Pope Bergoglio, by his silence, is creating for himself, and the Church, a grave crisis, perhaps Her gravest ever. The Cardinals have asked straight-forward questions that actually put Bergoglio in a corner. If he answers "no" then his program will be exposed as heretical and he will be compelled to withdraw it. If he answers "yes," then he will convict himself of making heretical statements.
http://voxcantor.blogspot.jp/2016/12/still-no-answer-from-pope-bergoglio.html
2016/12/3 のメッセージの一部
「神の家で混乱の原因となる者たちは災い。
私のイエズスの真理を否定する者たちは災い。
私はあなたたちに忠実な人々であるように頼みます。
嘘に勝たせてはなりません。
あなたたちは主の者たちです。くじけないように。」
私のイエズスの真理を否定する者たちは災い。
私はあなたたちに忠実な人々であるように頼みます。
嘘に勝たせてはなりません。
あなたたちは主の者たちです。くじけないように。」
「真の教会と偽の教会との間の大戦争において、
最後の勝利はイエズスとその選んだ者たちにあるでしょう。」
最後の勝利はイエズスとその選んだ者たちにあるでしょう。」
イエズスの真理を否定することが起こることが繰り返し警告されています。
イエズスの真理は、新約聖書の福音書を、ほぼ文字通り理解したとおりのことです。すでにカトリック教会では文字通りに読まない人が増えていますが、聖人たちはほぼ文字通りに理解してきたし、聖母も常にそれを示してきました。
１２月３日のメッセージで驚くのは、「災い」という強い表現が使われたことです。
10月22日に同じようなことを告げていました（メッセージの一部）。
「悪魔の邪悪な行動は，神の家の中での大きな混乱の原因となるでしょう。真理を愛し守りなさい。」
11月15日のメッセージも同様の警告をしています（メッセージの一部）。
「忠実な者たちに困難な時がくるでしょう。悪魔の暗闇は神の家に入りました，それで大きな霊的混乱があるでしょう。真理を愛し守りなさい。
神のうちには半分の真理というものはありません。」
神のうちには半分の真理というものはありません。」
半分の真理とは面白い言い方です。
あるとき正しそうなことをいい、別のときには違うことをいう人がいたと仮定します。この人を正しい人と見たい人は、正しい言い方を取り上げ、間違っている人と見たい人は、違う言葉を取り上げます。こうして、混乱が起こります。しかし、神は、「はい」は「はい」で、いつも「はい」なのです。
この言い方はｌ、賛成・反対ということではなく、証言のときには真理を常に口にしているようにということであり、真理はいつ話しても同じ結論で同じ内容なのです。
１１月２３日も同じことを言いました（メッセージの一部）。
「いつも覚えておきなさい：神のうちに「半分の真理」というものはありません。大戦争が来ます、そこにはカソックを来た兵士がいるでしょう。」
カソックを着ている人たちの戦争なので、ここでは霊的戦争を意味していると思います。但し、いつもそれに留まるわけでもありません。
11月２６日には、また、別の警告もありました（メッセージの一部）。
「あなたたちは大きな霊的戦いのときにいます。宮殿（バチカン）からニュースが来るでしょう、それは忠実な者たちの信仰を揺るがすでしょう、しかし、後退しないように。」
悪魔の働きが、教会の中にまで入り込み、カルジナルは、カルジナルに、司教は司教に対立するでしょう。わたしを敬う司祭は、同僚から軽蔑され、攻撃されるでしょう。祭壇や教会が荒らされて、教会は妥協する者でいっぱいになり、悪魔の誘惑によって、多くの司祭、修道者がやめるでしょう。
“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres… churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.”
Thus warned Our Lady of Akita in 1973, no doubt echoing Her warning in the integral Third Secret of Fatima, Her own explanation of which has been suppressed in favor of the absurd “interpretation” of Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the scandal-ridden friend and protector of the ecclesiastical criminal Marcial Maciel Degollado.
And now the prophecy comes to pass: In the wake of Amoris Laetitia, bishops in Buenos Aires, Germany, Italy and elsewhere will now admit divorced and “remarried” Catholics to Holy Communion following a period of “discernment,” while the bishops of Poland, parts of Canada and certain American dioceses, among other places, maintain the bimillennial discipline of the Church as other bishops in Canada and America abandon it. What is mortally sinful sacrilege in some dioceses will now be proclaimed an act of “mercy” in others. One need only take a short drive in the car to get the result one prefers. Forum shopping has come to the Catholic Church.
As the chaos spreads, four cardinals have publicly presented dubia which question the Pope on whether, in promulgating Amoris Laetitia, he means to overthrow the teaching of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage and the existence of exceptionless moral absolutes. Cardinal Pell supports them in an interview in which he asks: “How can you disagree with a question?” Bishop Athanasius Schneider likewise supports the four cardinals, as does a Polish bishop, reflecting the view of the Polish hierarchy:
“The four Cardinals did well in asking for clarification about Amoris Laetitia. It is evidently necessary to answer them…. They did well and have exercised correctly what Canon Law provides for. I think it is not just a right, but moreover a duty.”
Opposing the four cardinals, Cardinal Joseph Tobin, one of the freshly minted reliably Bergoglian progressives emerging from the latest consistory, declared to the press that the cardinals’ dubia are “troublesome” and that “The Holy Father is capturing the work of two synods, so if four cardinals say that two synods were wrong, or that somehow the Holy Father didn’t reflect what was said in those synods, I think that should be questioned.”
Cardinal Schönborn, to whom Francis has referred those seeking the definitive “interpretation” of Amoris, went so far as to assert that the letter of the four cardinals is “an attack on the pope” and that they “have to obey the pope” by accepting Amoris without question. That is, Schönborn demands that the four cardinals “obey” the admission of public adulterers to Holy Communion.
The ultra-progressive Cardinal Cupich, another Bergoglian red hat, huffed that “if you begin to question the legitimacy or what is being said in such a document [Amoris], do you throw into question then all the other documents that have been issued before by the other popes? So I think it’s not for the pope to respond to that, it’s a moment for anyone who has doubts to examine how they got to that position because it is a magisterial document of the Catholic Church.”
Cupich failed to mention that Amoris itself appears to question the teaching of “all the other documents that have been issued before by the other popes,” summarized in the document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under John Paul II, which said this about admitting public adulterers in so-called second marriages to Holy Communion: “In other words, if the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid, under no circumstances can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible. The conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception.”
So not only do we see cardinals opposing cardinals and bishops opposing bishops, but also a Pope opposing his own predecessors. At Fatima, Akita and other places, the Blessed Virgin warned us that this time was coming. But the warnings were not heeded. They were even despised by the “enlightened” ones who dismissed them all as “private revelations.”
“Despise not prophecies. But prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:20-21). The leadership of the Church has despised the prophecies of the Mother of God; it has failed to hold fast to that which is good. And now the Church “is full of those who accept compromises” as we reap the whirlwind from which it seems only divine intervention of the most dramatic kind can deliver us.
http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/fe/perspective908.asp
With Christ or Against Christ: There is Nothing In Between
December 1, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — Jeffrey Mirus, the founder of CatholicCulture.org, is concerned that Cardinal Raymond Burke might have confused the faithful by stating his intention to possibly make a “formal correction” of Pope Francis if Burke does not receive a response to several queries or dubia he and three other cardinals submitted to Francis regarding questionable affirmations in his recent apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
However, it is Mirus who’s more likely to confuse the faithful with his own ambiguous language and apparently exaggerated notions regarding papal authority and infallibility.
In a recent article in response to Cardinal Burke’s statements, Mirus expresses concern that Burke might cause “confusion” and urges “caution” regarding his stated intentions to correct the pope. According to Mirus, Cardinal Burke’s reference to a “formal correction” could lead people to think that the cardinals have a formal, juridical authority over the pope, who therefore is subject to their judgments. This would place the cardinals above the pope, a reversal of the authority structure of the Holy See and one that is inconsistent with the Catholic Church’s divine constitution.
The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith commented on the letter of the four cardinals asking Pope Francis to clarify doubts on certain points of the Amoris laetitia. Card. Gerhard Ludwig Müller said that the exhortation should not be interpreted as if the teaching of earlier Popes and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about the divorced and remarried, were of no importance (Ed note. not actual) . The prelate pointed to the unequivocal position on this issue by Pope Benedict XVI, and then Cardinal. Joseph Ratzinger in 1993.
https://sarmaticusblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/cardinal-muller-sides-with-christ/
302 非合法の相手と夫や妻のように生活している既婚者が、擬似結婚的状態を続けつつも赦しと聖体の秘蹟を受けることができるか。
304 本質的な悪行を禁じ、例外なく拘束する絶対的で道徳的な規範があることを信じる必要があるか。
301 例えば姦通のように、神の掟の一つを犯している人は、客観的に常習的な大罪の状態にあると言うことができるか。
302 本質的な悪行を取り巻く状況や意図があったとしても、それらは決して悪行を主観的に善であるとしたり、選択肢のひとつとして受け入れたりすことは決してできないと言うことができるか。
303 本質的な悪行を禁じる絶対的で道徳的な規範に対する例外を権威づける良心の創造的な役割を排除しなければならないか。
Four Cardinals obliged a Pope to tell –
His deep convictions come from deepest Hell.
In a scandal of a gravity unprecedented even in Pope Francis’ scandal-ridden reign as Catholic Pope since 2013, when challenged by four honourable Cardinals on his seeming denial of the very basis of the Church’s teaching on morals, he has just given answers in public which virtually affirm the freedom of man from the moral law of Almighty God. With this papal affirmation of the Conciliar religion of man as opposed to the Catholic religion of God, a schism in the Universal Church draws that much closer. For half a century since Vatican II, the Conciliar Popes have managed to remain in a way the one head of two opposing religions, but that contradiction could not last indefinitely, and it must soon result in a split.
In 2014 and 2015 Francis held Synods in Rome to consult the world’s bishops on questions concerning the human family. On March 19 of this year he published his post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation on “Love in the Family,” the eighth of whose nine chapters raised controversy from the very start. On September 15 four Cardinals in particular sent to the Pope a private and perfectly respectful letter in which they asked him as Supreme Pontiff to clear up five “dubia” or doubtful points of doctrine, left unclear in the Exhortation. Here is the essence of the five points:—
1 From the Exhortation’s #305, can a married person living like husband and wife with a person not their lawful spouse from now on be given sacramental Absolution and Communion while they continue to live in their quasi-married state?
2 From #304, need one still believe that there are absolute moral norms which prohibit intrinsically evil acts, and which are binding without exception?
3 From #301, can one still say that a person living in violation of one of God’s commandments, e.g. in adultery, is in an objective state of grave habitual sin?
4 From #302, can one still say that the circumstances or intentions surrounding an act intrinsically evil by its object can never change it into being subjectively good, or acceptable as a choice?
5 From #303, must we still exclude any creative role of conscience, so that conscience may still never authorize exceptions to absolute moral norms which forbid acts intrinsically evil by their object?
To these five designedly yes-or-no questions the answer of the Catholic Church from Our Divine Lord onwards has always been clear, and has never changed: Communion may not be given to adulterers; there are absolute moral norms; there is such a thing as “grave habitual sin”; good intentions cannot make evil acts good; conscience cannot make evil acts lawful. In other words, to the five yes-or-no, black-or-white questions, the Church’s answer has always been, 1 No, 2 Yes, 3 Yes, 4 Yes, 5 Yes.
On November 16, just ten days ago, the four Cardinals made their letter public (cf. Mt.XVIII, 15–17). On Nov. 18, in an interview given to the italian newspaper Avvenire, Pope Francis gave the exact opposite yes-or-no answers: 1 Yes, 2 No, 3 No, 4 No, 5 No. (He did affirm each time that “Such things are not black-or-white, we are called to discern,” but he was merely attempting thereby to confuse the unmoving questions of principle with moving questions of application of principle, which come after the questions of principle.)
All credit to the four Cardinals for obtaining light and truth for many confused sheep that wish to get to Heaven: Brandmüller, Burke, Caffarra and Meisner. They may be immersed in the Novus Ordo, but they have obviously not lost all courage or sense of their duty. There can be no question of their having acted out of any but the best of motives in pressing the Pope to make himself clear. And where does that clarity leave the Church? It must be on the brink of schism.
Kyrie eleison.
After the wonderful news yesterday that Bishop Athanasius Schneider has come publicly to the aid of the courageous Four Cardinals who are challenging Pope Francis over the much-contested post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia, a second Polish Bishop – after Auxiliary Bishop Józef Wróbel of Lublin, Poland – has now raised his voice in a similar way. Bishop Jan Watroba, President of the Council for the Family of the Polish Bishops’ Conferences, has now made a statement where he declares that he believes that the publication of the Four Cardinals Letter is “not reprehensible.”
http://www.onepeterfive.com/third-bishop-comes-defense-four-cardinals/
On November 14, 2016, four Newcardinals, two German (Walter Brandmuller and JoachimMeisner), one Italian (Carlo Caffarra), and one American (Raymond Burke), went public, demanding that Francis-Bergoglio clarify his April 8, 2016, document entitled Amoris laetitiae (The Joy of Sex) so that the odor of heresy on four issues (dubia) contained in it could be abated. The Newcardinals had previously, on September 19, 2016, made their demand of Bergoglio privately, but because Bergoglio refused to reply, the four Newcardinals have gone public. Such an open challenge to the orthodoxy of a supposed pope has only rarely occurred in the history of the Church. Curiously, Bergoglio's document has never been released in its official Latin form, only in vulgar versions.
The Newcardinals, in a brief sent to several news organizations, accused Francis-Bergoglio of sowing confusion on important moral issues such as homosexuality and divorce with remarriage, and demanded that Bergoglio "resolve those doubts that are the cause of grave disorientation and great confusion." The Newcardinals pointed out that even Newbishops were offering "contrasting interpretations" of the clear Biblical teaching against divorce with remarriage. The Newcardinals charged that Bergoglio's document violates Catholic teaching (and was therefore tantamount to heresy). [Some information for this Commentary was contributed by the Italian weekly L'espresso.]
Official response and translation of Bishop Athanasius Schneider to Amoris Laetitia
http://voxcantor.blogspot.jp/2016/04/official-response-and-translation-of.html
Reflections on “Amoris Laetitia”
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/04/23/reflections-on-amoris-laetitia/
"Each individual cardinal, as well as each bishop and each priest is now called to preserve in his field of authority the Catholic Sacramental Order and to confess it publicly. If the pope is not willing to make a correction, it is up to another pontificate to officially put things back into order." Robert Spaemann, Professor of Philosophy
http://www.onepeterfive.com/catholic-philosopher-amoris-laetitia-will-split-the-church/
Five Strong Statements on Amoris Laetitia From SSPX
http://www.onepeterfive.com/five-strong-statements-amoris-laetitia-sspx/
Does Francis Really Love Children and the Family?
https://akacatholic.com/does-francis-really-love-children-and-the-family/
http://theeye-witness.blogspot.jp/2016/05/amoris-laetitia-seeking-ruin-of-souls.html
"An Interpretation of Amoris Laetitia From Tradition is Not Possible"
Right out of the gate, Cardinal Burke plays the neo-con’s favorite card by blaming the latest and greatest Franciscan scandal on, you guessed it, the media:
The secular media and even some Catholic media are describing the recently-issued post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, “On Love in the Family,” as a revolution in the Church, as a radical departure from the teaching and practice of the Church … Such a view of the document is both a source of wonder and confusion to the faithful, and potentially a source of scandal…
Once again, the Gospel reading from last Sunday’s Mass comes to mind:
But the hireling and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming and leaveth the sheep and flieth: and the wolf casteth and scattereth the sheep…
If nothing else, we can be thankful to Cardinal Burke for revealing his true identity to those who as yet may have fancied him a shepherd.
At this, let us recall what the document in question actually states:
Hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. (AL 301)
Let’s be clear: “Irregular situations” refers to relationships that are characterized by adultery and fornication. As such, the participants in these situations are in an objective state of mortal sin, the definition of which is the deprivation of sanctifying grace.
That’s not my assessment of the matter; it’s Divine Law and the dogmatic teaching of the Holy Catholic Church. (See Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter XV)
There can be no doubt whatsoever that Cardinal Burke knows this.
https://akacatholic.com/francis-was-right-about-burke-all-along/