Monthly Archives: January 2017

So, All the Snowflakes Are Upset…

By Allan Gillis

They think it “un-American” of President Trump (damn! It felt so nice to type that!) to put a temporary halt to immigration from several Muslim-majority countries.  Trump signed an executive order Friday that imposed a 120-day suspension of the refugee program and a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from citizens of seven terror hot spots, including Iraq, Syria, Somalia and Sudan.  He insists it’s “not a Muslim ban” and blames the media for that suggestion. He says it is a plan to keep Americans safe and I believe it and heartily endorse it.

“America is a proud nation of immigrants.” The President said the country “will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression,” but “while protecting our own citizens and border.”

If you’re going to whine about it – then I dare you to watch this latest video of how ISIS is training kids to kill us – you and me.

…have the balls to watch this and then tell me how you feel about just letting ANYONE here into our country.

Kids training with Glocks (?) hunting down prisoners who have their hands tied behind them as they are left to scramble in an abandoned building.

This is REAL.      Coming soon to a public place near you!

Our Hippie-Pope longs for the 60’s-70’s, Groovy!

Frankie wants to take a hammer to the recent ICEL. The interpretations re-tooled after the 60’s version of the Roman Missal was finally heaved due to its “creative” license with language. This recent ICEL seemed nice to me – nice; in that it was MUCH MORE adherent to the Latin text for liturgy!  What’s wrong with that Frankie?!?  You give me such heartburn!  Why can’t YOU retire and give us back our Pope!

Catholic World News reports:

Pope orders fresh review of liturgical translations

January 27, 2017

Pope Francis has ordered a new review of the principles that guide translations of the liturgy, America magazine has confirmed.

The Pope reportedly formed a commission to review Liturgiam Authenticam, the document issued by the Vatican in 2001 that called for liturgical translations that adhered closely to the Latin of the Roman Missal. That document, which led to a new and more accurate English translation of liturgy, has continued to draw criticism from liturgists who favor a more “creative” interpretation of the language of the Mass.

The Pope’s decision to launch such a review has been widely rumored, but never officially announced. The commission has not yet met, America reports, nor has the list of its members been made public. However, it will be chaired by Archbishop Arthur Roche, the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship—rather than by that congregation’s prefect, Cardinal Robert Sarah, who is known to favor a more conservative approach.

Brought to you by Allan Gillis

Two old contrasting shows on western civilization

By Augustinus

Compare Kenneth Clark’s history of civilization (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6irRrtObMM&list=PLt3Pke412qVfwUbqMb3WeNRUbhKsTVKp7) with John Berger’s take on western civilization and Berger’s “critique” of Kenneth Clark’s perspective in particular (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ways+of+seeing). Both are BBC series on the history of western art. Clark essentially ascribes the vitality of the western tradition with the generative capacity of the Catholic Church to renew the “confidence” of the west in itself. It is that “confidence” that Clark argues creates a civilization. Berger focuses only on the post-renaissance period and the tradition of oil painting. In Berger’s view oil painting and perspective developed in order to advertise the wealth and power of the painting’s owners. In his self-portraits Rembrandt at first used oil painting like all the other artists–to advertise power and status. But then as he got older Berger shows how Rembrandt’s self-portraits changed as he aged. He still used oil paint techniques but he used those techniques against the tradition of status displays. Instead Berger says, Rembrandt turned his self portraits into a display of honesty, suffering and a question…”Existence itself as a question”.

John Berger who died this past year was one of the more profound Marxist thinkers but he could still not see what Kenneth Clark could see: the pivotal and generative role the Catholic Church played in the creation of western art. In episode after episode Clark visits spots in the west that once contained priceless works of arts from Celtic crosses to stained glass windows to free standing sculptures of Mary to whole monasteries…architectural wonders — ALL destroyed by the Taliban-like protestant  fanatics celebrated recently by the newly enlightened Vatican city state under Pope Francis.

Need to Throw Up?

Check this out!        This’ll make ya barf!        Remember “The Culture-Vulture” here in Boston?!

“The Lord sent us a treasure to lead us safely home”: it’s Pope Francis

She’s a bit “long-in-the-tooth” for the bleached-blond look – and she clearly needs a bit less makeup and a bit more fabric for her dresses.  God love her.   I wince as I hear the obvious American “Country” style music influence on popular Irish music these days for the “older set” over in the “old country”.  “Papa Francis”???  Are you shittin’ me?

God help us!       ..am I just being a culture-snob?
“Song for Pope Francis composed and performed by Emily Clarke ahead of the 2018 Papal Visit to Ireland.” – See more at: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/#sthash.GTPvjlrL.dpuf

He almost coughed out his false teeth!

By Allan Gillis

So, I’m at a Novus Ordo Mass last week with my grand-daughter and it is a typical Boston-area Novus-Ordo parish complete within a 1950’s style “airport terminal” building and dully-fitted “picnic-table” bare altar with a bare and white-washed 30 foot-high wall behind it and of course the Tabernacle is fashionably set off to the left of the altar by about 20 feet.  From what I hear the old building was gorgeous…but, to some designers and archdiocesan administrators back then, in those halcyon days just after Vatican 2 – perhaps it was way too Catholic-looking.

It is the “Children’s Mass” as it were…the 9 o’clock Mass on Sunday…the music is saccharin and upbeat – but of course completely devoid of lyrics that might invoke truths/concepts such as “sin”, “sacrifice”, “hell” or perhaps some other unpleasant notions. I just realized as I write that any Marian devotion or mention is hardly ever made.  Why doesn’t the N.O. form allow for at least a recital – somewhere during the Mass – of at least ONE Hail Mary???

Oh well…    too Catholic I suppose.

So the pastor takes the ambo and then nonchalantly sashays down off the raised platform during his homily to get down with us –  the people (how NICE of him!).  He begins lamenting the sudden need he sees for his correcting men about taking their hats off “in church”.  Imagine?! He regales us with anecdotes of how nice it was “years ago” when everyone would piously genuflect before the altar, when people had a reverence and knowledge of how they were in “God’s House” and acted accordingly, and men ALWAYS took off their hats.  He then fervently upbraids us for failing to genuflect.  Failing to demonstrate our understanding of the symbiotic relationship between “symbols” and “actions of faith” (my words). He encourages the congregation to be more mindful of this in the future – to be more disposed to demonstrate to the world the Eucharistic presence of Christ within us.

I was pleased and dismayed simultaneously. Confused actually.

When they took a wrecking-ball to the churches after V2 and destroyed the beautiful altars and interiors they decided for some diabolic reason to set the tabernacle off somewhere else…in one local church until recently the tabernacle was way off and tucked further down the transept.

Why?

…and they wonder why the Catholic people don’t genuflect anymore?  I KNOW for a fact that many, many people are confused.  I see people “reverence” the altar, while ignoring the tabernacle and I see others doing the exact opposite. People don’t know what to do. They remember (or have a collective memory of) when “in times of old” the tabernacle AND the altar was one central focus of reverence.  Sadly, I think this is exactly what some evil bishops wanted…  and still want.  Confusion breeds apathy.  Apathy will breed faithlessness.

The destruction of our Catholic identity is the Devil’s work.

So, I approached Father X after Mass (respectfully and NOT in a smug or combative way – I assure you, especially those of you who know me well).  I asked; “Father, if you are concerned about the lack of reverence for symbols and actions…   why not put that tabernacle back in the center of the apse?   (but there is none architecturally – so back at the center of the altar)   and while you’re at it, maybe you would seriously consider Cardinal Sarah’s exhortation to celebrate Mass “Ad Orientem”?  This would certainly help to heighten consciousness – no?”

He nearly coughed out his false teeth!

His plump face turns pale and he snorts: “You’ll never get anywhere with ME on those ideas!”

So, I am left dismayed.

Lex Orandi Lex Crendendi

President Trump!

By Augustinus

Well the unthinkable has occurred. Trump has been sworn in as President and the very next day half a million shrieking harpies descended upon Washington demanding the preservation of the “right” to murder unborn children in the womb. Towering intellectuals such as Madonna, Ashley Judd and the emasculate Michael Moore spoke to the crowd urging greater funding for planned parenthood clinics around the country.

Trump’s inaugural speech emphasied the heretical “America First” meme that got him elected. America First is anathema to the  internationalist left which believes that the white man must not only pay reparations to blacks everywhere but must also invite in muslim “refugees” in order to bury the whiate man’s hated, misogynistic, patriarchal Christian church-or what is left of it in the west.

The left however is OK with Israel politicians making Israel first and building walls to keep muslim hordes from destroying what is left of the anti-christian Talmudic Judaism now ruling in Palestine. Why is it OK for jews to build walls to defend their religion but not for Christian man to do so? The muslim nations in the middle east and Africa also do not allow Christians tim immigrate to their countries or to missionize there or to worship freely there. Why is that OK for the muslim countries and not for Christian man?

Trump’s measured immigration restrictions seem common sense to me. But because it is common sense he will be vilified for imposing any restrictions on the “free movement of peoples across borders”. Similarly we will be bombarded with claims from all quarters (particularly China) that Trump’s economic nationalism will be a disaster for the world economy but China herself practices economic nationalism. Why is it OK for China to do so and not the USA?

Trump’s ascendancy to the presidency should give some impetus to marine LePen party in France and Geert Wilder’s party in the Netherlands. These are two parties vilified by the left because they seek to impose restrictions on muslim immigration into their countries. Although they are rising in the polls they face formidable structural obstacles to winning political power in those countries.

Trump will be marginally better for the Church in the USA than Clinton would have been. Certainly Trump’s cabinet members are more favorably disposed to the church than any democratic politician. But the Trump administration will only delay the inevitable assault on the church that has been brewing for decades in this country. Canada gives us an example of a country that has essentially murdered the church under the guise of leftist inspired anti-hate speech laws and pro-women liberation laws. People are being jailed now in Canada for defending basic christian positions and that is what is coming for us in the USA -despite the respite that Trump may offer us for the next four years. let us then use the next four years wisely and prepare for the worst.

Established Science Huh?

By Allan Gillis

I STILL revel in my soon-to-be-illegal status as a “denier”!
Here’s some encouragement for dim-wits like me – from my courageous friend Dr. Richard Lindzen:

I urge you all to THINK FOR YOURSELVES!     BE BRAVE AND DARE TO SWIM AGAINST THE TIDE OF FOOLISHNESS!  GOD CREATED AND GOD HIMSELF WILL DESTROY THE EARTH.  PERIOD.

Poste Vaticane – Commemorative stamping to honor Martin Luther

Brought to you by Allan Gillis

From Fr. Z’s Blog (with great respect)

***************************************************************************

Yesterday I heard that the Vatican Post was to issue a commemorative stamp honoring Martin Luther.  HERE

To honor someone who so publicly ripped asunder the fabric of Christendom is appalling.  Who’s next?  Judas Iscariot?

This is like:

  • Augustus Caesar minting coins honoring Marcus Iunius Brutus
  • Sparta founding a momument for Ephialtes
  • West Point renaming a building for Benedict Arnold
  • Norway designating a national holiday for Vikdun Quisling
  • The FBI creating a plaque for the Rosenburgs

I want a special commemorative stamp of Leo X, who excommunicated Luther.  His tomb is in Santa Maria sopra Minerva.  The next time I’m in Rome, I’ll bring flowers for his grave.

The Vatican-UN Alliance: Architects of Death and Doom

Brought to you by Allan Gillis

 

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Written by Elizabeth Yore

TIME Magazine cover January 1960

 

I told you so.

The jaw dropping invitation by Pope Francis’ Pontifical Academy of Social Science and Sciences, to Paul Ehrlich, the author of the bestseller, The Population Bomb should finally wake up Catholics. As shocking as the announcement is, it’s not surprising to Vatican observers. From the moment Bergoglio stepped out onto the loggia, this B
ishop of Rome has opened wide the bronze doors of St. Peter’s to the globalists and their population control agenda.

Not surprisingly, Peter Raven, Ehrlich’s collaborator on the Population Bomb, serves as an official member of the Pontifical Academy of Science. Paul Ehrlich hails as the ideological progenitor of the population control movement. His protégé, Jeffrey Sachs is featured as the uber Vatican expert on all things environmental and sustainable. Sachs, the UN bureaucrat and George Soros inner circle advisor, was provided a permanent perch at the Vatican while he spoke at 19 Vatican conferences during the first three years of the Francis Papacy.

This bizarre and troubling alliance was predicted when as a member of the Heartland Institute delegation, I traveled to Rome to protest the Vatican’s adoption of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Pope’s environmental exhortation, Laudato Si. At the Rome press conference on April 27, 2015, I addressed the topic of the Vatican’s Ehrlichian drift and adoption of population control.

The human trafficking crisis was being exploited by the Vatican as somehow linked to climate change. As an expert in human trafficking, I instantly recognized the false narrative by globalists to bootstrap their phony crisis of climate change with the real scourge of human trafficking. The culprit for the fraudulent and contrived panic peddling was none other than Jeffrey Sachs, who mimicked the scare tactics of the 60s population control guru, Paul Ehrlich. Here is an excerpt of my Rome remarks about Sachs and Ehrlich in April 27, 2015:

“And who is the Vatican consulting with on this problem? Jeffrey Sachs, who spends his career sounding the alarm that the world is overpopulated, and fertility rates must be lowered. In fact, at a 2007 international lecture, Sachs claims that “we are bursting at the seams.” The focus of Sachs’ overpopulation mantra is the continent of Africa. He argues that if only poor African countries would just lower their fertility rate, the world and Africa would thrive economically.

This fear mongering is nothing new. Sachs is standing on the shoulders of Paul Ehrlich, architect of the “sky is falling” deception perpetrated in his 1968 book, The Population Bomb. Ehrlich mastered the alarmist overpopulation canard with his infamous thesis, “the battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date, nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

In furtherance of his imagined crisis, Ehrlich supported all kinds of draconian solutions to address this concocted calamity, including putting birth control in the water supply, forced abortions, coercive sterilizations, forcibly punishing countries who balk at implementing radical population control measures. Ehrlich’s recommendations also included punitive taxes on families who have children, and on childcare products, in order to “fix” the problem of global famine from overpopulation.

Ehrlich’s doomsday prophecy was a fraud.

Nevertheless, as a consequence of Ehrlich’s deceit, the UN began its course of worldwide reproductive edicts to reduce fertility, including contraception, sterilization and abortion. The big lie worked and the UN used fear as an opportunity to introduce abortion into the world order. Panic and fear mongering are the weapons of repressive organizations.

Jeffrey Sachs continues the phony Paul Ehrlich drumbeat of overpopulation, and conveniently adds new fear tactics of climate change and human trafficking to justify and bolster the urgency of abortion and other sterilization tools to achieve the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

Today, same scare tactics, same players, new alarm bells. The scare strategy of catastrophic global warming, debunked by science, morphs into climate change, debunked by science, morphs into sustainable development. Undeterred, the United Nations asserts its power to impose its elitists’ goals on the world under the rubric of “shared sustainable development goals.”

“Yet, forever embedded into the bureaucratic culture of the UN is their desired weapon of choice, abortion on demand. That is why it is so very troubling that at a Papal Conference entitled Dignify Humanity, the Vatican is consulting with the Secretary General of the UN and Jeffrey Sachs to recommend ‘sustainable development’ measures, which we all know are abortion, contraception and sterilization to solve alleged climate change.”

Welcome to the New World Order of the Vatican where the purveyors of panic and architects of death are celebrated and featured by the Vicar of Christ. For those who still naively claim that Francis is unaware of the activities and invitations to Sachs and Ehrlich, please note that Pope Francis shared an intimate speaker dais with Jeffrey Sachs, while personally thanking Sachs for his Vatican work, and the Pope personally hosting a private meeting with Sachs and UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon in his papal apartment. Hardly unaware.

It’s time to panic.

This is a featured column on The Remnant today!

3 prelates appeal to prayer:

Brought to you by Allan Gillis

“That Pope Francis may confirm the unchanging praxis of the Church with regard to the truth of the indissolubility of marriage”

Note: We were asked to promote the following text and prayer with you, our readers, and ask you and other media to please share it far and wide. It was written by Tomash Peta, Metropolitan Archbishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana; Jan Pawel Lenga, Archbishop-Bishop emeritus of Karaganda; and Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana:

Following the publication of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, in some particular churches there were published norms for its application and interpretations whereby the divorced who have attempted civil marriage with a new partner, notwithstanding the sacramental bond by which they are joined to their legitimate spouse, are admitted to the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist without fulfilling the duty, established by God, of ceasing to violate the bond of their existing sacramental marriage.

Cohabitation more uxorio with a person who is not one’s legitimate spouse represents, at the same time, an offense to the Covenant of Salvation, of which sacramental marriage is a sign (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2384), and an offense to the nuptial character of the Eucharistic mystery itself. Pope Benedict XVI revealed such a correlation when he wrote: “The Eucharist inexhaustibly strengthens the indissoluble unity and love of every Christian marriage. By the power of the sacrament, the marriage bond is intrinsically linked to the Eucharistic unity of Christ the Bridegroom and his Bride, the Church (cf. Eph. 5:31-32)” (Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum caritatis, 27).

Pastors of the Church who tolerate or authorize, even in individual or exceptional cases,  the reception of the sacrament of the Eucharist by the divorced and so-called “remarried,” without their being clothed in the “wedding garment,” despite the fact that God himself has prescribed it in Sacred Scripture (cf. Matt. 22:11 and 1 Cor. 11:28-29) as the necessary requirement for worthy participation in the nuptial Eucharistic supper, such pastors are complicit in this way with a continual offense against the sacramental bond of marriage, the nuptial bond between Christ and the Church and the nuptial bond between Christ and the individual soul who receives his Eucharistic Body.

Several particular Churches have issued or recommended pastoral guidelines with this or a similar formulation: “If then this choice [of living in continence] is difficult to practice for the stability of the couple, Amoris laetitia does not exclude the possibility of access to Penance and the Eucharist. That signifies something of an openness, as in the case where there is a moral certainty that the first marriage was null, but there are not the necessary proofs for demonstrating such in the judicial process. Therefore, there is no reason why the confessor, at a certain point, in his own conscience, after much prayer and reflection, should not assume the responsibility before God and the penitent asking that the sacraments be received in a discreet manner.”

The previously mentioned pastoral guidelines contradict the universal tradition of the Catholic Church, which by means of an uninterrupted Petrine Ministry of the Sovereign Pontiffs has always been faithfully kept, without any shadow of doubt or of ambiguity, either in its doctrine or its praxis, in that which concerns the indissolubility of marriage.

The norms mentioned and pastoral guidelines contradict moreover in practice the following truths and doctrines that the Catholic Church has continually taught as being sure:

The observance of the Ten Commandments of God, and in particular the Sixth Commandment, binds every human person, without exception, always and in every situation. In this matter, one cannot admit individual or exceptional cases or speak of a fuller ideal. St Thomas Aquinas says: “The precepts of the Decalogue embody the intention of the legislator, that is God. Therefore, the precepts of the Decalogue permit no dispensation” (Summa theol. 1-2, q.100, a.8c).

The moral and practical demands, which derive from the Ten Commandments of God, and in particular from the indissolubility of marriage, are not simple norms or positive laws of the Church, but an expression of the holy will of God. Consequently, one cannot speak in this respect of the primacy of the person over the norm or the law, but one must rather speak of the primacy of the will of God over the will of the sinful human person, in such a way that this person is saved, by fulfilling the will of God with the help of his grace.

To believe in the indissolubility of marriage and to contradict it by one’s own actions while at the same time considering oneself even being free from grave sin and calming one’s conscience by trusting in God’s mercy alone, represents a self-deception against which Tertullian, a witness to the faith and practice of the Church of the first centuries warned:  “Some say that for God it is sufficient that one accepts his will in one’s heart and soul, even if one’s actions do not correspond to this: in this manner they think themselves able to sin while maintaining the integrity of the principle of faith and fear of God: in this way, it is absolutely the same as if one attempted to maintain the principle of chastity, while violating and breaking the holiness and integrity of the matrimonial bond” (Tertullian, De poenitentia 5,10).

The observance of the Commandments of God and in particular of the indissolubility of marriage cannot be presented as a fuller expression of an ideal towards which one should strive in accordance with the criterion of the good which is possible or achievable. It is rather the case of an obligation which God himself has unequivocally commanded, the non-observance of which, in accordance with his Word, carries the penalty of eternal damnation. To say to the faithful the contrary would seem to signify misleading them or encouraging them to disobey the will of God, and in such way endangering their eternal salvation.

God gives to every man assistance in the observance of his Commandments, when such a request is properly made, as the Church has infallibly taught: “God does not command that which is impossible, but in commanding he exhorts you to do that which you are able, and to ask for that which you cannot do, and so he assists you that you might be able to do it” (Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 11) and “and if someone says that even for the man who has been justified and established in grace  the commandments of God are impossible to observe: let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, session 6, canon 18.) Following this infallible doctrine, St John Paul II taught: “Keeping God’s law in particular situations can be difficult, extremely difficult, but it is never impossible. This is the constant teaching of the Church’s tradition” (Encyclical Veritatis splendor, 102) and “All husbands and wives are called in marriage to holiness, and this lofty vocation is fulfilled to the extent that the human person is able to respond to God’s command with serene confidence in God’s grace and in his or her own will” (Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 34).

The sexual act outside of a valid marriage, and in particular adultery, is always objectively gravely sinful and no circumstance and no reason can render it admissible or pleasing in the sight of God. St Thomas Aquinas says that the Sixth Commandment obliges even in the case where an act of adultery could save a country from tyranny (De Malo, q.15, a.1, ad. 5). St John Paul II taught this perennial truth of the Church: “The negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids” (Encyclical Veritatis splendor, 67).

The adulterous union of those who are civilly divorced and “remarried,” “consolidated,” as they say, over time and characterized by a so-called “proven fidelity” in the sin of adultery, cannot change the moral quality of their act of violation of the sacramental bond of marriage, that is, of their adultery, which remains always an intrinsically evil act. A person who has the true faith and a filial fear of God can never be “understanding” towards acts which are intrinsically evil, as are sexual acts outside of a valid marriage, since these acts are offensive to God.

The admission of the divorced and “remarried” to Holy Communion constitutes in practice an implicit dispensation from the observance of the Sixth Commandment. No ecclesiastical authority has the power to concede such an implicit dispensation in a single case, or in an exceptional or complex situation or with the goal of achieving a good end (as in example the education of the children born of an adulterous union) invoking for such a concession the principle of mercy, or the “via caritatis,” or the maternal care of the Church or affirming not to want to impose many conditions to mercy. St Thomas Aquinas said: “In no circumstances should a person commit adultery (pro nulla enim utilitate debet aliquis adulterium committere)” (De Malo, q.15, a.1, ad. 5).

A norm which permits the violation of the Sixth Commandment of God and of the sacramental matrimonial bond only in a single case or in exceptional cases, presumably to avoid a general change to the canonical norm, nonetheless always signifies a contradiction of the truth and of the will of God. Consequently, it is psychologically out of place and theologically erroneous to speak in this case of a restrictive norm or of a lesser evil in contrast with the general norm.

A valid marriage of the baptized is a sacrament of the Church and of its nature has a public character. A subjective judgment of the conscience in relation to the invalidity of one’s own marriage, in contrast to the corresponding definitive judgment of an ecclesiastical tribunal, cannot bring consequences for sacramental discipline, since the sacramental discipline always has a public character.

The Church, and specifically the minister of the sacrament of Penance, does not have the faculty to judge on the state of conscience of an individual member of the faithful or on the rectitude of the intention of the conscience, since “ecclesia de occultis non iudicat” (Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 1). The minister of the sacrament of Penance is consequently not the vicar or representative of the Holy Spirit, able to enter with His light in the innermost recesses of the conscience, since God has reserved such access to the conscience strictly to himself: “sacrarium in quo homo solus est cum Deo” (Vatican Council II, Gaudium et spes, 16). The confessor cannot arrogate to himself the responsibility before God and before the penitent, of implicitly dispensing him from the observance of the Sixth Commandment and of the indissolubility of the matrimonial bond by admitting him to Holy Communion. The Church does not have the faculty to derive consequences for the external forum of sacramental discipline on the basis of a presumed conviction of conscience of the invalidity of one’s own marriage in the internal forum.

A practice which permits to those who have a civil divorce, the so called “remarried,” to receive the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, notwithstanding their intention to continue to violate the Sixth Commandment and their sacramental bond of matrimony in the future, would be contrary to Divine truth and alien to the perennial sense of the Catholic Church, to the proven custom, received and faithfully kept from the time of the Apostles and more recently confirmed in a sure manner by St John Paul II (cf. Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 84) and by Pope Benedict XVI (cf Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum caritatis, 29).

The practice mentioned would be for every rational and sensible person an evident rupture with the perennial and Apostolic practice of the Church and would therefore not represent a development in continuity. In the face of such a fact, no argument would be valid: contra factum non valet argumentum. Such a pastoral practice would be a counter-witness to the indissolubility of marriage and a kind of collaboration on the part of the Church in the propagation of the “plague of divorce,” which the Vatican Council II warned against (cf. Gaudium et spes, 47).

The Church teaches by means of what she does, and she has to do what she teaches. With relation to the pastoral action concerning those in irregular unions, St John Paul II said: “The aim of pastoral action will be to make these people understand the need for consistency between their choice of life and the faith that they profess, and to try to do everything possible to induce them to regularize their situation in the light of Christian principle. While treating them with great charity and bringing them into the life of the respective communities, the pastors of the Church will regrettably not be able to admit them to the sacraments” (Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 82).

An authentic accompaniment of persons who find themselves in an objective state of grave sin and on a corresponding journey of pastoral discernment cannot fail to announce to such people, in all charity, the complete will of God, in such a way that they repent wholeheartedly of their sinful actions of living more uxorio with a person who is not their legitimate spouse. At the same time, an authentic accompaniment and pastoral discernment must encourage them, with the help of God’s grace, not to commit such acts in the future. The Apostles and the entire Church throughout two millennia have always announced to mankind the whole truth concerning the Sixth Commandment and the indissolubility of marriage, following the admonition of St Paul the Apostle: “I did not shrink from the responsibility of announcing to you the complete will of God” (Acts 20:27).

The pastoral praxis of the Church concerning Marriage and the sacrament of the Eucharist has such an importance and such decisive consequences for the faith and the life of the faithful, that the Church, in order to remain faithful to the revealed Word of God, must avoid in this matter any shadow of doubt and confusion. St John Paul II formulated this perennial truth of the Church thus: “With this reminder of the doctrine and the law of the church I wish to instill into everyone the lively sense of responsibility which must guide us when we deal with sacred things like the sacraments, which are not our property, or like consciences, which have a right not to be left in uncertainty and confusion. The sacraments and consciences, I repeat, are sacred, and both require that we serve them in truth. This is the reason for the Church’s law” (Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 33).

Notwithstanding repeated declarations concerning the immutability of the teaching of the Church concerning divorce, several particular churches nowadays accept divorce in their sacramental practice, and the phenomenon is growing. Only the voice of the Supreme Pastor of the Church can definitively impede a situation where in the future, the Church of our time is described with the following expression: “All the world groaned and noticed with amazement that it has in practice accepted divorce” (ingenuit totus orbis et divortium in praxi se accepisse miratus est), evoking an analogous saying by which St Jerome described the Arian crisis.

Given this very real danger and the widespread plague of divorce within the life of the Church, which is implicitly legitimized by the mentioned norms and applications of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia; given that the aforementioned norms and guidelines from some particular churches as a result of today’s global culture are in the public domain; given, furthermore, the ineffectiveness of numerous appeals made privately and in a discreet manner to Pope Francis both by many faithful and by some Shepherds of the Church, we are forced to make this urgent appeal to prayer. As successors of the Apostles, we are also moved by the obligation of raising our voices when the most sacred things of the Church and the matter of eternal salvation of souls are in question.

May the following words, with which St John Paul II described the unjust attacks against the faithfulness of the Church’s Magisterium, be a light for all pastors of the Church in these difficult times and encourage them to act in an increasingly united manner: “The Church’s Magisterium is often chided for being behind the times and closed to the promptings of the spirit of modern times, and for promoting a course of action which is harmful to humanity, and indeed to the Church herself. By obstinately holding to her own positions, it is said, the Church will end up losing popularity, and more and more believers will turn away from her” (Letter to families, Gratissimam sane, 12).

Considering that the admission of the divorced and so-called “remarried” to the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, without requiring of them the obligation to live in continence, constitutes a danger for the faith and for the salvation of souls and furthermore constitutes an offense to the holy will of God; furthermore, taking into consideration that such pastoral practice can never be the expression of mercy, of the “via caritatis” or of the maternal sense of the Church towards souls that are sinning, we make with profound pastoral solicitude this urgent appeal to prayer that Pope Francis may revoke in an unequivocal manner the aforementioned pastoral guidelines which are already introduced in several particular churches. Such an act of the Visible Head of the Church would comfort the shepherds and the faithful of the Church, according to the mandate which Christ, the Supreme Shepherd of souls, has given to the Apostle Peter, and through him to all his successors: “Confirm your brethren!” (Luke 22:32).

May the following words of a holy Pope and of St Catherine of Siena, a Doctor of the Church, be a light and a comfort for all in the Church of our days:

“Error when not resisted, is accepted. Truth, which is not defended, is oppressed” (Pope St Felix III, +492). “Holy Father, God has elected you in the Church, so that you might be an instrument for the stamping out of heresy, the confounding of lies, the exaltation of the Truth, the dissipation of darkness and the manifestation of light” (St Catherine of Siena, +1380).

When Pope Honorius I (625 – 638) adopted an ambiguous attitude towards the spreading of the new heresy of Monothelitism, Saint Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, sent a bishop from Palestine to Rome, saying to him the following words: “Go to the Apostolic See, where are the foundations of holy doctrine, and do not cease to pray till the Apostolic See condemn the new heresy.” The condemnation occurred in 649 through the holy pope and martyr Martin I.

We make this appeal to prayer conscious that our failure to do so would have been a serious omission. Christ, the Truth and the Supreme Shepherd, will judge us when He appears. We ask Him, with humility and confidence, to reward all the shepherds and all the sheep with the imperishable crown of glory (cf. 1 Pet. 5:4).

In the spirit of faith and with filial and devout affection we raise our prayer for Pope Francis:

“Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Francisco: Dominus conservet eum, et vivificet eum, et beatum faciat eum in terra, et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum eius. Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam Meam, et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam.”

As a concrete means we recommend to recite every day this ancient prayer of the Church or a part of the holy rosary in the intention that Pope Francis may revoke in an unequivocal manner those pastoral guidelines, which permit the divorced and so-called “remarried” to receive the sacraments of Penance and Eucharist without asking them to fulfil the obligation of a life in continence.

18 January 2017, the ancient feast of the Chair of Saint Peter in Rome

+ Tomash Peta, Metropolitan Archbishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

+ Jan Pawel Lenga, Archbishop-Bishop emeritus of Karaganda

+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

See more at: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/01/3-prelates-appeal-to-prayer-that-pope.html#more