmed by John Paul II similarly stated: "One must always provide ordinary care (including artificial nutrition and hydration), palliative treatment, especially the proper therapy for pain, in a dialogue with the patient which keeps him informed."


​Likewise, a 2007 declaration by the CDF , confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI, declared:

First question: Is the administration of food and water (whether by natural or artificial means) to a patient in a “vegetative state” morally obligatory except when they cannot be assimilated by the patient’s body or cannot be administered to the patient without causing significant physical discomfort?

Response: Yes. The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life. It is therefore obligatory to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which is the hydration and nourishment of the patient. In this way suffering and death by starvation and dehydration are prevented.

Second question: When nutrition and hydration are being supplied by artificial means to a patient in a “permanent vegetative state”, may they be discontinued when competent physicians judge with moral certainty that the patient will never recover consciousness?
Response: No. A patient in a “permanent vegetative state” is a person with fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial means.

February ​2017 also saw the publication of a problematic update to the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers's New Charter for Health Care Workers, paragraph 152 of which affirms: 
"​Nutrition and hydration, even artificially administered are to be considered among the basic cares due to the dying, when they do not become too burdensome or are of some benefit. Their unjustified withdrawal can have the significance of a true and proper act of euthanasia."
The 1995 older version of this text admittedly left room for clarity on this issue, as it had stated in paragraph 120: "... The administration of food and liquids, even artificially, is part of the normal treatment always due to the patient when this is not burdensome for him: their undue suspension could be real and properly so-called euthanasia."

It should be noted that besides his stance in support of euthanasia, Fr. Chiodi also opposes the Church's perennial teaching on contraception. 


Pope not only ignores the Cardinals' dubia, but their request for an Audience

The Pope not only ignores the legitimate questions, the dubia, of four leading Cardinals of the Church, he even ignores their plea for an audience.

Remember friends; your job and mine is to be faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Etneral Father begotten from the beginning, consubstantial with Him and the Second Person in the Unity of the Godhead of the Holy Trinity. Your job is to be faithful to Him. Let us praise the FATHER, SON & HOLY SPIRIT, let us praise Him forever. Put not your trust in princes or popes. You must remain faithful to Jesus and to His Church and to the Papacy as an institution and the Magisterium of teaching of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. You must be faithful to Christ, not to men.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/full-text-of-dubia-cardinals-letter-asking-pope-for-an-audience


 Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, the archbishop emeritus of Bologna, asked for an audience on behalf of the four 'dubia' cardinals.
“Most Holy Father,
It is with a certain trepidation that I address myself to Your Holiness, during these days of the Easter season. I do so on behalf of the Most Eminent Cardinals: Walter Brandmüller, Raymond L. Burke, Joachim Meisner, and myself.
We wish to begin by renewing our absolute dedication and our unconditional love for the Chair of Peter and for Your august person, in whom we recognize the Successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus: the “sweet Christ on earth,” as Saint Catherine of Siena was fond of saying. We do not share in the slightest the position of those who consider the See of Peter vacant, nor of those who want to attribute to others the indivisible responsibility of the Petrine munus. We are moved solely by the awareness of the grave responsibility arising from the munus of cardinals: to be advisers of the Successor of Peter in his sovereign ministry. And from the Sacrament of the Episcopate, which “has placed us as bishops to pasture the Church, which He has acquired with his blood” (Acts 20:28).
On September 19, 2016 we delivered to Your Holiness and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith five dubia, asking You to resolve uncertainties and to bring clarity on some points of the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.
Not having received any response from Your Holiness, we have reached the decision to ask You, respectfully and humbly, for an Audience, together if Your Holiness would like. We attach, as is the practice, an Audience Sheet in which we present the two points we wish to discuss with you.
Most Holy Father,
A year has now gone by since the publication of Amoris Laetitia. During this time, interpretations of some objectively ambiguous passages of the post-synodal Exhortation have publicly been given that are not divergent from, but contrary to, the permanent Magisterium of the Church. Despite the fact that the Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith has repeatedly declared that the doctrine of the Church has not changed, numerous statements have appeared from individual Bishops, Cardinals, and even Episcopal Conferences, approving what the Magisterium of the Church has never approved. Not only access to the Holy Eucharist for those who objectively and publicly live in a situation of grave sin, and intend to remain in it, but also a conception of moral conscience contrary to the Tradition of the Church. And so it is happening — how painful it is to see this! — that what is sin in Poland is good in Germany, that what is prohibited in the archdiocese of Philadelphia is permitted in Malta. And so on. One is reminded of the bitter observation of B. Pascal: “Justice on this side of the Pyrenees, injustice on the other; justice on the left bank of the river, injustice on the right bank.”
Numerous competent lay faithful, who are deeply in love with the Church and staunchly loyal to the Apostolic See, have turned to their Pastors and to Your Holiness in order to be confirmed in the Holy Doctrine concerning the three sacraments of Marriage, Confession, and the Eucharist. And in these very days, in Rome, six lay faithful, from every Continent, have presented a very well-attended study seminar with the meaningful title: “Bringing clarity.”
Faced with this grave situation, in which many Christian communities are being divided, we feel the weight of our responsibility, and our conscience impels us to ask humbly and respectfully for an Audience.
May Your Holiness remember us in Your prayers, as we pledge to remember You in ours. And we ask for the gift of Your Apostolic Blessing.
Carlo Card. Caffarra
Rome, April 25, 2017
Feast of Saint Mark the Evangelist
*
AUDIENCE SHEET
1. Request for clarification of the five points indicated by the dubia; reasons for this request.
2. Situation of confusion and disorientation, especially among pastors of souls, in primis parish priests.”


Monday, 19 June 2017

Are you a member of the Arian Catholic Church?

A few years ago, I was at a dinner at my sister's. A cousin was there, a former Resurrectionist Priest who left the priesthood of Jesus Christ some time back in the 1970's and married a former Mother Superior. When he "blest" dinner, because he was a priest after all and my sister seemed to think it appropriate I interrupted him: "You have forgotten something Wayne, let me remind you, In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."

After dinner we got in to a conversation where he told me that Jesus was not God, just the most perfect man. I was disgusted by this heretic and said, "Oh, so you're an Arian."

You see, he is not the only one. 

I think the majority of priests who went to seminary between 1950 and 1980 are Arians.

Including this one.

Screen Shot 2017-06-18 at 23.13.17

Screen Shot 2017-06-18 at 23.15.13

After all, if He isn't God, why would you kneel?

What I want to know, is how does Guido Marini and any other priest or monsignor of any faith continue to serve in their roles. Are they not scandalise by the behaviour of a man who refuses to kneel before the "very God," but can grovel on the ground to wash the feet of man? 

Or women.

Image result for pope francis washing feet



Saturday, 17 June 2017

James Martin, S.J. a man desperately in need of God, a priest adrift from the reality of Christ

Can there be any doubt that the mind of James Martin, a Jesuit priest is distorted beyond any semblance of reason in matter of the faith?

In an interview with the New York Times, Martin stated, “Pretty much everyone’s lifestyle is sinful,”

Image result for james martin s.j.Martin recently stated that the catechism needs to be changed. Homosexual orientation is "objectively disordered," and the acts are "intrinsically disordered." Martin, and other to be sure, (we know who you even though we won't name you) wishes it to be "differently ordered."

This is a blasphemy; for it accuses God of creating a man or woman who will, beyond their control, live a lifestyle based upon repugnant sin that would destine them to a life of suffering and an eternity cut off from God. What kind of god would do this? Certainly not Christian God, the Catholic God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.


It would be a god who would be evil, a god who would not deserve worship or adoration. A false god, a liar from the beginning.

There was a time when a priest's superiors would discipline this kind of priest. The fact that they do not proves that they not only agree with him, but that they are filled with hate. If they truly loved him, as a priest, a spiritual son, they would remove him from public ministry and get him the deep spiritual help he so desperately needs.

James Martin, S.J. is unfit to be in the public square commenting on the Catholic faith. A man unfit for priesthood. A man with a distorted mind crying out to the world for help and not having enough sense where to go to find it.


God help him.