“The Primacy in its intimate essence is not an exercise of power”

COMMEMORATION MASS IN HONOUR
OF THE POPES PAUL VI AND JOHN PAUL I

HOMILY OF CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER

Altar of the Chair, St Peter’s Basilica
Tuesday, 28 September 2004

 

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

In the Opening Prayer and in the Prayer after Communion, the liturgy offers us an interpretation of the Petrine Ministry that also appears as a spiritual portrait of the two Popes, Paul VI and John Paul I, in whose memory we are celebrating this Mass.

The Opening Prayer says that the Popes “in the love of Christ… presided over your Church”, and the Prayer after Communion asks the Lord to grant the Supreme Pontiffs, his servants, “to enter… into full possession of the truth, in which, with apostolic courage, they have strengthened their brethren”.

Love and truth thus appear as the two poles of the mission entrusted to the Successors of St Peter.

Presiding over the Church in the love of Christ: one recalls in the context of these words, “presiding in love”, St Ignatius’ letter to the Church of Rome, which the holy martyr who came from Antioch recognized as the principal Chair of St Peter. His letter continues by saying that the Church of Rome “is in the law of Christ”; here he mentions St Paul’s words in his Letter to the Galatians: “Bear one another’s burdens, and so you will fulfil the law of Christ” (6: 2).

Presiding in charity means first and foremost to preside “in the love of Christ”.

Let us remember at this point the fact that the definitive conferral of the Primacy upon Peter after the Resurrection is linked to the question the Lord repeated three times: “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” (Jn 21: 15ff.). Tending Christ’s flock and loving the Lord are the same thing. It is Christ’s love that guides the sheep on the right path and builds the Church.

At this point we cannot but think of Paul VI’s momentous Discourse inaugurating the Second Session of the Second Vatican Council. “Te, Christe, solum novimus” were the determining words of this Homily.

The Pope spoke of the mosaic in St Paul-Outside-the-Walls, with the great figure of the Pantocrator and Pope Honorius III lying prostrate at his feet, a tiny figure, almost insignificant before the greatness of Christ.

The Pope continued: This scene is repeated here with its full impact at our gathering. This was his vision of the Council, and also of the Primacy: all of us at Christ’s feet, to be servants of Christ, to serve the Gospel: the essence of Christianity is Christ – not a doctrine, but a person – and evangelizing means guiding people to friendship with Christ, to the communion of love with the Lord who is the true light in our lives.

Presiding in charity means, let us repeat, presiding in the love of Christ. But love of Christ implies knowledge of Christ: bearing one another’s burdens, as St Paul says.

The Primacy in its intimate essence is not an exercise of power, but in “bearing the burdens of others”; it is a responsibility of love.

Love is exactly the opposite of indifference to the other person, it cannot admit that the flame of Christ’s love be extinguished in the other, that friendship and knowledge of the Lord should fade, lest “the cares of the world and the delight in riches choke the word” (Mt 13: 22).

And finally: Christ’s love is love for the poor and the suffering. We know well that our Popes were strongly committed to fighting against injustice and for the rights of the oppressed and the weak. Christ’s love is not something individualistic, solely spiritual: it concerns the flesh, it concerns the world, and it must transform the world.

Lastly, presiding in charity concerns the Eucharist, which is the real presence of love incarnate, the presence of the Body of Christ offered for us. The Eucharist builds the Church, it builds this great network of communion that is the Body of Christ and thereby creates charity.

It is in this spirit that with the living and the dead we are celebrating Holy Mass – the sacrifice of Christ from which the gift of charity derives.

Love would be blind without the truth. Consequently, the one who must preside in love receives from the Lord the promise: “Simon, Simon… I have prayed that your own faith may not fail” (Lk 22: 32).

The Lord sees that Satan wants to “sift all of you like wheat” (Lk 22: 31). While this trial involves all the disciples, Christ prays in a special way “for you”; for the faith of Peter and upon this prayer is founded the mission to “strengthen your brothers”.

Peter’s faith is not a result of his own efforts; the constancy of his faith is founded on the prayer of Jesus, the Son of God: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”.

Jesus’ prayer endures as the firm foundation of Peter’s role for ever and ever, and the Prayer after Communion can rightly say that the Supreme Pontiffs, Paul VI and John Paul I, strengthened their brethren “with apostolic courage”.

In a time when we are seeing how Satan “sifts” the disciples of Christ “like wheat”, the steadfast faith of the Popes has visibly been the rock on which the Church stands.

“For I know that my Redeemer lives”, are the words in the First Reading of our liturgy from the text of Job – he says them at a time of extreme trial; he says them while God is hiding and seems hostile to him. Veiled in suffering, knowing neither his name nor his face, Job “knows” that his Redeemer is alive, and this certainty is his great consolation in the darkness of trial.

Jesus Christ lifted the veil that for Job covered the face of God: Yes, our Redeemer lives, “and we all, with unveiled face, reflecting as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness”, says St Paul (cf. II Cor 3: 18).

Our Redeemer lives, he has a face and a name: Jesus Christ. And our “eyes will behold him”; we are assured of this by our late Popes, and thus they guide us “towards full possession of the truth”, strengthening us in faith in our Redeemer. Amen.

SOURCE

Lord, may she be ever withdrawn from harm and guided in good

Oremus:

Favor Thy Church unceasingly, O Lord we beseech Thee, and keep her safe: and because apart from Thee frail man is wont to fall, may she by Thy help be ever withdrawn from harm and guided in good.  – Collect, Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost

Amen!

In other news…

“I AM THE LAW! I HAVE CLEARLY STATED THIS!”

I’m in charge here, dammit! Morality is what I SAY it is. I say it changed, so it changed. We have to roll with the changes, yo. Tradition with a capital T be damned. Immutability be damned. The only thing that matters is Bergoglian Truth.

So that we may confidently say: The Lord is my helper: I will not fear what man shall do to me. Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation, Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same for ever. Be not led away with various and strange doctrines. Hebrews 13:6-9

Which reminds me…

——————————————

It would be INSANE to suggest a valid pontiff could reverse 2000 years of doctrine, AMIRIGHT?

It’s said that everyone has their breaking point. Anyone who continues on the “Pope Francis” train past this station should be prepared to start questioning their own sanity. How many times do you need to see the law of non-contradiction *seemingly* broken, before you start to scratch your head and think, “Wait, that can’t happen”?

You know how someone should have told Luther that you can’t just rip out the parts of the bible you don’t like, and you can’t change the verses to better suit your liking? Well, someone should have told the Argentinian the same thing about the Catechism of the Catholic Church, because not only did he change it, but now he has driven a stake through it.

Conveniently, Diane Montagna has put together a powerhouse follow-up to her initial reportage yesterday of the Bergoglian Faux Mercy Machine on the Death Penalty HERE.  Thank God for the work she is doing at LifeSite, since the general media blackout otherwise continues unabated. Her piece is a must read.

She first captures commentary by Edward Feser, and then she brings in an anonymous theologian: Dominican vs Argentinian in a steel cage death match. It’s a rather lopsided battle.  Next up is a Catholic historian, Dr. Alan Fimister, who ends the scene by quoting the great Elizabeth Anscombe. Turns out Anscombe vs Argentinian is pretty decisive as well.

God is immutable. The Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is immutable. It’s not that difficult a concept. When true popes teach, they document their orthodoxy by generously footnoting key points with references to Scripture, Fathers, Doctors, and past popes. A true pope goes out of his way to point out, “Hey, this isn’t new.” Go to vatican.va and pull up any document from any past pope. You will quickly see, this is how it’s done.

What can one say about a “Bishop of Rome” who claims the One True Faith was wrong – long on justice and short on mercy, with an immature conscience – from 33 A.D. to 2013 A.D. How could he contradict scripture, Tradition, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and all of his “predecessors’? How can he deliberately misquote Aquinas (as he did in Amoris Laetitia as well) in trying to get support for his utterly novel teaching (which a scholar of ten years old can discover in ten seconds that Aquinas teaches exactly the opposite, and he does it in Articles 2-3 of the very same Question 64 that the Argentinian cites HERE.)

Imagine how profoundly UNPROTECTED one must be from the supernatural graces our Lord and Savior promised to Peter and his successors, to wake up one morning and decide to take on Saint Thomas Aquinas and invert his teachings. Imagine then GETTING AWAY WITH IT, cue the accompanying endorphin rush, BECAUSE SILENCE.

Oh yes, BTW he is still Argentinian, you know. Renewed his Argentinian passport, even though he’s the purported Head of State of a different sovereign entity. It’s almost like a sign, or something. He also doesn’t live where popes live. He also doesn’t wear what popes wear. He also doesn’t give the apostolic blessing like popes do. He also likes to be called bishop, not pope. Nothing to see here.

Exultation of the Holy Cross and the Key to True Conversion

Today is 14 September, the Exultation of the Holy Cross. It’s been one of my favorites for as long as I can remember.

Emptying of self and embracing the Holy Cross are the keys that unlock the Porta Fidei. You will get nowhere without these things. Uniting your cross, your sufferings, to the Holy Cross; this is how you grow. Suffering is a tool. It’s not merely allowed by God, in many cases it is PROVIDED by God, for your benefit. Embrace it – at first with patience, then submission, and finally with joy (that’s what ‘exultation’ means).

I will be writing more about this, but for now I offer this reflection:

The Keystone of True Conversion

As happens occasionally but not often, Good Friday fell on March 25 this year, the Feast of the Annunciation.  In the Catholic Church, at least the Latin Rite, the Annunciation is transferred to today, April 4th, the first day after the Easter Octave. But despite the transfer, the fact remains that they actually occurred on the same day this year.

Much has been written on this occasional convergence.  We are concerned here with the central theme that runs through the events of these two days, and it is THE concept that is the keystone of true conversion: Emptying of self.

keystone

You could say that emptying of self is the pathway, or the doorway, or even the ladder of true conversion, and you wouldn’t be wrong.  But keystone is more accurate, because emptying of self isn’t just what gets you there, it is what keeps you there. It’s the thing that holds everything else in place.  The stone that the builders rejected, which has become the Cornerstone, desires that we embrace the keystone.

Let’s break down the events of the day.  God provides models in Our Lord and Our Lady.

The Annunciation and Mary’s fiat:  The angel announces what is about to go down.  How often, as I contemplate this mystery, I try to get inside Mary’s head.  This angel just delivered the single biggest mind blowing message of all time.  And it wasn’t over; a response was required, because God imposes His will on no one.  Scripture reveals her response was immediate, and it was a complete emptying of self. “Be it done unto me.”  Complete trust in the Lord.  No qualifying questions back to the angel before she said yes.  Just total self-denial and acceptance of God’s will.  Has there been a better example of Prudence and Courage in all of human history?  How far we would advance if we could each practice these virtues just a little bit every day.  God, being God, could have chosen to redeem the world in any way He pleased.  But because His love for us is so intense, He chose the way that would best help us understand and obey.

The Incarnation:  Now it’s God’s turn.  The Incarnation is the literal outpouring of God Himself into our humanity.  In this instant, He became one of us in all ways except sin, by emptying Himself in a way that we can scarcely contemplate. His Divine Nature was united to His (our) human nature in a way that was real and substantial, yet not commingled, with each retaining its own properties HERE. This is the John 3:16 moment.   If Mary’s fiat was a demonstration of Prudence and Courage for the ages, Christ’s Incarnation is the model of Humility par excellence. Anything less would not have been good enough for our sake, so what excuse have we?

The Agony: Fast forward 33 years. We arrive at the Garden, where Christ’s anguish is NOT METAPHORICALLY demonstrated in His sweating blood.  Bursting capillaries caused by human stress.  And no, our Lord was not a coward in any way. “Let this cup pass” was not some cowardly request from a fraidy cat Jesus who suddenly changed His mind about the whole deal.  While it is possible He did experience fear of physical pain, in so much as He was fully human, and fear of physical pain is a natural human emotion, He was not trying to “get out of it”.  He was, at this moment, contemplating what was to come, while at the same time bearing the weight of every sin ever committed and ever to be committed. Not only that, but it seems likely that Jesus in this moment was contemplating in a particular way the souls of the damned.  Here he was about to undergo this tortuous death, and yet a multitude of beloved souls through the ages would choose to ignore it.  That had to hurt, don’t you think? HERE“Yet not my will, but thine be done” is a complete emptying of Jesus’ human nature in subservience to His Divine Nature and God the Father.

The Way of the Cross:  From the anguish of the Garden, we pass to the relative serenity of the Via. Not that it was a serene scene; it was brutal every step of the way.  Rather, I’m referring here to Christ’s demeanor, His bearing. It was one of relative serenity compared with the Garden and the contrast is worthy of reflection. Isn’t it likely that His focus here shifted from that of the damned to those beloved souls He was about to save?  Here he becomes the Lamb, His total submission was in His emptying.  Emptying at the beating, at the trials, at the pillar, at the crowning, at the stripping, at the mocking, at the carrying, at the falling, and at the nailing.  If you can watch Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, I don’t care if you’re watching it for the tenth time, and I don’t care what kind of bad ass you think you are, I don’t care if you are Marine Infantry EOD… if you can watch that movie without sobbing like a four year old girl, you have not sufficiently emptied yourself.

The Crucifixion:  For this He was born, for this He came into the world.  The Annunciation, Incarnation, Passion and Death of Jesus Christ are all tied together on His lips. Nearly dead at this point, Jesus is hoisted aloft.  If you’ve never read a physical account of the Crucifixion, you need to HERE  As the tree was the instrument of our fall, so it is the instrument of our redemption, with the complete emptying of Jesus upon it.  A spiritual emptying of the God-man, and the physical emptying as well. “I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.”

I repeat: God, being God, could have chosen to redeem the world in any way He pleased. But because His love for us is so intense, He chose the way that would best help us understand and obey.

True conversion can only begin when you take the decision to empty yourself.  It cannot be conditional.  It must be total submission.  That’s when God will begin His work in you.  And it’s the most liberating thing you will ever experience, like chains being thrown off.

It’s not just a path, a door, or a ladder.  It is the keystone you must work to perfect everyday.

It’s official: Sodomy will be taught as a moral good at the JPII Institute for “Marriage” and “Family”

 

ROME, September 12, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — In the latest incursion of the ecclesiastical culture of death into those institutions established by St. John Paul II, a notorious clerical proponent of artificial contraception and homosexual unions has officially been hired to teach at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute in Rome.

According to a new course list for the 2019-2020 academic year, published on Sept. 11, Italian moral theologian Father Maurizio Chiodi will teach a licentiate-level course titled “Theological ethics of life,” and a doctoral seminar called “Conscience and discernment. Text and context of Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia.”

Fr. Chiodi has used the controversial chapter 8 of Pope Francis’s summary document on the family to justify the use of artificial contraception and to argue for the moral goodness of homosexual relationships.

Well, of course. Because the JPII Institute has been destroyed, and will now proceed to destroy the family, and replace the family with tons of sodomy. The key to all this is contraception, so they need to get that pushed through first.

Fr. Chiodi has used the controversial chapter 8 of Pope Francis’s summary document on the family to justify the use of artificial contraception and to argue for the moral goodness of homosexual relationships.

In 2016, Fr. Chiodi delivered a lecture at a pontifical university in Rome saying there are “circumstances — I refer to Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8 — that precisely for the sake of responsibility, require contraception.”

When “natural methods are impossible or unfeasible, other forms of responsibility need to be found,” he argued. In such circumstances, Chiodi said, “an artificial method for the regulation of births could be recognized as an act of responsibility that is carried out, not in order to radically reject the gift of a child, but because in those situations responsibility calls the couple and the family to other forms of welcome and hospitality.”

He then goes on to say, more or less, “who are we to judge,” regarding homosex, and that homosex can be an absolute moral good. Yeah. Read the rest at the link.

The really bad news is, he’s using rational thought. If contraception really is okay, then other sexual acts intentionally closed to life really are okay, then fornication and even sodomy really are okay, NOWADAYS.

For good measure, he wrote an article last week regarding the ‘renewal’ of the JPII institute and the need for fluidity in moral theology:

“The Tradition Reinterpreted in the Present Time” HERE

Hebrews 13:8 was not quoted.

Contraception is the wedge. Get your head around this folks. The antichurch will use contraception to force the schism. There will be other things too, but this is a big one. You know the statistics on Catholic contraception and Catholic approval of homosex. 90% of “Catholics,” at minimum, are all going to follow the antichurch on this.

I already wrote 3000 words on this topic, so here it is…


Harsh Reality, Part Two: Sodomy is a logical corollary to contraception

“The final battle between God and Satan will be about marriage and the family.” – Sister Lucia of Fatima, in her letter to Cardinal Caffarra

This is Part Two of my essay on the evil of contraception, and why any approval of contraception has direct and inevitable rational corollaries, including the approval and acceptance of sodomy, and why heterosexual contracepted sex (the marital act frustrated) is on the same moral plane as sodomy – that’s right, you might even say it is a form of participation in sodomy. And since 99% of the population is using contraception, the sodomites have a rational argument against those 99% if they dare to condemn sodomitical acts: If contraception is okay, then sodomy must also be okay. See how that works?

If you don’t believe me, keep reading.

Love is Love, you know. NOWADAYS, it has nothing to do with fecundity, generativity, eh? Again this is a direct quote from Msgr. Pierangelo Sequeri, the new Dean of the recently destroyed John Paul II Pontifical Theological Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family, currently “studying” the matter at hand. If you can’t see where this is going, if you can’t already see that this principle can and will be applied to “gay marriage”, and to fornication and sodomy in general, start by going back and reading part one of this essay HERE.

The thing that makes human beings unique among creation is the rational soul. An honest human can take an honest look at Natural Law and deduce reality. That’s why the prohibition against contraception survived universally amongst all Christian sects for 1900 years, until modernism took over and reason went out the window. Once the procreative aspect of the marital act is separated and removed from the act itself, the partners are participating in an act that is closer in nature to sodomy, than it is to the generative marital act itself. Here is how I explained in Part One of this essay:

We begin with exploring nature. What is the nature of nature? The root of nature can be found in John 1:3, “All things were made by him, and without him was made nothing that was made.” The natural law is nothing more than observing the nature of things, including things like body parts and human actions, and determining truth through deductive reasoning. Let’s take the “reproductive system”. The name itself is fairly descriptive of of the nature of it, wouldn’t you say? What is it’s purpose? What is it ordered toward? What is it to be used for? Is it not the transmission of life? Do we observe that it is the only system in the human body which is unable to complete its function without a complementary partner? If we forcefully block the very purpose of the organs, if we aren’t at least passively open to the possibility of new life, or if we engage in acts (the ends of which) by their nature cannot possibly generate new life, then we go against nature, and hence we go against God who created nature (cf John 1:3). Any use of the reproductive system whereby the transmission of life is either deliberately thwarted or made physically impossible is mortally sinful.

Now let’s move on to the teaching of Humanae Vitae and the intrinsic evil of contraception. The heart of the matter is the teaching in PP#11-14, which we will examine point by point. But first I must warn you that HV does contain error, in that it elevates the unitive aspect of the marital act to the same level of importance as the procreative aspect. That’s false, and a topic for another day (you can find an excellent annotated essay HERE)

Paramount to understanding the document and also our current situation as it relates to Amoris Laetitia is Paragraph #3 of HV, which outlines the three main fallacies offered for consideration by the modernists in setting up this debate. Remember as you read this paragraph, this is NOT the teaching of HV, rather this is setting up what HV is about to refute. Paragraph #3 lays out the common arguments of the heretics in favor of contraception, in most convincing form. It is a strong possibility that Pope Paul VI Montini wrote Paragraph #3 to be the actual teaching of the HV, but then when Cardinal Ottaviani intervened, he flipped it by using Paragraph #3 as the set up, which then he (Ottaviani) utterly destroys each point later in the document, in true Thomistic style. These same false arguments are being presented yet again, 50 years later, as shown in the tweets posted above. Here is HV Paragraph #3 in its entirety:

3. This new state of things gives rise to new questions. Granted the conditions of life today and taking into account the relevance of married love to the harmony and mutual fidelity of husband and wife, would it not be right to review the moral norms in force till now, especially when it is felt that these can be observed only with the gravest difficulty, sometimes only by heroic effort? Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.

Here is a summary of the three false premises laid out (in order to be refuted) in Paragraph #3 of HV:

  1. The rigidity of the law in this area would sometimes require “heroic virtue” among the spouses. It’s unmerciful to expect people to exhibit “heroic virtue.”
  2. The concept of “Totality” dictates that so long as there remains a lifelong commitment to the family, and general openness to life, individual acts which would otherwise be objectively sinful may be rendered licit.
  3. Certain concrete situations demand that man must use his intelligence/conscience to discern family size, finances etc. Sometimes circumstances not only can remove the prohibition, but actually REQUIRE the sin to be committed. God wills it.

Does any of this sound remotely familiar? Fast Forward 50 years:

“…Under certain circumstances people find it very difficult to act differently. Therefore, while upholding a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases. Pastoral discernment, while taking into account a person’s properly formed conscience, must take responsibility for these situations. Even the consequences of actions taken are not necessarily the same in all cases” Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors, we can add that individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage. Naturally, every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience, formed and guided by the responsible and serious discernment of one’s pastor, and to encourage an ever greater trust in God’s grace. Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. In any event, let us recall that this discernment is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized.

Amoris Laetitia #302-303, “Mitigating factors in pastoral discernment”

This passage from AL appears in a section dealing with people living in “irregular” unions, or so it would seem. But the faulty logic being employed here can easily be applied, and certainly will be applied, to any “concrete situation” in which approval of objective mortal sin is the intended result of the discernment process. Not only are these sinful actions acceptable, according to this logic, but they are actually a fruit of God’s grace, and it is God himself who asking for the sin to be committed! This is so diabolical as to defy belief.

Antipope Bergoglio laid the groundwork for applying this “logic” to the question of contraception less than a year into his “papacy”, in the run-up to the two Fake Synods on the Family:

Pope Francis has shown great appreciation for Bl. Paul VI and for “Humanae Vitae” several times, such as in an interview March 5, 2014 with the Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera, ahead of two synods on the family. Asked if the Church was going to take up again the theme of birth control, the Pope responded: that “all of this depends on how ‘Humanae Vitae’ is interpreted. Paul VI himself, at the end, recommended to confessors much mercy, and attention to concrete situations.”…
“The question,” Pope Francis concluded, “is not that of changing the doctrine but of going deeper and making pastoral (ministry) take into account the situations and that which it is possible for people to do. Also of this we will speak in the path of the synod.” HERE

Now let us contrast this with the authentic teaching of Humanae Vitae paragraphs 11-14. Although I will highlight some (emphasis mine), I won’t provide much commentary, as the words speak for themselves.

11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, “noble and worthy.” It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. 

12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act. The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason. (nice touch)

13. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one’s partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. “Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact,” Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. “From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.” (13)

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it —in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

Lastly, no exposition of HV is complete without examining the hauntingly prophetic Paragraph #17, which explores the consequences of ignoring the teachings contained therein. This is the paragraph that is so clearly divinely inspired, it seems to me. At the very least, it is the result of profound insight into the human condition, the tsunami of the “sexual revolution” then taking place, and the inevitable collapse of the family we are now experiencing.

17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife. Consequently, unless we are willing that the responsibility of procreating life should be left to the arbitrary decision of men, we must accept that there are certain limits, beyond which it is wrong to go, to the power of man over his own body and its natural functions—limits, let it be said, which no one, whether as a private individual or as a public authority, can lawfully exceed. These limits are expressly imposed because of the reverence due to the whole human organism and its natural functions, in the light of the principles We stated earlier, and in accordance with a correct understanding of the “principle of totality” enunciated by Our predecessor Pope Pius XII.

Dear brethren, please get yourselves on the right side of this. Spend a lot of time in prayer. Pray for the grace to conform your mind to objective reality. Amend your life. The sense of freedom that comes from realizing that what you previously thought was “freedom” was actually slavery is truly breathtaking.

 

Holy Mary, Mother of God: “Those are the graces for which people forget to ask”

Today is the Feast of the Holy Name of Mary. This feast was suppressed in the 1970 missal, but JPII restored it in 2002, so it is 12 September on both calendars. Cool!

Following is a condensed version of the Miraculous Medal story, and a little advice.

Catherine rose, knelt beside the Blessed Mother and rested her hands in the Virgin’s lap. Mary said: “God wishes to charge you with a mission. You will be contradicted, but do not fear; you will have the grace to do what is necessary. Tell your spiritual director all that passes within you. Times are evil in France and in the world.”

A pain crossed the Virgin’s face.

“Come to the foot of the altar. Graces will be shed on all, great and little, especially upon those who ask for them. You will have the protection of God and Saint Vincent. I always will have my eyes upon you. There will be much persecution. The cross will be treated with contempt. It will be hurled to the ground and blood will flow.” Then after speaking for some time, the Lady like a fading shadow was gone.

On Saturday, November 27, 1830, at 5:30 p.m., she retired to the Chapel with the other Sisters for evening meditation. Catherine heard the faint swish of silk… she recognized our Lady’s signal. Raising her eyes to the main altar, she saw her beautiful Lady standing on a large globe.

The Virgin Spoke, this time giving a direct order: “Have a Medal struck after this model. All who wear it will receive great graces; they should wear it around the neck. Graces will abound for persons who wear it with confidence.” HERE

When Saint Catherine was shown the model for the medal, in 3D, she noticed that certain gems within it appeared dim, and she asked Our Lady why they didn’t shine. Her response:

“Those are the graces for which people forget to ask.” HERE

Your Mother is literally begging you to beg her. Implore her Holy Name. Praying the Ave is like praying twice, because her Holy Name is found twice therein. Have you started praying the Rosary every day? Have you at least tried? Because I can assure you that you will succeed and your desire to recite it will win out, despite considerable effort from the enemy to prevent you. When you find you desire it, but “something comes up,” well that is Satan, my friend. He’s also the same one who throws down barricades to Daily Mass and Adoration. When Satan starts paying extra attention to you, it’s because he knows he’s losing his grip. Maintain your bearing, see this for what it is, and redouble your resolve.

Mary is in heaven right now, her palms outstretched to you, at the ready with weaponized Grace.

Won’t you join me today in the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary? Approved by Pope Sixtus V in 1587, it contains so many sweet, sweet names and titles for Our Lady, I absolutely love it. O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.

Lord, have mercy on us.
Christ, have mercy on us. 
Lord, have mercy on us. Christ hear us.
Christ, graciously hear us.
God, the Father of heaven,
Have mercy on us. 
God, the Son, Redeemer of the world:
Have mercy on us. 
God, the Holy Ghost,
Have mercy on us. 
Holy Trinity, One God,
Have mercy on us. 
Holy Mary, pray for us(repeat at end of each phrase)
Holy Mother of God,
Holy Virgin of virgins,
Mother of Christ,
Mother of divine grace,
Mother most pure,
Mother most chaste,
Mother inviolate,
Mother undefiled,
Mother most amiable,
Mother most admirable,
Mother of good counsel,
Mother of our Creator,
Mother of our Savior,
Virgin most prudent,
Virgin most venerable,
Virgin most renowned,
Virgin most powerful,
Virgin most merciful,
Virgin most faithful,
Mirror of justice,
Seat of wisdom,
Cause of our joy,
Spiritual vessel,
Vessel of honor,
Singular vessel of devotion,
Mystical rose,
Tower of David,
Tower of ivory,
House of gold,
Ark of the covenant,
Gate of Heaven,
Morning star,
Health of the sick,
Refuge of sinners,
Comforter of the afflicted,
Help of Christians,
Queen of angels,
Queen of patriarchs,
Queen of prophets,
Queen of apostles,
Queen of martyrs,
Queen of confessors,
Queen of virgins,
Queen of all saints,
Queen conceived without original sin,
Queen assumed into heaven,
Queen of the most holy Rosary,
Queen of peace.
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world,
Spare us, O Lord. 
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world,
Graciously hear us O Lord. 
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world,
Have mercy on us.
V. Pray for us, O holy Mother of God.
R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ. 

Let us pray:
Grant, O Lord God, we beseech Thee, that we Thy servants may rejoice in continual health of mind and body; and, through the glorious intercession of Blessed Mary ever Virgin, may be freed from present sorrow, and enjoy eternal gladness. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

0a1a2fa89c825c4a0717b0363fe6dc19

The cleaving of the Church as prophesied by Bergoglio himself is imminent

When you read things like this, it is truly marvelous how the Visibility of the Church shines through, in this case to shine a spotlight on the antichurch.

“It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.” (December, 2016)

“I pray that there will not be schisms, but I am not afraid.” HERE

Ask yourself: Would a true pope utter these words?  Or rather COULD a true pope utter these words? Schism is a joking matter to this man.

The heart of the matter is that the gospel says there are rules, and this man doesn’t think there are any. Or else he thinks yes, there are rules, but they are merely ideals that we can’t possibly be expected to live by. Or else he thinks, I AM THE LAW, I make the rules. It’s Luther redux.

Following is an excerpt from an essay I wrote  two years ago this month. I am pasting here the most relevant passage given the latest plane ride schismgate. You can read the rest HERE.


Bergoglio believes as Luther did, that we are incapable of reforming our lives, incapable of resisting sin. We don’t really have free will, but rather our will is so damaged after the fall, that we can never make right choices on our own.  Which also means we aren’t really to blame for the sins, because it was concupiscence’s fault, not ours. When we do make right choices, it was really purely God’s grace that produced the decision, and we had nothing to do with it. It’s called Bondage of the Will, and when followed to its logical end is chaos. If it really is true that we have no control over our choices, bad or good, then what is the point of any of this? It’s the Christianity of puppets.

Yes, we are all sinners.  But rooting out sin, especially mortal sin, is possible. God never stops sending His grace, and when we reciprocate by cooperating with His grace, we are capable of doing good, and of greatly reforming our lives. Isn’t this the inescapable message of the Gospel? It seems to me that men who think otherwise are themselves so deeply lost in sin that they can’t imagine it humanly possible to stop. That’s the simplest explanation, whether it is Bergoglio, Luther, or a billion dissenting ‘catholics.’

The pace of events appears to again be accelerating, as we rapidly approach the 100th anniversary of the Fatima Miracle of the Sun (13 October 2017HERE as well as the 500th anniversary of Protestant Revolt (31 October 2017). Remember Sister Lucia’s letter to Cardinal Caffarra?

Cardinal Caffarra explained that Saint John Paul II had commissioned him to plan and establish the Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family. At the beginning of this work, the cardinal wrote a letter to Sister Lucia of Fatima through her bishop, since he could not do it directly. “Inexplicably, since I did not expect a reply, seeing as I had only asked for her prayers, I received a long letter with her signature, which is now in the archives of the Institute,” the Italian cardinal said. “In that letter we find written: ‘The final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan will be about Marriage and the Family.’ Don’t be afraid, she added, because whoever works for the sanctity of Marriage and the Family will always be fought against and opposed in every way, because this is the decisive issue. Then she concluded: ‘nevertheless, Our Lady has already crushed his head’.” HERE

That institute that JPII commissioned Cardinal Caffarra to establish is the same one that Bergoglio abolished this week, two weeks after +Caffarra’s sudden death, replaced by the new institute to enforce Amoris Laetitia HERE. Could the signs be any more clear?

Remember, Bergoglio himself infamously prophesied:

“It is not to be excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.” HERE

You really need to get your head around the imminent cleaving of the Church. You will be facing your own non veni pacem moment (Matt 10:34) when it happens. Have the courage to make the right choice, and take whoever you can with you. You’re not crazy. All the signs are there, and whatever it is that ends up being the final wedge event, trust me, it will be glaringly obvious if you are looking for it. God won’t let anyone be tricked into choosing the wrong side, they will choose the wrong side of their own free will. They’re already doing it. We also know from from the Abomination of Desolation discourse in Matt 24 that the final religious deception, which this may or may not be, will be so great that it will consume nearly everyone (including even the elect, had those times not been cut short).

So stay frosty. Stay confessed. Hone your bearing these next few weeks. Pray.

“Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it.” Matt 10:32-39

“Pseudo-schismatic Christian paths, which will not end well”

If you call Bergoglio true pope, are you preparing to be excommunicated? You should be.

He spoke about another ideology he calls “rigorist,” which he told reporters is “the ideology of an antiseptic morality” that takes no account of the real lives of the faithful and the obligation of pastors to guide them away from sin and toward living the Gospel.

“There are many schools of rigidity within the Catholic Church today which are not in schism, but are pseudo-schismatic Christian paths, which will not end well,” he said. HERE

Taking the prize for negative levels of introspection:

“When ideology takes the place of doctrine, he said, there is the danger of a split in the Christian community.”

I mean, he is pure ideology, nothing else. And yes, he is the one causing schism. So I guess he gets a point for that one, even though (trigger warning – soccer reference ahead) it’s an own goal?

And finally, a Double Whopper with Cheese:

The pope cited those who say, “The pope is too communist” because of his criticism of unbridled capitalism and its negative impact on the poor. “The social things I say are the same things John Paul II said. The very same. I copy him.”

I’m no JPII fanboy, but the man did fight a lifelong battle against Communism, and largely won. Bergoglio slanders him here, either using him to lie to prove that he himself is not Communist, or lying about things JPII never said. Take your pick.

And oh by the way, maybe it’s just the translation, but did you catch the modifier? “The pope is too Communist…” Yes, we all wish you were just a little less Communist, old boy. Just dial it back a wee bit and we are totes BFFs.

As if it were okay for a true pope to be even 1% Communist.

Oh, and Magister reports that Bergoglio already approved Deacons simulating the Mass, as in, Abomination of Desolation. HERE