Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Newsweek: Is the Pope Really Catholic?

Newsweek: Title Page with Pope Francis
(Rome) The Catholic journalist and director of the Academy of Television Journalism in Perugia, Antonio Socci, was through his book "Non é Francesco" (He's not Francis) is known in which he denies the validity of the election of Pope Francis. 

In the Italian daily newspaper Libero, he published on 12 September a comment at the report of 8 September papal Motuproprios Mitis et misericors Iesus and Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus on simplification of nullity of marriage. 

According to Socci, the Pope needs the Synod not to perform his "revolution" , The decision to introduce a "Catholic divorce" had already been taken by the Pope, even before the first session of the Synod of Bishops was opened in October 2014th
,

After 2000 years of the Church is forced to divorce. Schism always imminent

by Antonio Socci [Trans by Tancred]
Newsweek has set Bergoglio and this headline on the front page: "Is the Pope Catholic?" Subtitle: "Of course, but you would not believe it, according to what we read in the press."
The question is justified in fact, given the fact that the Argentine Pope prays in a mosque and said in an interview to Scalfari: "There is no Catholic God."
In the Church the concern has become huge since the last 8th of September. This is because with the two Motu proprios on marriage annulment, we have an official act of Bergoglio-magisterium, with which one - according relevant professionals - is derailed by introducing a kind of "Catholic divorce".
That would mean the denial of Christ's commandment of indissolubility of marriage and the extinction of 2000 years the Church's Magisterium.
In order to understand the seriousness of the matter, it is sufficient to remember that the Church has suffered a serious schism in the 16th century, by passing through the Anglican schism, lost England just because the Pope did not recognize a single divorce, that of King Henry VIII, who claimed the annulment of his first marriage under false pretenses.

Could that Bergoglian Motu proprio provoke a new schism?

It can be. Incidentally,  even as Cardinal Müller himself, head of the former Holy Office, spoke in recent days in reference to a possible schism in connection with the Synod, it is all the more to be feared  since the 8th of September.
In recent days, a vociferous war of words was reported in Santa Marta with some important cardinals. Information of the Synod is explosive in itself.
Bergoglio has, despite  annunciating his chosen word "collegiality,"  everything already decided on this subject prior to convening the Synod. It was not to implement what the bishops had asked for in October 2014,  that thing which the Commission  had worked on, but the motu proprio which task he had already conceived, more than two months earlier on 27 August 2014.
Why is the motu proprio being challenged from the Catholic point of view?
Primarily, as Professor de Mattei has said, the reforms are  going (obviously from simplification and acceleration), as a whole, in the opposite direction of the path which the Church has always gone. It is a total change of perspective: in the first place it is no longer about defending the sacrament (the salvation of souls), but above all the easy and quick attainment of a marriage annulment.
It is sufficient to consider the abolition of double judgment. De Mattei writes, 'Cardinal Burke recalled that there is in this respect, a catastrophic experience. In the United States there  were from July 1971 to November 1983, the so-called 'Provisional Norms', which de facto eliminated the obligation of the double, matching sentence. The result was that not a single application to the Bishops' Conference   of hundreds of thousands, were rejected from dispensing, and that they began to receive the general perception, that the process used was "Catholic divorce".'

The goal is to make "immeasurable" the number of marriage annulments

On the other hand Msgr. Pinto, Dean of the Roman Rota and  head of the commission that had spawned the motu proprio openly declared the objective of this reform. He wrote in the Osservatore Romano, that Pope Bergoglio wanted,  "a real  'turnaround'  of the bishops, a change of mentality, which convinces them to accept the invitation of Christ."
According to Msgr. Pinto "the invitation of Christ,  the Bishop of Rome is offering to his brothers" which, "is to move from the limited number of  fewer than thousands of annulments so that it could address the immense number of unfortunates who could have a declaration of invalidity."
It was never heard that Christ ever wanted an "immense" number of marriage annulments.
But now it is clear that the aim of the motu proprio is the mass divorce, free and faster and more easily than those of the state (there are already those who are considering whether it would be cheaper to get a divorce from  priests).
So far, up to Benedict XVI, the ecclesiastical courts were rebuked by the popes, because they were too lenient in the granting of invalidity.

Church courts are to be factories of mass annulments

With Bergoglio everything is turned upside down and they are criticized for the exactly opposite reason: He wants to make them into factories of mass annulments.
The MPs Alessandra Moretti [Left Democrats] is right when she says triumphantly that "the epochal reform" by the Pope "mimics the law of the quick divorce  whose rapporteur in Parliament I was," and emphasized "the common vision of church and state in this topic."
But that's not all.
With this Motu Proprio new please for annulment are distinguished - without any doctrinal and theological foundation - which might be considered upside down, even with the question the role of the Church: They would no longer be those concerned that  nullity is determined from the beginning of a sacramental marriage in the sight of God, but runs the risk of being a facility that "dissolves" factually, sacramentally valid marriages for invented reasons today.
"The theoretical affirmation of the indissolubility of marriage is accompanied by the praxis of a pretense to the law in to explain as void any failed marriage bond. It is enough, in conscience, to make one's own marriage invalid, to obtain recognition of their annulment by the Church," said de Mattei.

New grounds for invalidity: The load of dynamite stuck in Article 14 and is called "lack of faith"

The load of dynamite which mainly infects  Article 14 of the Rules, is where the "lack of faith" of the spouses will be summoned as a possible reason for a simulation or an error in the agreement and, therefore, the invalidity of a marriage.
Up until now lack of faith as a reason for the invalidity of a marriage has always been excluded by the Church which confines itself to raising the natural marriage to a sacrament.
Benedict XVI explained: "The indissoluble covenant between man and woman does not require for the sacramental personal faith of the spouses;  it is required as a necessary minimum to have the intention to do what the Church does."
The intention, then, to marry. Therefore, the Church also recognizes the sacramental nature of intermarriage with an atheist spouse or members of another religion: It is enough to want a natural marriage.
Now everything will be overturned and Bergoglio's style is sure to be availed of an ambiguous form, to make the Catholic world believe that doctrine does not change.
So the canon lawyer Paolo Moneta asserted on September 9 in "Avvenire" that "lack of faith so far was no ground for invalidity and it is not today."
At the same time Msgr. Pinto praised  the presentation of the Motu proprio the "renewal through the pontificate of Francis" and said that the number of marriages  "completed without faith sacrament",  would lead to an "immeasurable"  number of invalid marriages, "for obvious faith defect as a bridge to conscience and therefore to give a  sacramental consent by free will."
This will open clear the way for millions of cancellations. Millions!

Marriage annulment because couple married due to unforeseen pregnancy?

But since when do you have to  be holy or acquire a degree in theology at the Gregorian or be holy to be married?
For the recognition of a sacramental marriage, the Church has always required only a free decision to want to get married in the sense of a natural marriage. Likewise, She has always taught that the spiritual disposition of the spouses (holiness) is crucial for the fruits of the sacrament, but not for its validity.
Now everything is different. Among the circumstances that are opening the way to a super-fast divorce, there will also include "the brevity of marital cohabitation" or that two fiancees got married "because of an unforeseen pregnancy of the woman." What has this to do with the validity of the agreement?

The Incredible collection ends with an "etcetera"

The incredible collection even ends with an "etcetera". Does that mean that they can be broadly, arbitrarily applied?  What  law is that?
The weakest parts (women and children) will have to pay the bill of this revolution against families, which in any case is already destabilized under heavy bombardment by the secular culture.
Sister Lucia, the visionary of Fatima, one day said to Cardinal Caffarra: "The final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan will take place around the family and marriage."
The time has come.
If this is the time of the "bishop dressed in white", it will be painful for all (you remember the city in ruins?).
Translation: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Newsweek (Screenshot)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...
AMDG

41 comments:

  1. Not a comment but is "With this Motu Proprio new please for annulment are distinguished " translated correctly?

    Feel free to delete

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The weakest parts (women and children) will have to pay the bill of this revolution against families, which in any case is already destabilized under heavy bombardment by the secular culture."

    Who is paying the bill? Children, yes, but in the West, it is the Woman who initiates divorce in the vast majority of cases. Why? Because it is the Man who really pays the bill. He loses his wife, children, house, paycheck, retirement, and even his job or his freedom. In the secular West, there are no longer any barriers to the wholesale looting of married men by unfaithful feminist woman who are urged to fulfill themselves at the expense of even their children.

    People need to wake up. It is not the cad who is bringing down civilization, it is the absolute lack of traditional morality, and absolute refusal to acknowledge any limit to one's own desires and whims.

    This will put the final nail in the coffin of our civilization.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. You are exactly right. You seem to write as one who has experienced divorce in some relationship...whether your own or a close family member. I have myself. It is a true tragedy and women are often to blame.

      Delete
  3. All those who savaged and persecuted Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre when he took his faithful and manly stand against the internal enemies of the Church and may now be wringing their hands in witness of the demolition of our Holy Mother should remember their myopia, self-righteousness, and poisonous papolatry then and now. Without them the almost total victory of the enemies of the Church today would likely not be possible---but, oh, they were so obedient and canonically correct! They deserve the present agony in a special way because they facilitated it while all of us do due to our personal sins. Archimago

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. Silence, demon.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  4. When the whole world knows the Pope is not acting in accordance with the Catholic Faith (and when most are delighted by this) one has the answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But he is, so nobody knows that. Nor could they, since you can't know a falsehood. Except on this blog. Marvelous metaphysics we have here.

      Delete
  5. if history will one day show that he is a mason, then by the papal bull of 1826, he is automatically excommunicated, and therefore not a pope, not a bishop, not a priest, and not a catholic, and all his encyclicals, moto propios, apostolic exhortations, and whatever evangeliem gaudium was, in fact everything he every said and wrote as pope, would be confined to the fires of hell.
    signed sjt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, but the worst thing is that almost nobody would care, and if I'm not mistaken this bull was revoked after Vatican II. The main problem is not the existence of evil in the Church but the systematic tolerance and even encouragement of it after Vatican II and particularly now under the pontificate of Francis.

      Delete
  6. Pope Francis is not a Catholic, nor are his associates. Nor is the head of the Sacred Roman Rota, the gang of Vatican lawyer/canonist priests who judge annulments. He stood side by side with Francis....declaring that Francis two moto proprios "were God telling Francis what to do". That's B.S.
    The Vatican of Francis and his associates reminds me of a cult, or of the last real communist regime on earth built on the cult of the Chairman (North Korea).
    I read that several very important cardinals have, since the 2 moto proprios, had violent shouting audiences with Francis in "Casa Santa Martha", Francis' own little Vatican.
    If so, I hope they recruit more and more in opposition to Francis to depose him/force him to resign.
    It's not as far fetched as you think. Now, and especially after October Synod, it's very possible.
    I'd like to be there when Francis is shown the door.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Satan loves it when you speak like that.

      Delete
  7. Bergoglio the destroyer!May God free us from this apostate heretic very soon!I am glad that he has opposition in the Vatican and i hope that they show him the door in the synod.god Bless.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I fear he never was and will never be, a NWO association leader, nothing more, but Catholic, no, not at all. God bless+

    ReplyDelete
  9. "The question is justified in fact, given the fact that the Argentine Pope prays in a mosque and said in an interview to Scalfari: "There is no Catholic God.""

    ## I think all the HF meant, is that God is no respecter of persons - which is word for word what the NT teaches.

    An increase in the number of annulments may be the result of the HF's reforms - it does not follow that that is what he intends. I don't see that this business is more or less worh having a schism over than the reforms to the Mass by Paul VI, or than the indifferentism of JP2 - the Church put up with the butchering of the Mass, and JP2's breaking of the First Commandment has been imitated by bishops & cardinals, not rebuked. The SSPX rebuked it, but they were ignored. So why is this a big deal ?

    STM it is a bit later for cardinals to get in a tizzy about false doctrine from Popes, and unCatholic conduct from Popes, given that the bishops have already tolerated - or lived by, or made their own - so much bad Papal conduct & false Papal conduct. I have no sympathy with them, and they absolutely deserve whatever false doctrine or bad conduct the HF comes up with. Their hypocrisy, inconsistency, and sudden new-found zeal for Catholic orthodoxy is nauseating. If they care so greatly for Catholic orthodoxy & Catholic orthopraxy, where were they in 1986 at Assisi, or when Benedict XVI went to Assisi in 2012 ? I think they cared more for their careers & perks than for the Faith. Only one bishop had the guts & the Catholicism to denounce this cancerous corruption & faithless cowardice, and he was suspended *a divinis*, then excommunicated. He was a worth a thousand of these cowards & liars & time-servers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ditto what James said.

      And I am done with the false church of V2 and taking the sacraments at an independent sedevacantist chapel now. If by chance I am wrong, well then I'm just a Protestant, a separated sister who subsists in the Church and is bound for heaven-----according to V2.

      I thank the current anti-pope for waking me up to the heresies of V2.
      He is indeed the logical result of it.

      Seattle Kim

      Delete
    2. I'm starting to believe in the possibility of sedevacantism but if it's true is means there is no pope and there cannot be one (unless God picks him) because the hierarchy aren't even Catholic. The only way sedevacantism can be true is if the world is ending soon because the valid succession of bishops in about expired.

      The only thing keeping me from jumping is that it sounds like the gates have almost prevailed. Also many private revelations and prophecy speak about a revival and a pope who will restore the church.

      Are sedevacantist ministers even ordained ministers with apostolic succession and authority from God?

      Delete
    3. Benedict is the true pope. Check out the prophecy of bld Anne emmerich, and Fatima - we had the feeling he was the holy father...both describe the current apocalyptic situation perfectly.
      As well as the vision of st pius 10 : a descendant of mine, also called Joseph, ...

      Delete
    4. Then why wait till after the Synod to make the move official? Get an early bird discount at Econe if you book through The Remnant.

      Delete
    5. There's only one person who's deranged enough to care this much about the Society and Michael Matt's hobby.

      Delete
    6. yes, seatlle kim, the chickens of vc2 have come home to roost.

      Delete
  10. After the October Synod, I hope that a huge group of faithful Cardinals, Bishops, priests in the Vatican, supported by the same around the world, and the faithful stage a putsch against Pope Francis and his thugs, and bring him down.
    For those that don't know, a putsch is a plotted revolt or attempt to overthrow a government, especially one that depends upon suddenness and speed.
    Francis needs to be thrown out, as well as his gang.
    Damian Malliapalli

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dear Seattle Kim, Vatican II does not say that Protestants are bound for Heaven. Vatican II teaches that separated communities, via the gifts and actions that they have usurped from the Catholic Church, can go to Heaven.

    A Protestant, same with you and I, is not "bound" for Heaven unless he or she perseveres to the end...and then, would obtain Heaven through Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. They wouldn't obtain Heaven via Protestantism.

    Vatican II teaches that all true teachings and religious actions belong by right to the Catholic Church. Therefore, if a person is saved, it is through Jesus Christ's Holy Catholic Church.

    Archbishop Lefebvre, in Chapter 9 of his Open Letter to Confused Catholics, taught the same thing.

    Archbishop Lefebvre declared the following: "To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. .

    "Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that.

    "They are saved in their religion but not by it."

    Finally, Vatican II also offers the following grave warning/teaching:

    "Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."

    Pax.

    Mark Thomas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. False. One is not saved through the Church but in it. A Protestant, remaining a Protestant, cannot be saved. Everything you said is true except for one thing: if the Protestant is saved, it means that they would be joined to the Church, in some way, before they die - hence they would cease to be Protestant. It is speculation beyond this point regarding how that can happen besides the ordinary means.

      So, the answer to the question you posted:

      "Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved?"

      ... is yes, because if they are saved they would have be joined to the Church somehow, in some way, before they die.


      Delete
    2. No, it's not false. I simply employed a phrase. "...through the Church." Just as we use the phrase that a person is save "through Jesus Christ."

      Everybody understands that if a Protestant, for example, is saved, then he or she was joined to the Catholic Church.

      "Though the Church"...just a phrase.

      Sorry, not "false." If somebody is saved, then he or she was saved through the Church.

      Pax.

      Mark Thomas

      Delete
    3. "Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."

      That would been the infallible EENS dogma really means "there is no salvation outside the Church except for people who believe there is salvation outside the Church."

      Didn't Pius XII warn about folks who reduce EENS to a meaningless formula?

      Delete
  12. Needless to repeat that while VCII may not have countered Catholic doctrine directly it managed by liberal phraseology and less than clear expression to leave convenient ambiguity and resultant equivocation in the aftermath. Read the documents well and see for yourself. the New Catechism is equally loose at times in its statement of supposed Catholic doctrine. Ah yes! It has all been so well plotted that Hell is an empty place; all are saved and everyone is a Christian, except of course those who follow the SSPX.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here and there among the Vatican II documents one will find an ambiguous phrase.

      That is a problem. That is why it's imperative that the Pope make clear certain parts of the Council.

      That said, Vatican II overwhelmingly features clear teachings.

      Pax.

      Mark Thomas

      Delete
    2. The VCs were taken over by the radical liberals on day one of the opening exchanges - born out of rebellion with a seditious overwriting of the carefully prepared schemata by those cardinals selected by Pope John XXIII for this task. Masonic Cardinals led the revolt to break with The Holy Latin Mass and rupture the Apostolic Succession. The Liberal Modernist Councils paved the way for the aftermath. Read the documents carefully - the means for the sequel are contained therein. Now these subversives claim the councils are untouchable as if they had been doctrinal. But of course, the very documents themselves have been crafted with ambiguities that have been phenomenologically extended and developed by JP II and the liberal modernist ally who succeeded him, Cardinal Ratzinger one of the frequently recurring names throughout this entire process. Even the sanctification process has been doctored to suit the new trends and facilitate canonising the revolutionary councils in the endeavour to make them untouchable.

      Delete
    3. "overwhelmingly" (whatever that means) is just not catholic enough. They had to be totally unambiguous to be Roman Catholic. This is why they are not. This is why the councils need to be overwritten. This is why they are unacceptable. Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi, lex provendi. New ideologies...new interpretations.... new paradigm.......new pastoral processes....new liturgical form......new ecclesiastical structures.....new church..........novelties prevail....confusion and division ensue.

      Delete
    4. John Paul II admitted the novelties of Vatican II and claimed that they were “new points of doctrine.” But Pope Pius IX defined ex cathedra at the First Vatican Council as follows.

      “For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.” (Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4)
      Pius IX defined that a Pope cannot make known new doctrine but John Paul II claimed that the Popes of Vatican II did just that. Conclusion?

      Delete
  13. Francis is certainly not a Roman Catholic and neither is he catholic in his mind. Running with the hare and hunting with the hounds he is most avidly radical in his ecclesiastical liberalism and decidedly neo-marxist in his political pretensions. some of the statements he has made, clearly documented are appalling coming from an alleged pope. Frankly, without any Latin, he is patently illiterate where the Faith is concerned. This is a man in desperate need of our prayers for his conversion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow just Wow, Leon... I thought Mark T was off the rails but you have most certainly have eclipsed him.

      Delete
  14. the Church has been in de facto schism since 1969 when the protestant NO liturgy was imposed. This is a revolutionary instrument for division and subversion. Most of what we witness now in the neo-church is the rotten fruit of its liberal liturgy....lex orandi lex credendi lex vivendi -------QED
    I rejoice at the demise of this disgraceful counterfeit institution subverting and attempting to abolish the Roman Catholic Faith. I pray daily for its complete annihilation. Maybe the real and undeniable schism unfolding is the beginning of the real counter-revolution.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Now the issue is no longer the indissolubility of the catholic marriage, but "how many times a catholic faitful is allowed to divorce?"
    Since the Pope wants an immense niumber of annulments, I think allowing the people to have their marriages annuled 3 or 4 times or more during their whole life would help a lot reaching that aim.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Indissolubility of marriage isn't the issue. The issue is EQUALITY of the opportunity to have one's marriage ended just like a rich conservative Catholic can do, at an affordable price. Thank the Lord in his good Providence for Pope Francis.

    It is fun to watch the corrupt conjurers decompress... Find a good gay bar to hang out at... It's healthier than hanging out with angry men wearing lace dresses.

    ReplyDelete
  17. There goes the good little Marxist who can only think in terms of the class struggle, as if in the past 50 years the scandal of annulments dime a dozen were not a reality all over the Catholic world and granted with the utmost egalitarian ease to poor and rich alike!

    The reference to "angry men wearing lace dresses" also betrays the anti-Catholic spirit of this moron---using the same anti-clerical argument of Masons who in countries like Cuba and Mexico made it illegal for the clergy to wear the soutane (a most masculine garment, by the way) and systematically spread the calumnies against the Catholic clergy that they are all homosexuals and the wearing the a "dress" is "proof" of that. That is how they turned entire nations of nominal Catholics against their Mother, the Church. And here we have the same putrid mentality associating liturgical garments with effeminacy. The real purpose behind that mentality is to render all things Catholic (worship, buildings, clergy) as banal and secular as possible; hence, all the obsession in the circles of the whore press about whether this pope would wear, like Benedict, red shoes. These enemies of the Church know well, unlike naive or ignorant Catholics, that externals have a close connection to the internal as God made us expressive beings---and they want a world "sanitized" of anything that smacks of transcendence or of the sacred. They would love nothing more than Pope Francis to appear on the balcony of St. Peter's in jeans and a t-shirt; and with Francis they may very well get their wish one of these days as he, too, is into demystification of anything Catholic or ritual. Perhaps the writer should look to his friends the Masons wearing their ritual aprons and conjecture that they want secretly to be lovely housewives waiting at home for their man---for one absurdity another! RC

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...