A sense of utter horror and revulsion. Dare I ask why the Vatican has not excommunicated and defrocked this Satanic Prelate? Or got the Swiss Guard to do something useful like shooting him? Dare I ask, indeed. ..and people ask why God is angry.
And... Mgr Leonard earnt it to become Cardinal, but it is Mgr De Kesel who becomes Cardinal. Incredible....
Mistake in my English in above message: I meant: "And... Mgr Leonard should have become a Cardinal, but it is Mgr De Kesel who becomes a Cardinal and already after such a short time of being archeveque of Belgium". I try to understand this, but I don't.
According to an article in the Catholic Herald, at the time that Leonard was appointed to the Brussels Diocese, Archbishop deKesel was the choice of Cardinal Daneels and the Papal Nuncio to Belgium, Archbishop Rauber. Rauber (whom Pope Francis has since made a Cardinal) complained publicly about Pope Benedict. Cardinal Daneels, of course, has been quite open about his participation in the St. Gallen group that was formed to choose a candidate to succeed Pope John Paul 11 before St. John Paul died. Then Cardinal Bergoglio (now Pope Francis) was their choice but he only finished runner up to Pope Benedict at the Conclave. Their man was elected when Pope Benedict resigned. Would it be heretical to ask whether that makes Cardinal Daneels a sort of Holy Spirit? http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/january-22nd-2016/is-francis-really-against-benedict/ I have read suggestions elsewhere that Pope Benedict wasn't really the target of the modernists in the Church. Rather, that their real adversary was Pope John Paul 11 and that their real aim is to undo John Paul's conservative influence. Who knows? According to another report, the Archbishop of Madrid who has also been named as a Cardinal actually stopped Cardinal Muller promoting his book about Hope in a Catholic University in Madrid because he considered it anti-Pope Francis. Hope must be out of fashion in these days of mercy. None of it reflects well on the Church.
The "Roman Catholic" diocese of Rottenburg-Stuttgart (Germany) posted a video clip on its official web site on September 30, 2016. In it, "theologian" Eckhard Raabe comments on the recent story of two nuns quitting the cloister and "marrying" each other. He is overjoyed at their "love" and hopes the "Catholic Church" will one day accept all homosexuals and allow them to get married in church. Seemingly due to the inquiry and public attention, the video has since been removed from the official website of the diocese as well as from their YouTube channel. But the video was "captured" before it was taken off the net (I don't agree with Novo Ordo watch but they got a copy before it was pulled). http://www.drs.de/startseite.html
This was most likely already posted, but in case it was not, here is Bishop Barron's take. He is an amazing speaker and he seems to use Thomistic logic explaining A. L., he is worth listening to. His homilies are on wordonfire.org
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/iss...w-13-cardinals-changed-the-course-of-history/ How 13 cardinals changed the course of history Pope Francis presides at the family synod last October (mazur/catholicnews.org.uk) The letter that proved to be the turning point showed the Holy Spirit was at work in a most unexpected way This time last year the second installment of the synod on the family was unfolding in Rome, the conclusion of which was as yet unknown. Now that we are in the implementation phase of Amoris Laetitia, we can look back on the entire process with greater clarity. It is now clear that Pope Francis does not believe that the pastoral discipline regarding the inadmissibility of the divorced and civilly remarried to the sacraments is correct and wishes to overturn it. Yet while he has gone to great lengths to make his mind clear on the subject, he has gone to equally great lengths not to formally teach it. There are two reasons for that. The first is that the tradition is clear, rooted in teaching of Jesus in the Gospel, and it is not possible for even the Pope to change it. Hence Pope Francis has had recourse to ambiguities, hints, private phone calls and leaked letters to let the Church know that he thinks what he cannot teach. The second reason is that Pope Francis encountered surprising resistance to the Amoris Laetitia agenda, first outlined by Cardinal Walter Kasper in February 2014. The key moment in that resistance took place a year ago, on the opening day of the second family synod in 2015. It was then that Cardinal George Pell handed Pope Francis a private letter signed by 13 cardinal participants in the synod. The letter objected to the Kasper proposal in substance, and to the attempts to engineer the synod to approve it. The next day, with the existence of the letter still unknown, the Holy Father addressed the synod to reaffirm the procedures in place and to warn participants against conspiracy theories. The news of the letter, of which there were only two copies – one for the Holy Father and one for Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, secretary general of the synod of bishops – was then leaked to favoured papal reporter Andrea Tornielli. One supposes that a papal insider – or implausibly, the Holy Father himself – thought leaking the news of the discreet resistance would work to the advantage of the synod managers, putting the traditional party on the back foot, apparently at odds with the Pope. That was a key miscalculation, and the crucial moment in frustrating the Kasper proposal. The letter of the 13 cardinals, once revealed, illustrated that some of the most senior cardinals in the Church were prepared, for the sake of fidelity to the Gospel, to resist a popular pope. The dynamic of the synod changed then, with the resistance emboldened, not cowed, and in the event the synod fathers refused to endorse the Kasper proposal. The signatories had all seen what had happened the previous year, when Pope Francis dismissed the leading opponent of the Kasper proposal, Cardinal Raymond Burke, from his post as the Church’s “chief justice” to a largely ceremonial role. Yet they signed. And their collective credibility determined the course of the synod. The 13, in alphabetical order, included Carlo Caffarra, then archbishop of Bologna, formerly the first president of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family; Thomas Collins, archbishop of Toronto; Daniel DiNardo, archbishop of Galveston-Houston, vice-president of the US Bishops Conference; Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York; Willem Eijk, archbishop of Utrecht; Gerhard Müller, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith; Wilfrid Fox Napier, archbishop of Durban; John Njue, archbishop of Nairobi; George Pell, prefect of the secretariat for the economy; Norberto Rivera Carrera, archbishop of Mexico City; Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments; Elio Sgreccia, president emeritus of the Pontifical Academy for Life; and Jorge Urosa Savino, archbishop of Caracas. The cabinet’s front bench had written to the King. And the sovereign had to take note. When Pope Francis continued his push for the Kasper proposal in Amoris Laetitia, he had to do so within the limited room the synod had given to him. So the apostolic exhortation hid its intent in footnotes and ambiguities. Even now, the guidelines produced by those bishops most keen on the Kasper vision advise that any such admission to Holy Communion be done in secret. Administering the sacraments in secret is a clear sign that something is awry; any pastoral practice so conceived will not endure. The letter of the 13 cardinals proved to be the turning point. The Holy Spirit was at work indeed, in a most unexpected way. The announcement this week of a consistory of cardinals occasioned commentary upon the role of the cardinals as the special advisers of the pope. In October 2015 the cardinals – 13 of them – gave perhaps the most important advice of recent times.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...nding-magisterial-teaching-on-the-sacraments/ Three cardinals sign statement defending magisterial teaching on the sacraments Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, one of the signatories (AP) Cardinals Burke, Caffarra and Pujats are among 4,000 signatories who affirm the Church's teachings on marriage and the Eucharist Six bishops, three of them cardinals, have signed a statement reaffirming the Church’s teachings on marriage and morality. The Declaration of Fidelity to the Church’s Unchangeable Teaching on Marriage and to Her Uninterrupted Discipline has gathered over 4,000 signatures worldwide since its launch last week. The signatories say they are resolved “to remain faithful to the Church’s unchangeable teachings on morals and on the Sacraments of Marriage, Reconciliation and the Eucharist, and to Her timeless and enduring discipline regarding those sacraments.” They say they have been moved to make the appeal by “widespread” errors about marriage and the family – “particularly after the Extraordinary and Ordinary Synods on the family and the publication of Amoris Laetitia”. Among other teachings, the statement affirms that the Eucharist cannot be received by divorced and remarried people unless they are living as brother and sister: a teaching articulated in modern documents such as St John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio and Benedict XVI’s Sacramentum Caritatis. John Paul said that, in this, the Church was “reaffirming” what it had always taught. Cardinals Carlo Caffarra, Raymond Burke, and Jãnis Pujats have signed the statement. So has Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary bishop of Astana, who has previously called for Catholics to affirm truths which could be undermined by some interpretations of Amoris Laetitia; Bishop Andreas Laun, auxiliary bishop of Salzburg; and Bishop Juan Rodolfo Laise, bishop emeritus of San Luis. The signatories also include Fr Giovanni Scalese, leader of Catholics in Afghanistan; Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, the former president of the Vatican Bank; the philosopher Josef Seifert, author of a detailed reading of Amoris Laetitia which critiques interpretations at odds with Catholic moral teaching; and several other prominent Catholic figures. British signatories include the political philosopher John Laughland; John Smeaton, chief executive of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children; and Dr Joseph Shaw, who is also the spokesman for the 45 priests and theologians who have asked for clarification of Amoris Laetitia. According to the website Lifesitenews, some of the 45 signatories have been punished or put under pressure by their employers and bishops. The filial appeal does not quote from or directly address Amoris Laetitia. Instead, it affirms Church teachings which the signatories believe have been called into question during recent “confusion” in the Church. The full text, which is around 14,000 words long and quotes from magisterial documents, affirms traditional teachings. These are summarised in a concise version of the declaration. It affirms that all sexual relationships outside a valid marriage “gravely contradict the will of God”; that “Irregular unions cannot be recommended as a prudent and gradual fulfilment of the divine law”; and that those who are remarried after divorce should separate if possible, and if not should undertake to live in complete continence. On communion for the remarried, it states: “No responsible discernment can sustain that admission to the Eucharist is permitted to divorcees that are ‘remarried’ civilly and live openly more uxorio, under the claim that, due to diminished responsibility, no grave fault exists, because their outward state of life objectively contradicts the indissoluble character of Christian marriage.”
(Edward Pentin/NCRegister.com ) Apr. 5, 2017 Rome Conference of Laity to Call for Clarity on ‘Amoris Laetitia’ Speakers from 5 continents will address the “urgent need” for clarity on the apostolic exhortation’s controversial chapter. Laypeople from around the world will hold a Rome conference at the end of this month aimed at helping to bring clarity to a controversial chapter of Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia. The one-day April 22 conference, hosted by the Italian publication La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana and the monthly magazine Il Timone, will comprise six speakers who will examine the issue from a variety of perspectives. The public meeting at the city’s Hotel Columbus, entitled “Bringing Clarity One Year after Amoris Laetitia”, is being held in response to “very different and even diametrically opposed” interpretations of the document’s Chapter 8, said Riccardo Cascioli, editor of La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana. The varied readings of the chapter are due to the “objective ambiguity of the language” used, he added. The conference follows the submission by four cardinals of five “dubia”, or doubts, to Pope Francis aimed at confirming whether or not these ambiguous elements in Amoris Laetitia are in continuity with the Church’s established moral teaching. The Holy Father has so far made it known that he won’t respond to the five questions, each of which requires a “yes” or “no” answer, saying some “persist in seeing only white or black, when rather one ought to discern in the flow of life.” Some bishops conferences such as Germany’s and Malta’s have interpreted the text of Chapter 8 along the lines of the Pope’s wishes, that is to allow some couples living in irregular unions, in particular remarried divorcees living in an objective state of adultery, to receive Holy Communion — a position which critics argue is opposed to the Church’s magisterium. Other bishops such as Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, Bishop Steven Lopes of the Anglican Ordinariate and the bishops of Alberta, Canada, say they have interpreted the document in continuity with the Church’s doctrine and tradition, giving utmost attention and care for divorced and remarried persons, but not allowing those living in an objective situation of adultery to receive Holy Communion. Priests, bishops and laity are reporting an immense amount of confusion due to the lack of clarity and these divergent interpretations, and see it as incumbent on the Holy Father to remedy the situation. “We must not forget that the stakes are very high and involve three Sacraments: Penance, the Eucharist and Matrimony — we are therefore touching upon the foundations of the Catholic Church,” wrote Cascioli. The organizers of the April 22 conference therefore believe an answer to the “dubia” is “more necessary and urgent than ever.” “It is not just a few elderly cardinals demanding it, as some would have you believe,” Cascioli added, “but rather it is a widespread need in the Church around the world.”
With God all is clarity and peace. With Satan only confusion, uncertainty and doubt. The Church was given by God to give us leadership and direction . This is simply not happening. All is total confusion. Endless, horrible shadow dancing. Constant questions without clear answers. Strange silences. It is as though we were all wandering in some endless Chinese riddle. President Harry S Truman used to have a sign on his desk, 'The buck stops here' Well if the buck for all this does not wind up right at the door of Pope Francis, where does it end up?
Look at Cardinal Arinze's face and body language during this interview. HE IS CONSUMED BY A HOLY ANGER. HE IS RIGHT
'The act of mercy is to help them with the truth'. Cardinal Arinze. If a person is in mortal sin and has no intention or purpose of amendment then Holy Communion does not help, it does not impart grace but is a sacrilege.
