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.


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.


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.




Prime example of how the current disorientation can adversely affect rational thought

David Martin over at The Remnant has a short piece on the various happenings of the past few days HERE. Mr. Martin is a true trad who totally “gets it” in terms of nuChurch. I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend anything he has written on the council and the Mass. I mean no disrespect to him, but I need to point something out, and hope to do it with charity. It is very, very telling in terms of how the severity of the Roman Chaos is really disorienting and disruptive to rational thought.

After he touches on the heresy of AL, the letter to the bishops being entered into the AAS, and the “Dictator” book now out, Martin ends with this:

We shouldn’t rule out the possibility that Francis may come forward one day and declare “ex-cathedra” that the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia VIII, as now taught by the Holy See, is promulgated as “extraordinary magisterium.”

Should this happen, the Mystical Body would then be without its head. In an interview with Catholic World Report (CWR) in December 2016, Cardinal Raymond Burke, who is presently a member of the Apostolic Signatura, said that if a pope were to “formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope.”

Burke was reiterating Church teaching, as expressed by famed canonist Franz Wernz in his Ius Canonicum: “In sum, it needs to be said clearly that a [publicly] heretical Roman Pontiff loses his power upon the very fact.”

Do you see the problem here?

For someone like Martin who is Catholic and also thinks that Antipope Bergolio is currently the true pope, the first sentence in itself is heretical. Catholics believe that a valid pontiff, due to the unique divine protection and assistance he receives, is INCAPABLE of proclaiming heresy “ex-cathedra.” Therefore, essentially what Martin is saying is, “We should not rule out the possibility of something impossible happening.”

Think about the consequences: If someone claiming to be the pope attempts a heretical ex-cathedra promulgation, he does NOT lose his office at that moment, but rather REVEALS HIMSELF TO BE AN ANTIPOPE BY THE VERY ACT, because a true pontiff is incapable of making a heretical ex-cathedra promulgation. Law of the Excluded Middle.

The next paragraph, “Should this happen, the Mystical Body would then be without its head…” conflates ++Burke’s statement about heresy with the idea of infallibility, to arrive at an erroneous conclusion. As I just explained, “Francis” would NOT lose his office at that moment, but would instead show himself to NOT HAVE BEEN POPE AT ALL. What ++Burke was actually talking about was the possibility of a true pope losing his office by professing formal heresy on matters of faith and morals in a non-infallible way, which a true pope is certainly capable of doing, although extremely rare by reason of the special protections.

Folks, these aren’t meaningless distinctions. You’ve got to get your head around the reality of what is in front of you and draw out the conclusions. As I’ve said before, God loves you and He will continue to make it super easy for you to see the truth and choose wisely. Things are about to get much, much worse, but the signposts will be lit ever brighter.


Antipope Bergoglio attempts to promulgate formal heresy as official Church teaching

“This week, the Vatican’s organ for promulgating the Official Acts of the Apostolic See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS)has published its October 2016 issue, containing Pope Francis’ infamous Letter to the Buenos Aires Bishops. AAS not only published this letter, declaring that there are “no other interpretations” (“No hay otras interpretaciones”) of Amoris Laetitia other than those of the Buenos Aires bishops, but it also published the full Buenos Aires guidelines themselves, which permit Holy Communion in some cases for couples in a state of permanent and public adultery who are not committed to living in complete continence. Most significantly, AAS upgrades Pope Francis’ private letter to the Buenos Aires bishops to the official magisterial status of an “Apostolic Letter” (“Epistola Apostolica”) – AND it includes a special rescript as an addendum by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State. This rescript declares that Pope Francis expressly intends that BOTH documents – the pope’s letter and the Buenos Aires guidelines themselves- bear the character of his “authentic Magisterium”, and that the pope personally ordered their publication in AAS and on the Vatican website.”
Full story at Rorate HERE

And still, there will be a gaggle of apologists queuing up to explain how it’s not “official”, not binding, not magisterial, not what he really meant, mistranslated, etc. Still others will admit that yes, it’s very troubling, but hey, no big deal, no worries, not our place to do anything, best shush up lest the pewsitters be scandalized.

Those are all lies, and the people providing the excuses are liars.

It’s a good thing Antipope Begoglio is not now, was not ever, nor ever shall be pope.  If he were truly pope, this would be the biggest event in the history of the Church since the Ascension, because it would seemingly disprove the Bride of Christ being indefectible, as her Bridegroom promised she would be until the end of time. A rational person with the ability to reason, who thinks Antipope Bergoglio is true pope, MUST LOGICALLY QUESTION HIS OR HER FAITH IN THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, because apparently SHE IS NOT IN FACT WHAT SHE HAS PROCLAIMED HERSELF TO BE FOR 2000 YEARS.

This is not some arcane theological argument. This is a matter of faith and morals where the “visible” Vicar of Christ on earth is directly contradicting Divine Law as spoken directly from the lips of the Creator and Savior of the universe.

Let that sink in.

Yeah, tell me again how the failed partial Benedict abdication is the cuckopants theory and just so far fetched. What an utterly absurd position that is, when the amount of evidence in favor of it continues to grow. Every day that Antipope Bergoglio proves beyond any doubt that he lacks a shred of special papal protection from the Holy Ghost, due to his election being invalid, he strengthens the Benedictine position more and more. For all those still straining to come up with he latest way to square the circle, you’re invited to come have a scotch with me and Occam’s razor.

Cardinal Müller: Trad blogs are half the problem

And the other half are heretics…

“The tensions in the Church arise from the contrast between an extremist traditionalist front on some websites, and an equally exaggerated progressive front which today seeks to credit themselves as super-papists.”

Leave aside for a moment the problem of calling out faithful Catholics as “equally” to blame with the heretics, and recognize the bigger news:  It’s the latest admission of the incredible, borderline miraculous impact of the tiny, tiny tradsphere on the evil empire. I’m not using that word lightly; a miracle – supernatural intervention – is exactly what is needed, and is probably the only means to remedy the entire situation. How many trad blogs would you say might exist in the world? In the English speaking world, it’s fewer than 20, right? How many in all other languages? Well, the “Warrior Ants” (h/t Mundabor) continue to punch way above their weight. At this point, there is probably an entire secret dicastery monitoring the enemy. The Pontifical Council for Integral Closeness to Deplorables on the Margins. Or some such.

Go read the longer excerpt at Rorate HERE. 

As has become his custom, Müller manages to play both sides multiple times in the span of two paragraphs. It seems clear there is signaling going on here, to some group or groups, but at some point the dear cardinal will indeed need to choose which side he is on.

“Secure your own mask first, before helping others.”

I fly around 120K miles a year for my day job, so I hear that phrase a lot. Maybe that’s why when I heard it referenced by Ann Barnhardt in a podcast earlier this week, it just sort of went right past me.  The analogy was referring to the need to make sure your own faith, soul, prayer life, etc is well taken care of as prerequisite to anything else.

That same day, I went off to Confession, as I had already planned to do. The penance was totally focused on the need to pray for my own needs, and really making it a priority. The priest asked me if I had prayed my daily Rosary yet, and I told him I had not (I love that at the FSSP parish, it’s just assumed you’re praying a daily Rosary).  He instructed me to go offer my Rosary, entrusting to our Blessed Mother the channeling of all necessary graces for my spiritual benefit.

The podcast and the Confession should both have been a big wake up call. But the full gravity of the situation didn’t really hit me until about halfway through that Rosary when I realized, slap upside the head, I actually could not remember the last time I prayed the Rosary entirely for myself. The Holy Ghost always knows when you need a slap upside the head. Now you already know how much I love the Rosary, so you can imagine how odd this seemed to me. I mean, obviously I’ve prayed a decade or two as a penance, for an increase in this virtue or that, but a whole Rosary just for me? I can’t remember the last time, and that’s a real problem.

In Spiritual Warfare, the Rosary is a weapon of mass destruction. I’ve written about it many times in these pages. It’s a real weapon, not a metaphorical weapon. So much so, it almost seems selfish to offer it entirely for yourself. But it’s never selfish to pray for yourself, so long as your intention is in accord with God’s will. And we need not worry about petitioning something against His will, because He’s not granting that anyway. Of course in the individual prayers of the Rosary, the Our Fathers and Hail Marys, we are praying for ourselves within those prayers. But what I am talking about here are specific, personal, spiritual intentions beyond what is asked in those prayers.

I would be willing to bet that most Catholics who are somewhat secure in their faith, who are honestly trying to live authentic Christian lives, and who have managed by the grace of God to overcome a whole bunch of entrenched wretchedness, don’t pray for themselves nearly enough. We foolishly think we’ve extracted ourselves permanently from said wretchedness and we’re now “saved”. Not in the proddy sense of “once saved always saved”, but rather in the sense of “thanks to my hard conversion/reversion to the one true faith, even though I still fall sometimes, and even though I’m totally unworthy of the honor, I am now on the side of the angels and God will surely grant me final perseverance.”

Oh man, that is so dangerous. It’s for very good reason that Jesus taught us to pray to the Father to deliver us not into temptation, and that we ask Mary to pray for us at the hour of our death. It’s for very good reason that in the Roman Canon itself, during the Hanc Igitur, the priest and faithful pray to be saved from eternal damnation and be counted among the elect. Damnation is a real possibility if we so choose it, and “once saved always saved” is one of the most pernicious lies ever told. If you are truly living an authentic Christian life, Satan views you as a hard target; he knows he needs to deploy extra resources to bring you down, and deploy he will. He’s already won the soft targets without even trying, so he’s got extra munitions reserved for you. Meditate on the blitzkrieg he has planned for the hour of your death. Be terrified by this, and use the terror to build your counterattack.

With everything that’s going on right now, all of the “confusion” surrounding all aspects of the Bergolian antipapacy, Satan is squealing with delight and has launched a huge offensive. Bergoglio himself is a soft target for Satan, easily manipulated and used to destroy souls on a horrific scale. He is a soft target not only because he is an arch-heretic and profoundly stupid, but because he does not have the supernatural protection afforded to the holder of the Petrine office, due to his invalid election. Now, when this is the unmistakable reality of the Catholic Church today, the one true Church founded by God Incarnate, do you think perhaps the effects of this might be rather… widespread? The past nearly five years since the failed partial resignation of Pope Benedict has literally been, pun intended, a huge coming out party for all manner of perversion and reprobation; a spiraling tempest of filth. Do you want a sense of how long ago five years was? Five years ago, Hillary Clinton was campaigning AGAINST same-sex “marriage.”  Yeah. The ever quickening pace of events across all sectors of civilization is so breathtaking, you would be delusional to think it’s not all connected. The demonic activity is everywhere and is even palpable at times. PALPABLE. Have you felt it? Every solid priest I speak with confirms they feel it too.

So there is certainly no shortage of things to pray about. And while some of this is about prioritization, it’s also about recognizing your role at the tip of the spear. We need to militantly pursue our own spiritual perfection first and foremost. It might not seem right when it first hits your ear, but if we are too busy praying for everyone else at the expense of praying for ourselves, it does everyone a disservice. This may sound uncharitable or lacking humility, but that’s not the case, because it necessarily means expanding our own prayer life. The mere fact that you are here, reading this tiny, tiny blog right now, means you are probably the tip of the spear. Proper training is essential. By calling down these graces in petition, and cooperating with them, our own increase in holiness in turn makes our prayers for others more efficacious. Everybody wins.

You are part of a very small, elite, specialized unit. This is the greatest battle ever fought, because the results of this battle are eternal. You need to be on your game.

St Michael the Archangel, pray for us

St Joan of Arc, pray for us

St Martin of Tours, pray for us

St Ignatius of Loyola, pray for us

Christ, have mercy on us

Dubia first anniversary

Today marks the one year anniversary of the publishing of the Four Candinal’s “dubia” concerning Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia, two months after it was delivered to antipope Bergoglio.

The dubia are brilliantly written, and they follow a longstanding tradition in the Church when Rome issues a directive which raises questions in its interpretation. The ones we have in front of us, due to the wretched heresy contained in Chapter Eight, put Bergoglio in an impossible position, which is why he has refused to answer.

The dubia are important, as this is the only public challenge, by men with any standing to actually do something about it, to the public heresy of the man who is acknowledged by these same men to be the current pontiff, and the verbiage is precise and damning. On the other hand, the dubia are meaningless, because the premise is false, because Bergoglio is an antipope who usurped the throne invalidly due to the failed partial abdication of Pope Benedict XVI, who is still the one and only living pope. Which means Amoris Laetitia never really happened, nor did any of the other bogus “papal” documents, like the one about the backyard barbeque being mortal sin HERE. None of the hundreds of heretical and/or blasphemous mutterings of the despicable Argentine have any impact on the magisterial or pastoral teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, because he is not now, never was, and never shall be pope. Thanks be to God.

So my prayer today is that the world be awakened to the true situation in Rome, but also for the two remaining dubia cardinals to get on with it, with whatever the final correction is going to look like.

I have some troublesome “cherished beliefs” I need to share with Cardinal Archheretic Cupich

“It is our job to take up that discernment. It takes time. It involves discipline. Most importantly it requires that we be prepared to let go of cherished beliefs and long-held biases,” said the Archbishop of Chicago in a talk to the Catholic Theological Union published on YouTube October 27. HERE

Dear Blase, may I share with you a particular cherished belief that I’m most definitely not prepared to let go of?


Oh, does it seem wrong to “cherish” the thought of Hell? Nope, think again.  Hell is real. It’s never wrong to love the eternal truths. It’s never wrong to proclaim the Truth. You are obliged to do this. Knowledge of Hell is a great, great blessing. In fact, desiring Heaven solely out of a fear of Hell is good enough to get you there. It’s called Imperfect Contrition.

Cardinal Cupich is a lying heretic who needs to know he will spend all eternity in Hell for leading countless souls astray, and every one of those souls will rage against him personally face to face forever. He needs to repent and renounce of his heresy. He needs to know that there is no way to trick God by discerning, encountering, or attempting to abrogate God’s laws out of faux mercy.

I’ve been praying quite a bit on the Four Last Things. This topic has come at me from several different vectors of late. That’s usually a pretty good sign to sit up and pay attention. In particular, meditating on Hell and developing a deeply terrifying fear of it can be a most helpful exercise. It is an important step in growing our love for God, and wanting never to offend him. But for most of modernist, humanist, secularist western society, the Four Last Things have tragically become the Two Last Things. There are two versions, both as vacuous as they are ubiquitous:

First version: Death, Nothing. This group is split between the exploding number of atheists, and believers who think there might be a Heaven but no way could there be a Hell because mercy. Those who don’t make it to Heaven are just snuffed out… Soul annihilation. For a solid tracing of where this mindset must lead, using rational, linear thinking, go visit Ann Barnhardt, who nails it as usual HERE. 

Second version: Death, Heaven. For most nominal believers, that’s it. It makes no difference how the person lived their lives nor the circumstances of their death, nor really anything, unless they were literally Hitler. I’ve seen a lot of this even in Catholic circles, because of course nobody knows the faith. Yet suddenly when a “nice” person dies unexpectedly, of course he or she goes to meet God right away.  Julie at Connecticut Catholic Corner has a few words about this HERE.

Both versions reek, in different ways, of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. If you want to understand just how far 95% of “Christianity” has gone astray, get to know MTD. The five core dogmas of MTD are:

  1. God exists and He created the world
  2. God wants people to be nice to each other
  3. God wants everyone to feel happy and good about themselves
  4. God doesn’t need to be involved in our daily lives, unless there is a problem and we need Him
  5. Good people go to heaven when they die

It is not an exaggeration to say that hundreds of millions of people today think MTD is the central message of Christianity, which could not possibly be farther from the truth. I am linking here to a site that unfortunately contains quite a bit of anti-Catholic bigotry, but the page I’m sending you to is the best visual representation of MTD I’ve been able to find. Please go take a look. It’s a page that describes hundreds of people I know, both “Catholic” and not. Please go HERE.

This is what happens when you abandon “cherished beliefs”. Pretty soon, not only is your religion hollowed out, it actually turns into the opposite of what it was meant to be. You must call this out, and warn others about it. God’s laws don’t change, because God never changes, because God was always perfect, and you can’t change perfect into something more perfecter.

Let’s get back to Heaven and Hell. God created us to know, love, and serve Him in this life, so that we might be happy with Him forever in the next. He shared with us through the revealed truths what makes him happy and what hurts him. If we love someone, we try to do those things that make them happy, and avoid those things that hurt them. Sometimes we fail, and we need to be sorry for that and seek forgiveness. Striving to live an authentic Christian life is founded on these concepts. Building your “personal relationship” with the Triune Godhead is based on renouncing your sin AS A SIGN OF YOUR LOVE. Once you start thinking about it this way — that your actual sins are in fact personally injurious to God — you’ll start putting a whole lot more “discernment” into those bad decisions.

Hell was first created as a result of Lucifer’s refusal to serve God, when God revealed the entire plan of salvation to all the angels. Lucifer, likely the most glorious, beautiful, and intellectually superior angel created by God, was so disgusted, so enraged, so filled with sinful pride, that he just couldn’t accept the plan. This beautiful angel refused to accept that almighty God would lower Himself to take on flesh, homo factus est, and immolate Himself to redeem humanity. We might imagine that the icing on the cake was being told that God would not only become man, but be born of a woman, the spotless Virgin, and that this woman would in turn become Queen of the Universe. You can imagine the total throw down hissy fit Lucifer had upon learning that he had a female human monarch over him. So he issued his Non Serviam, and fully one third of the angels followed him in their rebellion, and were cast out. The other two-thirds chose wisely and were granted the Beatific Vision.

If you truly want to grow in your spiritual life, in your love of God, through a terrifying fear of Hell, think about this: If one-third of the angels willingly chose to reject the will of God, and were cast into Hell because of it, what percentage of the human race do you think ends up there? These angels, with soaring intellects orders of magnitude greater than ours, pure spirit, with no temptations of the flesh, the most beautiful and gifted creatures ever created by God… if 33% of these angels each individually chose to reject God to His face, what chance do we have?  Yeah, I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess a frighteningly large majority of the human race ends up in Hell. God’s justice is perfect, and the percentages aren’t good. Hammer this fact into your brain until it starts to pop up every time you are in the near occasion of sin.

We must instruct others on the reality of Hell. We must never desire anyone to go there. We must work and pray for the salvation of all souls. But Hell exists, it’s not empty, and people are falling into it every day.

Discern that, Blase.

“Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.” Matt 25:41