Communion for Adulterers: How Antipope Bergoglio used JPII to support the heresy, and root causes of the error

Guess the source and author: No cheating!

“The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation.

Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.”

Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life.”

Does this sound like something from Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia? Does it sound like a prelude and justification for permitting practitioners of adultery to receive Holy Communion, because it’s the duty of the Church and its pastors to embrace a spirit of inclusion toward those on the margins? It does sound like that, doesn’t it?

Except this isn’t from AL, it’s from Familiaris Consortio #84, by Pope “Saint” John Paul II, 22 November 1981 HERE  This paragraph is indeed referenced in Chapter Eight of AL, in paragraph #298, footnote 329, although the conclusion it ultimately draws is wholly different from what JPII taught. Here is AL#298:

298. The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate. 329

I wrote a longer post about the FC reference when AL was first released. In true Lutheran fashion, Antipope Bergoglio keeps the parts he likes, and discards what he doesn’t like. From that earlier post:

Yes, (FC84) acknowledges the sad reality of broken families, and notes that “discernment of situations” is necessary.  But then he (JPII) goes on, within the same paragraph, to reinforce the impossibility of Eucharistic Communion for those who continue in second “marriages” unless, for the sake of the children produced by the second bond, and after repentance and sacramental Confession, they practice perfect continence (which, by the way, is already a very generous provision).  So Francis is using this paragraph to support his position that situations differ, even though elsewhere in the very same paragraph his broader proposal is utterly destroyed, by coming to the OPPOSITE conclusion of where he is going with this.

Find the rest of that post HERE.

In terms of exposing the how and why Church teaching is being “changed”, the heretics are actually bold enough to come right out and say it. This is what has now become enshrined in the ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS as “authentic magisterium” by way of the letter from the Argentinian bishops and the subsequent positive response from Antipope Francis. It appears in AL#301:

…The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is 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. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin…

The bottom line is that JPII goes on to conclude, in line with Tradition, that despite these considerations, the divorced and “remarried” cannot be admitted to Holy Communion, due to their persisting in mortal sin, and scandalously public mortal sin at that, unless they agree to live in total continence (and even then, they really should not receive publicly so as to avoid scandal) . Whereas AL goes on to say that the “discernment of situations” can lead to the opposite conclusion, therefore Church teaching is being changed, and serial adulterers can indeed be admitted to Holy Communion, because their culpability has been mitigated by circumstances (aka Situational Ethics). In addition,  since society at large, in the intervening nearly four decades since FC, has “progressed” to the point where such a large number of families are affected, we must change the teaching because mercy. It’s what the saintly JPII would have wanted, you know. And by the way, the definitive proclamation from JPII in FC 84 is itself problematic, as it refers to the teaching as a mere “practice”:

“However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.”

Switching gears now to discuss root cause.

Beyond all this, the heretical position really boils down to two erroneous concepts, which bear themselves out not only in AL but through every stitch of the faux antipapacy of Bergoglio: Viewing the Commandments as merely “ideals”, and Self Absolution.

These notions are pure Lutheranism to the core, and both have been specifically condemned by the Church. Do some research into the proddy version of Total Depravity and you will discover the different flavors of denying man’s free will since the fall. Basically, they hold that the concupiscence arising as a result of the fall is so complete, that man is utterly unable to resist evil, and therefore the Commandments are unattainable ideals. Calvin’s version holds that even when man does something good, it is still evil because his motive is always selfish. The Catholic (true) version is that while mankind is indeed inclined toward sin, God constantly offers sufficient grace at every moment of temptation for man to conform his will to God’s and make the right choice (1 Cor 10:13). So every man is indeed expected and is capable of keeping the Commandments by cooperating with God’s grace. The fact that we choose to sin anyway is totally on us and cannot be blamed on anything else. While it is true that culpability can be reduced in extraordinary circumstances, there is no way to arrive at the heresy that we see in AL, where culpability is eliminated through “discernment”, without viewing the Commandments as merely ideals. You need to understand this and be able to refute it.

The idea of Self Absolution is one of the worst curses of proddyland, where people are tricked into thinking they can actually discern their own state of grace, reconcile themselves to God, and count themselves among the elect even as they keep on “sinning boldly.” It’s the claim that once you accept Jesus Christ, you are able to discern yourself into a state of grace, and your faith alone is your ticket, no matter how you behave. The monstrous pride involved in such a belief is truly astonishing. It’s so foreign to the Gospel that I can’t even get my mind around it, and yet it infects the post-conciliar Church with buzzwords like “discernment” and “primacy of conscience”. Trent refers to this rather directly as “the vain confidence of heretics.” Compare this with the famous response of Saint Joan of Arc when her judges tried to trick her into heresy by asking, “Joan, are you in the state of grace?” She responded, “If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me.”

Obviously I can’t say it any better than Trent regarding both of these heresies, so here it is. Learn what true Catholic teaching says, and use it to defend the faith.

Council of Trent, Session VI “On Justification”, decreed 13 January 1547.

CHAPTER IX.

Against the vain confidence of Heretics.

But, although it is necessary to believe that sins neither are remitted, nor ever were remitted save gratuitously by the mercy of God for Christ’s sake; yet is it not to be said, that sins are forgiven, or have been forgiven, to any one who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the remission of his sins, and rests on that alone; seeing that it may exist, yea does in our day exist, amongst heretics and schismatics; and with great vehemence is this vain confidence, and one alien from all godliness, preached up in opposition to the Catholic Church. But neither is this to be asserted,-that they who are truly justified must needs, without any doubting whatever, settle within themselves that they are justified, and that no one is absolved from sins and justified, but he that believes for certain that he is absolved and justified; and that absolution and justification are effected by this faith alone: as though whoso has not this belief, doubts of the promises of God, and of the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ. For even as no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, even so each one, when he regards himself, and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.

CHAPTER XI.

On keeping the Commandments, and on the necessity and possibility thereof.

But no one, how much soever justified, ought to think himself exempt from the observance of the commandments; no one ought to make use of that rash saying, one prohibited by the Fathers under an anathema,-that the observance of the commandments of God is impossible for one that is justified. For God commands not impossibilities, but, by commanding, both admonishes thee to do what thou are able, and to pray for what thou art not able (to do), and aids thee that thou mayest be able; whose commandments are not heavy; whose yoke is sweet and whose burthen light. For, whoso are the sons of God, love Christ; but they who love him, keep his commandments, as Himself testifies; which, assuredly, with the divine help, they can do. For, although, during this mortal life, men, how holy and just soever, at times fall into at least light and daily sins, which are also called venial, not therefore do they cease to be just. For that cry of the just, Forgive us our trespasses, is both humble and true. And for this cause, the just themselves ought to feel themselves the more obligated to walk in the way of justice, in that, being already freed from sins, but made servants of God, they are able, living soberly, justly, and godly, to proceed onwards through Jesus Christ, by whom they have had access unto this grace.

For God forsakes not those who have been once justified by His grace, unless he be first forsaken by them. Wherefore, no one ought to flatter himself up with faith alone, fancying that by faith alone he is made an heir, and will obtain the inheritance, even though he suffer not with Christ, that so he may be also glorified with him. For even Christ Himself, as the Apostle saith, Whereas he was the son of God, learned obedience by the things which he suffered, and being consummated, he became, to all who obey him, the cause of eternal salvation. For which cause the same Apostle admonishes the justified, saying; Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run that you may obtain. I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty: I so fight, not as one beating the air, but I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection; lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a cast-away. So also the prince of the apostles, Peter; Labour the more that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing those things, you shall not sin at any time. From which it is plain, that those are opposed to the orthodox doctrine of religion, who assert that the just man sins, venially at least, in every good work; or, which is yet more insupportable, that he merits eternal punishments; as also those who state, that the just sin in all their works, if, in those works, they, together with this aim principally that God may be gloried, have in view also the eternal reward, in order to excite their sloth, and to encourage themselves to run in the course: whereas it is written, I have inclined my heart to do all thy justifications for the reward: and, concerning Moses, the Apostle saith, that he looked unto the reward.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.

CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.

CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.

CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.

 

 

 

2 thoughts on “Communion for Adulterers: How Antipope Bergoglio used JPII to support the heresy, and root causes of the error

  1. I agree – John Paul was an heretic in many ways.
    He failed to teach
    1… The Man is the Head of the Woman
    2…Hell is not just a state but also a place (in another dimension we do not understand)
    which accommodates a physical resurrected body
    3… “Many are called few are chosen” means many more go to Hell rather than Heaven.
    4… John Paul was a liar about Fatima (he got others to do the lying for him).
    5… John Paul failed to consecrate Russia.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s