The following comes from a September 9 LifeSiteNews article by John-Henry Westen and Matthew Cullinan Hoffman:
In a letter reportedly leaked by a priest in Argentina, Pope Francis writes that there is “no other interpretation” of Amoris Laetitia other than one admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Holy Communion in some cases. The letter, dated September 5, comes in response to a confidential document by the bishops of the Buenos Aires pastoral region to priests instructing them on the application of the Pope’s controversial apostolic exhortation. LifeSite has acquired copies of both original documents and has provided professional side-by-side translation.
The Spanish original of the letter from the Pope is here
The Spanish original of the bishops’ directive is here
LifeSiteNews’ translation of the Pope’s letter is here
LifeSiteNews’ translation of the bishops’ directive is here
The story was first published yesterday by the Spanish-language Catholic news service InfoCatolica and an anonymous Argentinean Catholic blogger whose blog is known as “The Wanderer.” The blogger has published photostatic copies of the original documents, and LifeSite has been informed that the blogger’s source is a priest in Buenos Aires. After consulting with sources, LifeSite believes that the blogger is trustworthy and that the copies of the letters are authentic.
The document by the bishops of the pastoral region of Buenos Aires interprets for priests in the region the 8th chapter of Amoris Laetitia on how to deal with couples who are remarried after divorces but have not been granted annulments. It follows closely the language of the most controversial parts of the papal exhortation including the infamous footnote 351, which opens the door to what Cardinal Raymond Burke and other faithful bishops have called “sacrilege.”
The bishops’ directive called “Basic Criteria for the Application of Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia” says that in “complex circumstances” when the remarried couple could not “obtain a declaration of nullity,” the priests can nevertheless move forward to grant them access to Holy Communion. If the priest recognizes that “in a particular case there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union,” says the directive, “Amoris Laetitia opens the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351).”
The Pope’s letter affirms this path with effusive praise for the bishops’ work. Writing to the delegate of the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region, Monsignor Sergío Alfredo Fenoy, the Pope says, “I thank you for the work they have done on this: a true example of accompaniment for the priests.”
Pope Francis adds: “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations. And I am certain that it will do much good. May the Lord reward this effort of pastoral charity.”
The leaked document is the first time there is explicit confirmation that Pope Francis interprets Amoris Laetitia as allowing communion for divorced and remarried Catholics without the condition that the couple in the irregular situation live as brother and sister without sexual relations, as was always required by the Church.
If the document is authentic and the pope’s prudential judgment on this matter conflicts with Familiaris Consortio, then the pope is wrong. Sorry to say, but it is becoming clearer and clearer as the years pass that the pope is a theological buffoon. Should be the last time any conclave elects a Jesuit to be pope. May the Francis pontificate be shortened by the Holy Spirit so that no further damage is done to the Church. Francis is emboldening the Church’s enemies and disheartening her faithful children.
Oh, this is for jon: a private letter from a pope is not a magisterial document. The letter may express his opinion, but it does not contain any official teaching.
I really don’t see anything different that what has been done since before Vatican II. The internal forum solution is not the invention of this Pope. It is not general knowledge but it is becoming so. It is only in special cases. It is not available to all or even most.
Then you’re not paying very close attention to what the pope has been saying.
Priests were instructed not to talk about it because of fear of scandal. It is better to have it out in the open, I think.
I will call out the use of the phrase “theological buffoon” in reference to the Holy Father. Regardless of what a pope says in the course of his ministry as pontiff, IRREVERENCE is NEVER CONDONED and NEVER EXCUSABLE for a Catholic to do vis-a-vis the Catholic pope. The traditional, proper, and correct stance for a devout Catholic to do upon learning something is amiss is to immediately pray for the Holy Father, to speak about his/her views to someone whom he/she trusts discreetly if he/she needs to, and NEVER to mention anything disrespectful that violates Canon Law. That is the prudent thing to do; not Sawyer’s irreverence, disrespectful outburst here in public. If the Holy Father is proven to have committed something wrong, still,…
one cannot compound wrongdoing with wrongdoing of one’s own!
Additionally Sawyer should look at himself first before calling anyone a “buffoon.” Sawyer’s actions of doing violence to the English language by insisting that the verb “may” means “is” (very Clintonesque: “whatever the meaning of the word ‘is,’ is”) and of persistently re-defining the Church’s use of the word “intrinsic disorder” in order to advance a deficient POV which is no longer supported by psychology/psychiatry is buffoonery.
A GROWN-UP does NOT worship anything but GOD, jon! A PHARISEE is a LEGALISTIC BUFFOON who worships false gods—- political status, wealth, power, and acceptance of his society, rigidly following its religious laws— while rejecting the True God!! Like a “politically-correct” fascist liberal! He REJECTS THE TRUE GOD!! The Pharisees were angry with Jesus, for breaking the Jewish Laws, and healing the sick on the Sabbath!! They finally ended up killing Christ! Want to be like them? A GROWN MAN with MATURITY— knows the difference– and follows Christ, the Tue God!
Reverence for the clergy, especially the Holy Father, is not the same as worship, LMaria.
Reverence for the clergy, especially in this demonstrable time of “make a mess” obfuscation, is not to enable men’s sins just because they wear the collar. Quite the opposite actually.
Reverence for clergy is to draw the line and point out the abuse of power that is leading the sheep to believe that jumping off the cliff at the behest of Satan is proof of Faith and not presumption.
Our Lord didn’t put God to the test, jon. And neither should we. Even if a cleric fancies misusing his authority to foment that which goes against the teachings of the Lord from whom all authority comes.
Or have you forgotten that the priests of His time threw Christ out of the Temple.
History repeats itself, jon. But keep looking at…
…manufacturing bigger and more ostentatious phylacteries for your leaders. They’ll reward you with a share of that which they are drawing down upon themselves. Especially when nailing the Truth to a convenient tree in order to get Him out of their way.
Irreverence and disrespect is NEVER CONDONED AMalley regardless of whatever deficiency you see in the clergy. Such irreverence is not only prohibited in Canon Law but also is part of a long-standing, good, and traditional Catholic instinct. The Law provides the proper way to address concerns against the clergy. And guess what, it is not Sawyer’s way, nor is it your way. God’s ways are not your ways, neither are His thoughts your thoughts.
Christ called Peter “Satan” soon after making him the first pope. See Matthew 16:13-23.
Perhaps jon should also accuse Christ of irreverence and making a disrespectful public outburst against the Holy Father.
I think Christ called liked he saw it. So do I.
The difference Sawyer is that you are not Christ: you have no divine insight into a person’s soul. Plus He chose Peter nonetheless: he did not choose you to be his Vicar.
“Sawyer” makes an outstanding point: Pope Francis is our Holy Father, but he is not to be worshiped. In fact, his recent pronouncements, via Ch. 8 of Amoris Laetitia, suggest heresy. At the very least, the Pope is a product of the wretched level of Catholicism which characterizes much of the Latin American Church (and the Jesuit Order, as well). It is perfectly acceptable to criticize Francis.
Sadly, some Catholics who operate like jon are the same phantom Simon-Says-Now acolytes that turn off many a fundamentalist from even considering the Catholic Church. The phenomenon, in my view, stems from a thorough misunderstanding of what the Papacy actually is.
But contrary to all propaganda, Catholics are absolutely to imitate Christ. Call it like you see it, Sawyer. Call it like it really is when you learn more, when truth is more fully revealed. And when fellow Catholics tag you for preaching truth, that’s often a sign that you’ve actually found it. Despite all the attempts to cover Him up.
Oh, so go ahead and define the papacy, AMalley. Tell us its role, citing the documents of the Church, including the Second Vatican Council.
I say to Sawyer, AMalley, and the rest who are oh-so-quick to condemn the Holy Father: At least the Holy Father is trying to grapple and come up with merciful solutions for REAL ISSUES which actual priests and pastors encounter in parishes. WHAT ARE YOU OFFERING? Nothing but condemnation! The fact remains that the laity is in NO POSITION to judge the pastoral decisions of the clergy because WE DO NOT SEE WHAT THEY SEE: we do not sit at their appointments, nor do we hear Confessions.
I reckon there are many pastors who have to deal with issues like what Francis describes: couples with young kids who married outside the Church because they didn’t know any better, who now can’t get an annulment they belatedly learn they should…
have obtained first, and now the union of the household is being threatened because the husband is not happy. What do you tell the poor mother of this household who re-found her Catholic faith and is being threatened by a spouse who wants to walk out on her and the kids? And the only thing she wants from the Church to buoy her up is Our Lord??
You people only have your mechanical, inhuman, heartless condemnations, ready to castigate any attempt at looking for an answer, calling buffoons those who are being called look for something to offer those who hunger for Our Lord. You people offer NOTHING!
jon, don’t sell your soul to the BUFFOONS of this world– who are “PRETENDERS” at religious and moral leadership, of our Church!! Next thing we will see– is jon defending a bad prelate or Pope, who molested altar boys, or embezzled money, or had mistresses, and children out-of-wedlock! Judas was one of the Chosen Twelve Apostles, too! Want to defend him? GROW UP, buddy!
People living in objective grave sin do not have to present themselves for Holy Communion. Problem solved. No need for an ambiguous 200-page exhortation nor an underhanded effort in a private letter to undermine the Church’s doctrine about marriage, sin, Holy Communion nor its pastoral practice, which is the fruit of centuries of reflection.
Ask this: is the Holy Father’s exhortation AL and leaked private letter scandalizing and confusing the faithful, who now wonder whether the sanctity of marriage and sin are things that the Church takes seriously anymore?
The Pope has a 2,000 year Tradition to uphold. He should do it.
I’m sorry I just don’t believe that a husband who’s wife has abandoned him through no fault of his own, and he remarries, is not committing mortal sin. I’m sorry i just don’t believe that a wife who divorces her husband because he regularly beat and raped her, and who remarries, is committing mortal sin.
Mortal sin would be to stay in those abusive relationships, and to continue to allow oneself to be abused. THAT is mortal sin.
YFC, you’ve just demonstrated that you have zero understanding of the Sacramental nature of marriage.
Just as I thought, ladies and gentlemen: to my challenge “what have you got offer?” These folks like Sawyer come up with NOTHING. One would have thought that out of the mercy and kindness of their heart they would have said, “Why jon, I would ‘accompany’ and support that poor mother as the Holy Father asks us to do in whatever way I can and ‘discern’ with her together with our pastor what she can do in her difficult situation so she doesn’t feel alienated by the Church.” Couldn’t you people at least have proposed that you’d counsel that mother along those lines? NO, instead you castigate, condemn, call the Holy Father a buffoon for trying to address a real life situation. PEOPLE, there are real-flesh-and-blood human…
beings whose marriages and families are at stake here. And the least you could offer is ridicule and condemnation: “well, tough, they can’t present themselves for Communion.” That’s it? No accompaniment, no counsel, no moral support for a mother trying to save her marriage and family?? Shameful.
At least Francis is opening up to them something other than Communion in Amoris Laetitia in paragraph 299. If you had read the document (goodness I hope you all did otherwise you oughtn’t be talking about it), Francis himself writes that Communion ought not to be seen by people like her as a “prize” (footnote 351). Couldn’t you at least have thought of telling her that, or considered it before castigating the Pope??
No,…
instead you reveal their heartless, mechanical condemnations and hatred. Speaking as a devotee of the TLM myself, I say if your devotion to the Extraordinary Form is not moving your hearts to see the real-life implications here, your worship is WORTHLESS!
Just for the purpose of clarification: in that scenario I drew, the “marriage” I alluded to can be any union made civilly or outside the Church.
Jon, just for the purpose of clarification, you did not draw that scenario. Jeff Mirus did before you on September 13. Yeah, jon, we get around the blogosphere too.
Furthermore, Jeff Mirus believes Pope Francis’ policy will result in more harm than good and is dangerous (read the comments below the article).
He also has a column on September 14 that explains why Pope Francis’ letter cannot be a definitive interpretation of AL and that AL does not demand the interpretation that the Pope gives it.
The Pope made a flawed prudential judgment, and he can be legitimately criticized for it.
No one is suggesting a lack of mercy to anyone, jon, but we are holding that no pastoral “compassion” may contradict the Church’s doctrine…
Sawyer, I maintain my original point that the Holy Father cannot be criticized for it in the manner that you have, calling him a “theological buffoon” when you yourself have committed erroneous theological errors which have been proven by me.
The fact that folks like Sawyer would say “jon you did not draw that scenario” is VERY TELLING. It’s as if they are blind to the fact that Amoris Laetitia is not dealing with academic, merely intellectual concerns, but rather deals with REAL PEOPLE’S LIVES AND FAITH! It seems that for them the discussion these days on ALaetitia is a mere exercise in winning an argument and proving the Pope wrong, rather than honestly looking at ways to address a growing situation. It betrays their lack of mercy, precisely what this Year of Mercy is meant to address. It proves that Francis may very well be the perfect pontiff for the likes of Sawyer, AMalley, LMaria and the rest of these folks.
jon, I repeated your language: you typed, “… in that scenario I drew….” (Sept 15 9:25 a.m.)
That’s why I used the term “scenario”.
Now you chastise me for using the term you introduced? You think it’s “telling”?
You’re looking for things to find fault with in me for no other reason than you desperately want to find fault with anything I write, and in this case you ended up finding fault with yourself. You are so childish and feeble-minded. Stop embarrassing yourself with your ridiculous accusations against the knowledgeable and faithful Catholics on this site. You make yourself look like a fool.
“It proves that Francis may very well be the perfect pontiff for the likes of Sawyer, AMalley, LMaria and the rest of these folks’ = No, once again, you’re wrong jon, Your posts only prove that you are still passionately bent out of shape because you consider the term “intrinsic disorder” to be “unmerciful.” This is the reason why Pope Benedict XVI wrote that homosexuality is incompatible with the priesthood. Hell hath NO fury like a “jon” who feels scorned by Catechism terms. Pay close attention to the individuals who want to change this language or remove it altogether. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing!
“…That’s it? No accompaniment, no counsel, no moral support for a mother trying to save her marriage and family?? Shameful.”
Shameful is pretending that those seeking to uphold doctrine, and the very weighty admonishments of St. Paul in scripture about not eating and drinking condemnation upon oneself is being poo pooed as treating the Blessed Sacrament like a prize.
We’re not at a carnival, jon. And that’s precisely why high feelings and excitement or the opposite must be put aside to address the realities of what is being put forward.
Our Lord, the One being received in the Blessed Sacrament, spoke clearly on matters of divorce. It is no mercy to ignore Him. And, yes, this issue deals with real people’s lives and faith…
….. That is why being led by emotion, however compelling, can be deceiving and lead one to form a misconception that we can now “somehow” be more merciful than the Lord Jesus Himself.
So, yes, your looking to Communion as a prize that you would give to all is the problem. It bespeaks a lack of understanding that, if you submitted to reason, would dispelled. But you refuse, opting to play who-is-the-meanie. That’s not accompaniment, jon, that’s stalling out at a level wherein you’re comfortable.
It’s surreal that Sawyer could have read my mind so precisely. Perhaps, he didn’t read my mind and is simply stating what millions of Catholics are thinking. Thank you, Sawyer for your frankness. Sadly, Francis is a theological buffoon and the sooner the Holy Spirit takes him the better for souls. As the great Jesuit Saint Peter Canisius, SJ, once said: “More than the Lord Pope we need to please the Pope’s Lord.”
Dr. Rios, I believe that many good Catholics are reaching similar conclusions about Pope Francis. He has a pastor’s heart, but that is not coupled with the mind of either a prudent manager or a careful theologian. He sometimes acts and speaks without sufficient forethought or impulse control.
History has seen great popes, mediocre popes and bad popes. This, too, shall pass.
Ladies and gentlemen: it is evident that these folks commenting above have neglected the human dimension of what the Holy Father is attempting to address with his Exhortation. I mean look at their responses above: it is devoid of anything that addresses a real-life situation, devoid of sympathy, devoid of Christian charity! THAT is what is telling (their seeming obliviousness to real-life situations). What is even more TELLING is that they continue to propose nothing. So they say the Pope is wrong, so again, the question is, well what are you offering? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO TELL THAT MOTHER? At least the Pope is trying to grapple with a situation that pastors encounter more and more these days.
Sawyer would have us respond,…
Sawyer would have us respond, “Tough, you just can’t present yourself for communion” (very mechanical and academic, typical of his posts) AMalley, equally cruel, would just give the mother a confusing run-around and useless castigations (as evident in her posts). Folks they have been called out–and rightfully so–for their heartlessness and inadequacy in addressing situations of today. They’re only bent on condemning Francis. SHAMEFUL!
Predominant in your posts is the supposition that communicating that which “is” is somehow cruel. As if a mother, whatever her circumstance, hasn’t the mental or emotional or spiritual capacity to comprehend reality and make decisions accordingly.
Translation: Stop pretending that human beings are nothing but perpetual raw emotion in need of some psychological Valium. The Truth will set you free, jon. Not pretending that the truth is a “useless” castigation. It just is. Kind of like sunny days being hot. One must adjust to the reality, not demand the sun dim itself because, well, I’m hot and bothered.
That said, I have no animus against Francis personally. His statements, however, are causing rampant confusion, wherein those…
… encouraging those who could/should learn to discern are being told to put on their emotion caps and nothing else. That could be why you post the way you do.
But Truth is not emotion, jon. And wanting to get one’s way is not always the way. In fact, that is often not the way. There is much grace to be had in suffering. That’s why Our Lord allows it.
The posts by AMalley really reveals her blindspot: the blindspot is that AM merely relies on the black-and-white, without considering the grey, which many and many Catholics are finding themselves in but which Francis is brave enough to wade into. As a result, folks like AMalley, Sawyer and their ilk are incapable and inadequate to address the realities of the human condition.
For instance, AMalley says, “Stop pretending that human beings are nothing but perpetual raw emotion.” This, folks, is a red-herring. Nobody has said or intimated this. Human beings however ARE made to desire God. Therefore a person who rediscovers her Catholic faith and now desires God, but because of prior bad decisions objectively can’t receive…
Communion, and now wants to come closer to God, will not find a sympathetic ear from the likes of AMalley and Sawyer.
I can just imagine their telling this mother or someone like her who regrets her/his past but wants to get support from the Church in order to pull things together admit the possible breakdown of the family: “Well, tough. Sorry. We have no program for you. Be sure not to present yourself for Communion. You’ve violated doctrine. You’ve been duped by the Pope because he is a buffoon. Go to the Novus Ordo parish down the street. You belong there.” Pathetic.
Communion, and now wants to come closer to God, will not find a sympathetic ear from the likes of AMalley and Sawyer.
I can just imagine their telling this mother or someone like her who regrets her/his past but wants to get support from the Church in order to pull things together in the face of a possible breakdown of the family: “Well, tough. Sorry. We have no program for you. Be sure not to present yourself for Communion. You’ve violated doctrine. You’ve been duped by the Pope because he is a buffoon. Go to the Novus Ordo parish down the street. You belong there.” Pathetic.
jon, growing closer to God when one is in a sinful situation is to better understand Him and what He asks. It would be like saying you want to invite the Lord to your living room, but will continue to engage in sinful activities while He is present. But He’d better be there so you feel comfortable.
Sorry, but your idea that the Blessed Sacrament is a some form of comfort cookie is off base. It is the Lord God. We need to learn this, to understand that this is the reality.
Support from the Church is not support to defame Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament so that we feel better. Support from the Church is to better understand the Good God and so to come, in charity, to understand the “why” behind not being allowed to receive the…
…Blessed Sacrament when we cannot.
In other words, coming closer to God is to come closer to Him, not make Him what we think He should be so we can feel cozy, welcome, etc, etc. This is why using the desire for Holy Communion as a vehicle for encouraging sacrilege is not sound teaching.
jon, it is never “too late,” for a Catholic lady to get her life right with God, in today’s Church! Pope Francis even has a “fast-track” annulment process! A lady with her kids, can leave a false “marriage,” and go, with COURAGE and FAITH IN CHRIST— to a new life that is right with God! The Church also has many charities, in countries around the world, to help Catholic women in such predicaments, with transitional housing, daycare, and job training skills!
Ann Malley, and for that matter Linda Marie and others:
I really think it is admirable that you all attempt to engage the person whose name appropriately rhymes with “yawn”, but Yawn is impervious to facts and reason, and his main goal, since he is an operative, is to disrupt the conversation while trying to discredit other observers (a principal tactic is insult and humiliation, all the time while he claims to want to have a “merciful” Francis-Church (Frankenchurch?).
Yawn’s need for deception (having conversations with his self-created fictions, George R. and The Rose) tells you enough about him.
Now, Yawn can save his time responding (or using his sock-puppet surrogates in his mother’s basement apartment), because I stopped reading his posts a long time ago, filled as they are with deceptions, falsehoods, and insults.
I scroll past them to substantive and/or informative posts, such as Sawyer’s, Ann Malley’s, Catherine’s, yes, LInda Marie’s, and others.
No, I did not include in that list Bob the Only One nor a Fellow Catholic operative.
The nuns used to do charity work, to help suffering mothers and children, to leave horrible, abusive and wrongful “Family” situations (bad husbands, not married correctly, by the Church) Such so-called “Catholic Families” are a FAKE!!! In God’s eyes—- WRONG!!!! Nuns doing charity work, can help re-settle the mothers and children, and train the ladies, with job skills, and care for the children, in daycare. LOTS of help has for centuries, been available, through our Church– a NUMBER ONE WELFARE PROVIDER, for many countries, down through the centuries!!!
If I may break down AMalley’s hilarious comment up there:
1) Sorry, but your idea that the Blessed Sacrament is a some form of comfort cookie is off base. This is a red-herring. No one has said this. Nor Francis, not any of the bishops, not me.
2) “To better understand the Good God is to understand the “why” behind not being allowed to receive the Blessed Sacrament when we cannot.” AMalley: this comment shows you’ve not been following things. People MAY ALREADY KNOW THEY CAN’T RECEIVE as I have noted and others have noted. You continue to present NOTHING.
3) “The desire for Holy Communion as a vehicle for encouraging sacrilege is not sound teaching.” Pope Francis hasn’t done this. And so this is…
another red-herring. The Pope has not changed the discipline of the Church nor Canon Law on this matter.
4) Equally heartless and unhelpful is LMaria’s proposition. LMaria is ok to break the household with small children who will still the stability of a home-life with a father. Heartless.
It is becoming more and more evident that AMalley, LMaria, and their ilk are totally incapable of reaching out, of welcoming, of accompanying a person like this mother who has been touched by God’s grace to convert. There’s no encouragement coming from AMalley, except, “understand why you can’t receive COmmunion (which is not helpful especially is she already knows why). AMalley, LMaria, and their gang are INCAPABLE of addressing…
issues of our time. INCAPABLE!
1) The red herring is that you pretend that the poor woman who wants to come closer to Christ is prevented from doing so because she cannot receive Holy Communion. Sorry, jon, but coming closer to Christ is to understand Him, not to receive Him while in a state of adultery. So, in a sense, you are treating Our Lord as if He is a reward by feigning that the poor woman can only come closer to “Him” if she receives Him in the ongoing state of mortal sin. That is to deny what Holy Communion is.
2)Knowing one cannot receive is a far cry from understanding the why behind why they cannot. And accepting, with love, the reason they cannot, jon.
3)Sorry, jon, but yes there is encouragement by way of ambiguity and a refusal to be clear. Sins of…
… omission are still sins, jon.
4)Your determination of what is heartless means nothing, jon. You operate on saturated emotion, rejecting the reality that those who love the Lord and their neighbor as themselves specifically do not want to encourage any hint of sacrilege.
You and your “ilk” pretend that understanding the obstacle is the same as understanding the reasons behind the obstacle. Specifically your understanding is demonstrably fixed at limiting that poor woman’s love of God, the very same that would lead her to sacrifice herself for HIM.
That is sad and devoid of true love. It is stunted, short sighted, emotionally overblown and focused fully on thinking on the natural plane. Shameful. Jon would treat that poor…
… woman like a stunted animal, incapable of growing and truly loving by way of patient instruction, prayer, and true support. How blind thou art, jon. And how blind thou seems to desire others to be. Almost as if you are working for the goal of the blind leading the blind into the pit.
Sorry, jon, but mercy didn’t just begin with this pontificate. Jesus Christ is merciful in showing us our sins and showing us the means to overcome them and repair for them.
We need to “go and sin no more.” That is mercy. And that is why Our Lord God is there to help us in doing so. To put a gag on the truth and call it mercy is a lie.
” To put a gag on the truth and call it mercy is a lie.”
There is another big lie that is not being addressed. There is the fact that in many a parish, divorced and remarried Catholics, (who are not living as brother and sister have not even sought out or received annulments) have ALREADY been told that if their own consciences are clear and they want to receive Holy Communion to just “do it”, go up, and receive Our Lord. Many Catholics have admitted this reality. Our paid agent/trolls already know this. It’s already been a lying rule for radical dissenters for quite some time. Now, they’ll just show that letter.
Don’t eat or drink Saul’s (our “progressive” paid agent/trolls) poison laden Kool-Social Justice Mercy -Aid. ALWAYS, remember what happened to Eve and remember the Queen in Snow White? Have a nice big merciful poisonous apple, DEARIE! = IOW Our paid trolls.
A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing:The Disguised Socialism of Saul Alinsky
This 60-minute docu-drama presents a Catholic response to the life and thought of a 1960s community organizer whose “Rules for Radicals” impacts the thinking of many in politics today as well some in the church, especially in the area of social justice.
https://www.ewtn.com/series/shows/a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing/index.asp
Judging from Campion’s, AMalley’s, LMaria’s and others’ comments up there, I can say they haven’t even read the Exhortation. They haven’t even read paragraph 299 which opens up other ways to be in contact with the Church, and to come closer to Christ. Note it doesn’t say anything about Communion. So, AMalley’s protestations are vapid and vacuous. It’s totally tone deaf.
Folks, the situation of the mother described above is becoming more and more common, sadly. The response of Campion, AM, and LM and others ARE TONE-DEAF to the realities and the messiness of people’s lives. They simply can’t respond. Just read their pathetic responses! They have caricatured Francis and Amoris Laeitita, as well as the Pope’s letter…
to the Argentine bishops and guess what, their GOT IT ALL WRONG! They are totally incapable of thinking in the GREY AREAS of human existence. They can only live and function in the black-and-white. They have become IRRELEVANT!
What are you gonna do, jon? There are those who will always highlight the big, poison pill making a pulsating lump in the cake and disbursing its attributes throughout.
What ya gonna do?
I mean, the overblown pink icing flowers were added to cover the lump. And, look, over there, a zebra with angel wings has been flown in – literally – to lift everyone’s mood. But there are still those folks warning the kiddies away from the cake. Go figure.
What bummers. How irrelevant. How, well, distressing to those party planners who vowed that the zebra would do the trick to get everyone to down the accompaniment cake. Maybe we should just go with another ecology light show on the Vatican and pop the cake in everyone’s gaping mouth instead…
…Or maybe we can open up “other” ways. Yeah. That’s it!
Maybe that sock puppet (good call Campion) is the right prop, jon. Or maybe just attempting to “pastorally” name the misdirection that’s been secretly occurring (or not so secretly) is the new mode. You’re spot on with that observation, Catherine.
But whatever method is employed, jon, it would seem that the Apostles who have been asleep in the Garden of Gethsemane are, at last, being awakened. Judas approaches with the Roman guard to seize the Truth and attempt to kill it.
Next on the agenda is to tease out who is going to flee the scene, try to cut off someone’s ear, deny knowing the Truth at all, or stand at the foot of the Cross beside Our Sorrowful Mother…
What about that poor Mother, jon? Will nobody think of her?
If this indeed is what the Pope wrote, then he is encouraging the faithful to commit mortal sin. The words of Our Lord are being contradicted. All under the guise of “mercy”. But mercy cannot come at the expense of the truth.
Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, commmitteth adultery. Luke 16:18
This Pope is perhaps not the one God desires to lead us, I am sure! But Christ’s teaching is there, eternally– for all those who are truly faithful and devout, to study it lifelong, and follow it! The Church is far too worldly and corrupt, seeking the approval and favor of the false, fallen sinful world– instead of seeking Christ! Those who are truly sincere, devout Catholics, would naturally want to go seek correct Church annulments, before proceeding any further in their life, with a new possible love interest! Otherwise– they are not sincere at all! Why does this weak Pope cater to FRAUDS sitting in his Church??
Too many times, I have discussed the “Pope Francis” problem, with our priests, and too many times, over the years, I have discussed the “Vatican II problems,” too! Then, a priest usually replies, “Well, I have the same problem!” Then, he usually will go on to say, “But don’t give up on the Church, as many in the clergy agree with you! We are all in this together!” Then I will say, “Take me to your leader! Where is our true leader? Catholics do not “do religion” alone, on themselves, independently! We have a Church! So, why must I go it alone?? I don’t like that!” But that’s the way it is, and we each must confidently proceed, as best we can, and ignore the “bad leaders!” God will see us through!!
Sedevacantist much?
I think the REAL “sedevacantists” are top Church leaders– who REJECT CHRIST and His successor, St. Peter! Good, devout, faithful Catholics, are TRUE TO CHRIST— despite these false leaders, who are UNFAITHFUL to Christ!
Yes, Linda Maria. You are right. The REAL sedevacantist are top Church leaders who have imposed on us a MAN-CENTERED religion, instead of upholding and remaining faithful to the CHRIST-CENTERED religion instituted by Christ. I have also said that Pope Francis is the unofficial international head of recruitment for the sedevacantists.
Wrong. Sedevacantists are t :) rose who teach that the seat is empty. Therefore people who support the pope aren’t by definition
Those who support falsehood, no matter from whom, are Fifth Columnists. In that sense, they do present the conundrum of an apparently vacant See of Peter by pretending that he who holds the office has no ability or obligation to uphold true Catholic teachings, but can act from a see of self to construct a Church of Simon Says Now.
So, much like the papal apartments, and the red shoes that bespeak a willingness to die for the Catholic Faith, the position of the true Papacy appears quite empty.
Linda, You obviously don’t even know what ‘sedevacantist’ means. Please educate yourself before you sow confusion amongst the faithful.
The confusion is being sown by those in authority who misuse their position to make a mess. Sorry, Anonymous, but you should direct your statements toward the Vatican who has, it seems, lost their way.
Either that, or, it is very clear that they are intent on unhinging the Church from the Truth and progressing down a path after which none can legitimately follow.
The REAL “sedevacantists,” are bad Church leaders, FAITHLESS TO CHRIST– who OPENLY REJECT HIM AND HIS ROLE FOR THEM, to carry out His holy Mission, on earth!!
Sorry, the computer goofed, and printed the above post, TWICE!
Regarding the “real sedevacantists”, Linda Maria, of course you are right.
Perhaps you have heard of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (d. 1937): Gramsci knew violent overthrow would never work: but to destroy Christian culture, one had to destroy the Church, not by violence but by infiltration with entirely socialist ideas of liberation.
“It made better sense, in Gramsci’s mind, to let Catholics remain
Catholics instead of making communists of Catholics. It would
be preferable to mutate the dogma of their faith into a secular
ideology similar to Marxism.” – Joseph Crosson, “Antonio Gramsci”
Eye-witness to Vatican II and the highest level layman who was a peritus at the Council, Romano Amerio, professor of philosophy at the Lateran College, observed the entire preparation, the convening, the breaking of the Council’s (and pope’s) own rules for the process of the Council, and the unleashing of the revolution of ideas utterly inimicable to Catholic philosophy and theology within the Church under the guise of the Council, a revolution we experience today.
You can read his devastatingly detailed and powerful critique in “Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church.” (761 pp’s)
Steve Phoenix, Thank you, for your always informative posts. Could you please share your excellent insight on the video link below. The comments are all very interesting. I copied one of the commenter’s post below.
Cardinal McCarrick confesses that he was lobbied to support Cardinal Bergoglio « From Rome
Start watching at 18:20
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/cardinal-mccarrick-confesses-that-he-was-lobbied-to-support-cardinal-bergoglio/
continued….
continued for Steve Phoenix
Christopher Boegel says:
February 27, 2015 at 1:10 pm
The dead give-away that Cardinal McCarrick is spinning a phony yarn about the “spontaneity” of the election of Bergoglio are the moments surrounding minute 19, when he tees up that there is a brilliant man (who must remain secret) who says (suddenly) “what about Bergoglio, does he have a chance?” and McCarrick says “no one is mentioning his name.” continued….
continued for Steve Phoenix
Both claims are utterly preposterous, in light of the fact that others have already reported that in the previous conclave (electing Benedict XVI, who McCarrick opposed) Cardinal Bergoglio was the runner-up in that papal election. In other words, the listeners are to believe that (a) a man who was a prime candidate at the previous conclave had no chance at this one; and (b) no one was talking about that man at the next conclave only a few years later. continued….
continued for Steve Phoenix
So McCarrick sees value in convincing people to believe that this papal election somehow came out of thin air.
The chilling statement is this: “In 5 years he can make the Church over again?”
Marxist, anti-tradition ideology – all change in terms of “5-year plans.”
Fear mongering much, Anonymous?
Why not just look at what is an analyze it dispassionately instead of attempting to brand others now the dreaded “Sedevecantist” to shut them up.
Good grief.
If this information is correct, the pope has placed himself at odds with Christ. No faithful Catholic can accept this.
Exactly, Allan W.!! I agree!
As this Pope has observed, most Catholic marriages are invalid anyway due to lack of proper marriage preparation and catechesis. And people wonder why Catholic marriages in the U.S. are down nearly 60% since 1990.
It would be hard to contrive a bigger theological mess than the one the Church has put itself in regarding marriage.
Dave N.– It is very discouraging and destructive, to young people– to say that their parents are “invalidly” married, in the Church!! HORRIBLE!! It is also very IMMATURE!! The Holy Father has a GROWN-UP RESPONSIBILITY– to SUPPORT Catholic Marriage, and the Catholic home and family, 100% And if married couples did not receive good instruction– it is NOT THEIR FAULT!! It is the fault of their CHURCH!! The Pope also made RIDICULOUS statements, saying that maybe kids in IMMORAL “SHACK-UPS” have a truer “commitment,” better than Christian Marriage!! GROW UP, POPE!!
P.S. Some Catholic couples who received poor instruction in the post-Conciliar Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, have gone in search of good, orthodox priests, for their marriage and family life, to be a success, in Christ! Many have been determined to instruct their children correctly in Faith and Morals, and give them a good Catholic home! Many also have found their way to Natural Family Planning, and started groups in their parishes, too!
When the person who is supposed to be Pope, the successor of Peter, teaches that mortal sin can be committed, what are we to think? Many already believe we have an anti-Christ sitting in the Papal Seat in Rome. How can we argue against this belief?
WOW. The Pope is the Pope, not “the person who is supposed to be Pope”.
The Pope, the real Pope, the successor of Peter, Francis, never taught that mortal sin can be committed.
Please read what he actually writes and teaches.
….that’s rather difficult considering the random methods employed to pop off and judge those who don’t agree with liberal to a fault, YFC. Creating confusion is not of God.
So draw whatever WOW you’d like. That’s about all you seem interested in whenever you attempt to support obfuscation and confusion as sound leadership.
In the 80’s we had JP II, Reagan and Thatcher. Now we have Francis, Obama and…Merckel?? God help us!
She already did!
Is that you C&H???? Sounds like something you would say.
Persons who were in a marriage with someone and who are now having sexual relations and living with another person are in need of the loving correction that will get them out of an adulterous relationship. Failure to guide them in to a condition of grace is completely unmerciful and uncharitable.
The greatest mercy that can be shown them is to give them the truth that their situation is objectively sinful and guide them into a proper sacramental relationship.
Amen to what Sawyer has posted. The present Pope is a Jesuit. That should
say it all!
Are you in the habit of backstabbing entire groups of men who dedicate their entire lives in service of the Gospel?
September 12, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – “On Friday LifeSiteNews published leaked documents showing for the first time the Pope’s own opinion on the matter of Holy Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics who do not qualify for annulment…Many comments suggested that the letter could not be authentic. ”
“Now, however, Vatican Radio has itself reported the letter as authentic, including specifically in its most controversial aspects – that of allowing communion to divorced and remarried Catholics in some cases and that there is “no other interpretation” other than that.”
Quo vadis, Francesco?
I just wonder if Pope Francis was at all complicit in the leak.
“In the 80’s we had JP II, Reagan and Thatcher. Now we have Francis, Obama and…Merckel?? God help us!”
Also in the 80’s we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.
Now we have no jobs, no hope and no cash!
Bishop Sarto, who later became St. Pope Pius X, warned his priests of liberalism on the rise during the pontificate of Pope Leo XIII:
“No type is more dangerous than this, and to be persuaded of it, it is sufficient to consider the obstinancy with which so-called ‘Liberal Catholics’ cling to their false doctrine, trying to lure the Church herself into their way of thinking. Priests must watch against that hypocrisy which attempts to enter into the fold of Christ preaching Charity and Prudence, as though it were Charity to let the wolf tear the sheep to pieces, or Virtue to practice that prudence of the flesh which is reproved by God…
continued……
continued..
“Priests must watch, for the faith is threatened, less by open denial than by subtlety and falsehood of those perfidious Liberal-Catholics, who, stopping scarcely on the brink of condemned error, find their strength in the appearance of pure doctrine.”
continued…..
“Let priests take care not to accept from the Liberal any ideas which, under the mask of good, pretend to reconcile Justice with Iniquity. Liberal Catholics are wolves in sheep’s clothing. The priest must unveil to the people their perfidious plot, their iniquitous design. You will be called Papist, clerical, retrograde, intolerant, but pay no heed to the derision and mockery of the wicked. Have courage; you must never yield, nor is there any need to…
Next… okaying singles to shack up ‘in “complex circumstances.” ‘
Another example of how the “Pope is infallible” when you agree with him and a “problem” when you don’t. Well, well, well. Can’t have it both ways my friends.
…another example, Panthermom, of the perpetuation of believing papal infallibility translates into a free ride wherein the occupant of the See of Peter can do whatever he pleases. (That’s lazy man, or lazy mom, theology. Not reality.)
Can’t have it both ways when the premise you are promoting is incorrect.
Best to understand the limitations of papal infallibility and not pretend it is what the enemies of the Church would have us believe by way of propaganda. Well, well, well, indeed.
Ever since the election of Pope Francis, I have tried very hard to have respect for the man and to love him as the Holy Father, successor of St. Peter, and Vicar of Christ on earth. Pope Francis has made it very difficult for me to have any respect for him. He has done one thing after another like stacking the Synod on the Family with people who think like him; demoting Raymond Cardinal Burke from Prefect of the Signatura to Patron of the Order of Malta; his encyclical Ladato Si on the environment; and his latest work Amoris Letitica. Now we find out the truth –
Incredibly, Pope Francis acts as if he were the International Recruitment Director of the Sedevacantist camp. Every day he does more to push Catholics into the Sedevacantist camp than anyone already in that camp. As the great Jesuit Saint Peter Canisius, SJ, once said: “More than the Lord Pope we need to please the Pope’s Lord.”
Dr Rios and Fr. Michael’s reply below do represent the painful soul-searching this pontificacy has occasioned.
Yet, when Pius IX pronounced the definitive meaning of papal infallibility, he also cleary defined that it is limited:
“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles.” Pastor Aeternus,Ap. Const. #4, 1870
So, forays into adulterous marriage, “climate-change theology”, or new definitions of ordained people = all new doctrine.
Now we find out the truth – that Pope Francis favors allowing Communion for those divorced and remarried outside the Church (without annulments). With this latest revelation the Church can just close down all of its marriage tribunals in dioceses throughout the world – why would anyone in their right mind go through the process of applying for a Church annulment of their first marriage when they can remarry outside the Church and receive Holy Communion without an annulment? I am sorry, but I have now lost the last little bit of respect that I had for fFrancis. I still respect and love the office of Pope, but not the current occupant.
Imagine my problem. I have to pray for him every time I say Mass in the Eucharistic Prayer. Guess I’ll be praying for the Pope’s conversion to the One Holy and Apostolic Faith. It’s been several hundred years since we’ve had a bad pope. Too bad for us God is now punishing the world with another one.
Obviously, you have not read the Pope’s documents and statements, and you have no knowledge of the internal forum, which was not invented by the Pope.
I certainly hope your Bishop councils you on these matters, and the appropriate way to speak about the Supreme Pontiff in public.
“I certainly hope your Bishop councils you.” = INTERESTING! This paid agent never once referred to Pope Benedict XVI as the “SUPREME” Pontiff. This particular agent/troll presents himself as a married homosexual in good standing with his bishop. Notice how this hostage to the devil wanted to sound like a respecter of decorum while zeroing right in on the alter Christus. Do not be deceived by poisonous posts. These agents hate what the Church teaches and they are seeing their opening for change with Pope Francis. The rattling gates of hell will NOT prevail.
continued…..
continued…
For the benefit of any new readers. This is a revolving paid troll who posts by the name of “Your Fellow Catholic.” This agent will say that he is not paid but that is false. This trolling agent is a hostage to the devil and the $$ or other wages that this agent earns/receives from his master, makes it all worth his while. He is selling “evil” while pretending to be a Catholic in good standing with his bishop and Church teaching. Don’t buy it for a second!
Catharine, you have been told MANY times that I’m not paid to be on this site. please stop lying.
This is a sad day. Informative & earth shattering in it’s hubris. Important for the faithful to yell SCANDAL when you see/hear of one. A error has to be identified before it can be discussed. Keep praying. Some (or one?) at the very top seem to be PC (perpetually confused or politically correct) again. Not a good sign for the church either way. There is hope as long as we have Jesus. I am waiting to see who will be the 1st (of many?) cardinals to counter this SCANDAL. With all due respect, it has to be done. This goes too far. Perhaps a joint letter of rebuke from cardinals could help before this worsens. God be merciful.
continued……………..another voice heard from regarding the reception of Holy Communion for persons in invalid marriages and the hair splitting ‘special circumstances’. See link @
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/09/14/a-bizarre-papal-move/
God deliver us from bizarre papal moves.
This is a very misunderstood topic,judging from the comments. I would suggest that you each contact your pastors to help you work through this. God bless you all.
1) So, an adult Catholic is not able to properly form his/her own conscience by reading traditional Catholic teaching and commentators, but only with the stamp of approval of a pastor? Nonsense. Many pastors are completely heterodox today.
2) Today, many pastors actively tolerate and even “counsel” in favor of gay marriage, unmarried co-habitation, or (like this pope) think “most Catholic marriages are invalid”—an amazing failure of Faith.
You can send your own teen children to the “pastor” at Most Holy Redeemer in SF, or Jesuit-run St. Ignatius or St. Agnes churches in SF, and I guarantee you they will have no Catholic faith whatsoever by the time they are 18. Or maybe you don’t have any. And don’t care…
In this time of crisis, this IS A MUST READ for all of our good and faithful priests. Please do read the entire article which was generously posted by Rorate Caeli blog.
EXCLUSIVE: BISHOP ATHANASIUS SCHNEIDER INTERVIEW WITH RORATE CAELI SSPX; Women and foot washing; consecrating Russia; anti-pastoral bishops and much more:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/02/exclusive-bishop-athanasius-schneider.html
TRADITION AND ITS ENEMIES FROM WITHIN
Rorate Caeli: Is the pope the measure of tradition, or is he measured by tradition? And should faithful Catholics pray for a traditional pope to arrive soon?
H.E. Schneider: The Pope is surely not the measure of tradition, but on the contrary. We must always bear in mind the following dogmatic teaching of the First Vatican Council: The office of the successors of Peter does not consist in making known some new doctrine, but in guarding and faithfully expounding the deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles (cf. Constitutio dogmatica Pastor aeternus, cap. 4).
continued….
H.E. Schneider: In fulfilling one of his most important tasks, the Pope has to strive so that “the whole flock of Christ might be kept away from the poisonous food of error” (First Vatican Council, ibd.). The following expression which was in use since the first centuries of the Church, is one of the most striking definitions of the Papal office, and has to be in some sense a second nature of every Pope: “Faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith” (First Vatican Council, ibd.). We must always pray that God provides His Church with traditional-minded Popes. However, we have to believe in these words: “It is not for you to have knowledge of the time and the order of events which the Father has…
Rorate Caeli: We know there are many bishops and cardinals – possibly the majority – who want to change the Church’s doctrinal language and long-standing discipline, under the excuses of “development of doctrine” and “pastoral compassion.” What is wrong with their argument?
continued…
“H.E. Schneider: Expressions like “development of doctrine” and “pastoral compassion” are in fact usually a pretext to change the teaching of Christ, and against its perennial sense and integrity, as the Apostles had transmitted it to the whole Church, and it was faithfully preserved through the Fathers of the Church, the dogmatic teachings of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Popes. continued…
H.E. Schneider: Ultimately, those clerics want another Church, and even another religion: A naturalistic religion, which is adapted to the spirit of the time. Such clerics are really wolves in sheep’s clothing, often flirting with the world. Not courageous shepherds – but rather cowardly rabbits.”
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/02/exclusive-bishop-athanasius-schneider.html
One of the problems is that our society does not do enough to save first marriages. Taking benefits which belong to two heterosexual married couples to help them raise families and giving to the undeserving (those who deliberately deprive children of a mother or father) does not help the divorce situation. Also, I have seen too many second, third and fourth marriages where the person just jumps out of the frying pan into the fire and leaves a train wreck of wounded children.
I heartily agree. As a beneficiary of the annulment process, I am profoundly grateful for the merciful insight given to me by the wisdom of the Church in requiring me to carefully examine the course and history of my first marriage. While my marriage occurred when I was not a Catholic, indeed when I had no religion at all, I had never anylised just exactly how I come to be married. When viewed from a Catholic, sacramental point of view, I began to realize where I had gone wrong. (Con’td)
(Con’td) I have since been married to a wonderful Catholic woman for 33 years now, we have raised 10 children (still in the Church) and we love each other very much. We owe it to our desire to build our lives around the Church and Her traditional teachings. Would that more Catholics in shaky marriages take advantage of the many helps for marriage repair that are available to them. That which is hard-won, is precious.
I consider AL to be ill-considered, the Holy Father’s words ill-advised and misleading and destructive to the unity of the Church. If the matter of Holy Communion is of such importance to those affected, they should take advantage of the resources available to them through the Church. If their cases are impossible, then offer it up. Some mistakes ,unfortunately, cannot be repaired. Do not cheapen the Gift of Holy Communion, lest other precious things be lost with it.
Hosemonkey, I am glad to hear that you got your situation straightened out and received such help and good advice.
I had an aunt by marriage who came down the stairs of their apartment and found her husband sleeping on the couch with another woman. She threw him out, went to work, raised the children on her own with a little help from other family members. She never remarried, and her three children turned out great. I always looked up to her for that. Her son became a corporate lawyer because he refused to take divorce cases and was married to the same woman all his life until she passed away.
The Anonymous post on September 17 at 8:55 pm was mine — Anne T.