1. Welcome to Mother of God Forums - A place dedicated to the Mother of God. Please feel free to join us in prayer and sharing. Please Register to start posting.
    Dismiss Notice

New chaos and confusion over "Amoris Laetitia"

Discussion in 'Questions and Answers' started by catechist, Sep 21, 2016.

  1. catechist

    catechist New Member


    New chaos and confusion over "Amoris Laetitia"

    If the Church does not uphold the teachings of Christ and the sacredness of the sacraments, what then is the purpose of the Church? It's no wonder that some journalists speculate they are witnesses to the demise of Catholicism.

    September 19, 2016 12:25 EST
    Mary Jo Anderson

    Pope Francis greets newly married couples during his general audience in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican in this Sept. 30, 2015, file photo. (CNS photo/L'Osservatore Romano)

    “No other interpretation is possible.” — Pope Francis, Letter to Mons. Sergío Alfredo Fenoy, Delegate of the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region (Sept. 5, 2016) ​

    Last week the leaked letter written by Pope Francis to the Argentine bishops concerning Amoris Laetita (AL) brought new storms of controversy over the Catholic teaching on marriage. The bishops had drafted a document outlining implementation policies for the eighth chapter of AL, where it suggests that under some circumstances, divorced and civilly remarried Catholics might still receive Communion. The pope’s letter praised the Argentine bishops and noted, “There is no other interpretation.”

    Once the directive was verified, members of the secular media hopped on a modernizing pontiff bandwagon. Catholic media divided into the usual orthodox and dissident lanes.

    Confusion in the press prompted the the bishops of Alberta and the North West Territories to issue this statement:

    It may happen that, through media, friends, or family, couples have been led to understand that there has been a change in practice by the Church, such that now the reception of Holy Communion at Mass by persons who are divorced and civilly remarried is possible if they simply have a conversation with a priest ... this view is erroneous.
    In his excellent analysis, respected Canon lawyer, Edward Peters, observed,

    Basically, the Argentine draft (assuming it is still a ‘draft’) directs ministers of holy Communion (chiefly parish priests) to work through concrete cases impacting access to at least three sacraments (Matrimony, Penance, and the Eucharist), guided not by the Church’s accumulated pastoral wisdom as summed up in norms like Canon 915 (which appears to not even be mentioned!), but instead by a line of endlessly malleable considerations phrased in verbiage redolent of the 1970s. If some pastors after the publication Amoris were already being told by irate parishioners that ‘Pope Francis says you have to give me Communion’, what might they expect in the wake of his sweeping approval of this Argentine interpretation of Amoris?
    And if that wasn't confusion enough to suffice for an era, Ross Douthat of the New York Times penned a column last Saturday titled “Dilution of Doctrine”. Douthat noted that when Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine, a self-described "devout Roman Catholic", told "same-sex marriage" supporters that he could foresee the acceptance of same-sex pairs in the Catholic Church, Kaine’s bishop, Francis DiLorenzo of Richmond, Virginia, issued an unequivocal statement that the Church’s position on marriage “remains unchanged and resolute.” Douthat, a Catholic himself, pointed to the leaked letter from Pope Francis to underscore that one cannot simply assume that Bp. DiLorenzo is correct because “this is not a normal moment in the Catholic Church.” The logic is that if the doctrinal teaching on marriage and divorce is wobbling, why not for homosexuals as well?

    The column notes, “The traditional rule is inscribed in the church’s magisterium, and no mere papal note can abrogate it.” True, however, what is becoming apparent is that without a definitive change in doctrine, Pope Francis might achieve his vision of compassion by changing pastoral practice.

    By the close of the week there was utter confusion over the question: May divorced and remarried Catholics in “special circumstances” receive Communion?

    My own email box was jammed with inquiries regarding the unraveling of settled teaching. Catholic World Report readers may recall that I was in Rome to cover both the 2014 preparatory synod and the 2015 ordinary synod on the family. I wrote at the time of the open struggle among bishops to produce a document sympathetic to persons in difficult circumstances, yet preserve the truth of marriage in doctrine and practice. (A synod report is given to the pontiff who typically issues an apostolic exhortation on the synod shortly afterward.) Pope Francis had urged the bishops to be open and forthright in their discussions.

    It was widely reported that the Pope was sympathetic to the “Kasper Proposal.”Pope Francis indicated his goal was compassion; to lift burdens from the people. Some worried that the invitation to “openness” was meant to urge moderate bishops to join the Kasper factions. Instead, the majority of the world’s bishops razored out most of the spongy language and tightened scriptural citations in their synod document. By the close of the two year synod process a plurality of bishops believed that the final synod report delivered a document to the pope affirming Christ’s clear command on marriage.

    On the day of the final session of synod 2015, a cardinal explained to me that “you will find that we bishops have given the Holy Father a strong document. Now, we shall see what he wants makes of it.”
  2. catechist

    catechist New Member

    When the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia was released the week after Easter, it surprised many bishops. As the dust settled, some attempted to find equilibrium by noting that nowhere in the exhortation proper did it specifically state that divorced and remarried Catholics could return to reception of the Eucharist. Rather the "crack" was "merely" in footnote 351.

    Theologians and canon lawyers pointed out that the footnote plainly permitted what has never hitherto been allowed in the Catholic Church. As a few pundits observed, "If 351 means what canonists think it means, Thomas More lost his head in vain." And, "If Amoris Laetitia permits the divorced and civilly remarried to receive Communion, the Church owes an apology to Henry VIII and the English Martyrs."

    In the Vatican Press office during the synods, as I listened to the buzz, it occurred to me that most journalists fully expect the Church to flatline. They perceive, if the bishops do not, that the Church has lost its momentum—at least in the West. And they see in Pope Francis, who thinks that “most” Catholics are not validly married, a pastor who recognizes that Catholics are culturally conditioned, deaf now to the sacredness of the sacraments. The doctrine will be retained, but practice must relax.

    The message most journalists heard at the synods was that Catholicism is losing its distinctive claim to moral truth. If sacraments can be fudged, what about grace? If cohabiting couples are “truly married” in some cases, as Pope Francis told the Italian bishops in June, why marry at all? And does the Catechism of the Catholic Church become a paperweight when CCC 2391 conflicts with pastoral practice? If the Church does not uphold the teachings of Christ and the sacredness of the sacraments, what then is the purpose of the Church? It's no wonder that some journalists speculate they are witnesses to the demise of Catholicism.

    What about the laity? What ought we to do when ambiguity and confusion seem to reign? Perspective is important. History records other doctrine/discipline hiccups. Also, an exhortation does not claim the weight of an encyclical.

    Pray for holy bishops—it is our bishops who have this new authority to decide the "difficult" cases. If few implement footnote 351, the teaching of Christ will be upheld in practice. (And, with care and gentle spirit, we must teach our families, children, fellow parishioners that the indissolubility of a sacramental marriage is a direct command from Jesus. The Church has taught this truth for 2000 years and it isn't suddenly not true.) Ultimately, the question of the magisterial significance of a footnote will be studied in the months and years ahead by the pope, bishops, and theologians who read all papal documents through the lens of Scripture and Tradition.
    little me likes this.
  3. BrianK

    BrianK Resident Kook, Crank, Curmudgeon - & Mod Staff Member


    Even mainstream publications like CWR and The Catholic Thing realize silence in the face of evil is not ever an option, because eternal souls lie in the balance.

    And it's NEVER an "attack on the pope" to love and defend the Truth and desire the salvation of souls.


    Let’s Not Make a Fuss
    The best newspaper column I ever read was written by Mary McGrory during the trial of Jean Harris in the 1980s. At the end of the trial, Harris was convicted of murdering her ex-boyfriend, Dr. Herman Tarnower, father of the “Scarsdale Diet.”

    According to McGrory, Harris, while under cross-examination, seemed to imagine that the prosecutor was her friend. Prosecutors are, of course, never friends of accused criminals; they are always sworn enemies. It is important for defendants to remember this. Small wonder Harris was convicted.

    In politics, too, it is important to know your enemies. I say this as an ex-politician (I was for twelve years a member of the Rhode Island Senate). Perhaps the biggest mistake a politician can make is to fail to notice who his enemies are. And not just his actual enemies, but his potential enemies too. The guy who seems friendly to you today may already be carrying the knife that he will later stick in your back. I could show you scars.

    The leaders of a religion, for example, the Catholic religion, should also be able to recognize their enemies, and not just who their enemies are, but also how much enmity they bear. It is one thing if your enemy wishes to break your arm. It is quite something else if he wishes to destroy you utterly.

    In the United States today, there are many powerful individuals and groups who wish utterly to destroy Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular. Yet most of our bishops and parish priests seem not to know that. They are like Jean Harris. They don’t recognize their enemy – perhaps don’t want to believe so strong an enemy exists – even when he’s standing right in front of them.

    Some Jesuits don’t seem to know this. I’m thinking, for example, of Fr. Matt Malone S.J., editor-in-chief of the Jesuit magazine America. In the September 12 issue, Fr. Malone (in his column, “Of Many Things”) said that – even though he himself is strongly pro-life on the abortion question, so strongly pro-life that he believes abortion should be illegal in the United States in “almost every circumstance” – he would have joined the fellow parishioners of Sen. Tim Kaine in applauding the radically pro-abortion VP nominee of the Democratic Party rather than join the pro-life protesters who stood outside Kaine’s church.


    I’m also thinking, with great regret, of another Jesuit, the one who happens to be the Bishop of Rome. Pope Francis, I’m sure, is a far more complicated case than Fr. Malone, but I cannot help wondering if the pope, wise man though he is in many ways, really understands the enemy we face. If he did, would he be even a teeny-weeny bit sympathetic to the point of view of those who have small use for the ancient Catholic idea of the indissolubility of marriage? (An ancient Catholic idea, by the way, that seems to have originated with that famous Palestinian preacher, Jesus of Nazareth. Have German liberals heard of this gentleman?)

    Who are these enemies of Catholicism? They are, to begin with, those who promote fornication, abortion, sodomy, and same-sex marriage. These things have always been incompatible with Christianity, and whoever says they are right also says that Christianity is wrong. Yet our religious leaders don’t seem to appreciate that. Oh, they sometimes issue condemnations of these things, but they are bloodless and abstract condemnations. And even these poor condemnations are rare. How many American Catholics have heard their parish priest stand in the pulpit and quite emphatically remind the parishioners that Catholicism considers the above-mentioned sins to be not just wrong but damnably wrong – that is, to use the Catholic terminology, not venial sins but mortal sins.

    The enemies don’t stop, however, with their own endorsement of fornication, abortion, etc. They want the rest of us to endorse these things too. They insist, for example, that the public schools of America must teach that homosexual sodomy is morally good and that anybody who disagrees is morally bad. The man or woman – or the boy or girl – who disagrees is a bigot and a homophobe. Religions that disagree are homophobic and bigoted religions. And parents who are so wicked as to instruct their children in accordance with traditional Christianity are bad parents. We are perhaps not far from the day when such parents will be charged with child abuse and neglect.

    Who are these enemies of Catholicism? They are the people who call themselves “liberals” or “progressives.” Their aim is the utter destruction of old-fashioned Christianity – of which genus Catholicism is the most conspicuous species. They don’t mind liberal Christianity (for example, the Christianity of Tim Kaine). For liberal Christianity cheerfully goes along with 90 percent of the anti-Christianity agenda. Liberal Christianity is a kind of self-deceived anti-Christianity.

    The aim of these enemies is to destroy the belief system and the morality system of old-fashioned Christianity and to replace it with something new – something as yet not totally defined.

    You may also enjoy Robert Royal's "It's So Enlightenment"
    This great anti-Christianity movement (liberalism or progressivism) has seized control of one of our two great political parties, the Democrats (my old party, by the way – and I’m still a registered Democrat despite my current hatred for the party).

    There are few signs, I am sorry to say, that the clerical leadership of our Church understands the nature of the enemy or what its ultimate goal is. Real fighters would say something like this, “We have met the enemy, and they are ours.” Our leadership says, “We have enemies, do we? Well, let’s be courteous. And try dialogue. Let’s not make a fuss.”
    Mac likes this.
  4. BrianK

    BrianK Resident Kook, Crank, Curmudgeon - & Mod Staff Member

    "Then again, Archbishop Cupich of Chicago, a notorious archliberal whom Francis elevated to this major episcopal key, has already gone beyond mere sacrilegious Communion for public adulterers in “second marriages” to declare that even those involved in “homosexual unions” involving the habitual practice of sodomy may approach the Blessed Sacrament if they “come to a decision in good conscience” and that the Church should “help them move forward and to respect that.”"

  5. davidtlig

    davidtlig Powers

    Well, Brian has shared on three threads this LIE from Christopher Ferrara's website so please allow me to respond in turn on the three threads.

    "Then again, Archbishop Cupich of Chicago, a notorious archliberal whom Francis elevated to this major episcopal key, has already gone beyond mere sacrilegious Communion for public adulterers in “second marriages” to declare that even those involved in “homosexual unions” involving the habitual practice of sodomy may approach the Blessed Sacrament if they “come to a decision in good conscience” and that the Church should “help them move forward and to respect that.”"

    Note that the text in red was NOT said by the Archbishop and the Archbishop would be strongly against Holy Communion being given to such unions.
  6. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    What exactly does the term "homosexual union" mean then?
    Are they playing Tiddly Winks with each other?
    little me likes this.
  7. davidtlig

    davidtlig Powers

    Well of course Ferrara's article is very 'free' with its wording. His article is based on a report from the NCR which states:

    Asked if he would likewise accompany homosexual couples into receiving the sacraments according to their consciences, Archbishop Cupich replied: “Gay people are human beings, too; they have a conscience, and my role as a pastor is to help them to discern what the will of God is by looking at the objective moral teaching of the Church.”
    The Archbishop's words are totally consistent with the Catholic Catechism:

    2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.​
  8. davidtlig

    davidtlig Powers

    And while we are at it, here is another relevant quote from the Catholic Catechism:

    2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. 278 He becomes guilty:

    - of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

    - of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them; 279

    - of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.​
  9. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    Here is a much less biased and mainstream periodical:


    It says essentially the same thing.
    Stop mincing words David.
    And this this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. As always it is PART of the teaching.
    The Church does not teach that conscience is "everything".
    Under Canon 915 ministers have a duty and an obligation not to give communion to these couples.
    This is Church teaching!
    First of all any homosexuals who are a "couple" are at best constantly putting themselves in a near occasion of sin. They would need to remove themselves from that "couplehood" before receiving the Body and Blood of Our Lord.
    Should they be accompanied gently and with great care?
    But the Body and Blood of Our Lord should not be defiled!
    Harper, Pray4peace, Light and 2 others like this.
  10. davidtlig

    davidtlig Powers

  11. garabandal

    garabandal Powers

    His words are not consistent with the Catechism if he is speaking of homosexual couples.

    The Catechism says nothing of accompanying homosexual "couples" and helping them to discern God's will.

    It speaks of the homosexual individuals who realises the objective disorder of their condition and helping them to offer the cross of celibate living in union with Christ.
    SgCatholic, Harper, Frodo and 3 others like this.
  12. Mac

    Mac "To Jesus, through Mary"

    How does David think it is the same?
    How is a male with deep seated Homosexual tendencies equated to a male in a Homosexual union?
    Chris hasnt lied.
    David has.
    Harper and Light like this.
  13. picadillo

    picadillo Powers

    Uhhhhmmm, let me get this straight. In one diocese, I will be allowed to receive the eucharist, but in another, I will not? Is this correct?
  14. BrianK

    BrianK Resident Kook, Crank, Curmudgeon - & Mod Staff Member

    1) Prove it. Show me a quote where Cupich says he is "strongly against Communion being given to" active homosexuals.
    2) That was only one quote from the link.

    This is the end game in all this, but there's more:


    Renowned Philosopher and Friend of John Paul II: "Pope Must Act To Avoid Schism and Heresy"
    by Christopher A. Ferrara
    September 26, 2016

    The Catholic Church is being rocked to its foundations in the aftermath of the publication of Amoris laetitia and Pope Francis’ “confidential” (and promptly leaked) letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires affirming that the admission of public adulterers in “second marriages” to Holy Communion is the only correct interpretation of Amoris.

    Now we read that a friend of the late Pope John Paul II, the renowned Austrian philosopher Josef Seifert, has declared in a video interview that certain statements in Amoris are “objectively heretical” and that the Pope must act to correct them “to avoid schism and to avoid heresy and to avoid the complete split in the Church…” Professor Seifert is one of 45 signatories, Catholic scholars from the mainstream of the Church, to a document that details numerous heterodox and even heretical propositions in Amoris and calls upon the Pope to condemn them.

    The critique, sent to every cardinal in the Church, has thus far produced no remedial action by Francis. Meanwhile, the “split in the Church” of which Seifert warns is already underway, and recent developments indicate that Francis himself is promoting it. These developments are summed up on the website of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), which has reportedly been offered by Francis a juridical framework for the total regularization of its canonical mission.

    As the SSPX notes: “In Germany: They [the divorced and “remarried”] already receive communion,” while in the Philippines the word from the bishops’ conference, following Amoris, is “we will do it” because “Mercy cannot wait. Mercy should not wait!” and “those in irregular unions should be invited to ‘the table of sinners at which the All-Holy Lord offers himself as food for the wretched.’” In Poland, Francis reportedly told the Polish bishops in private that each local bishops’ conference can decide the matter for itself, while in Buenos Aires, as already noted, he has declared that Holy Communion for public adulterers in “certain cases” is the only correct interpretation of Amoris.

    On the other hand, “the Alberta and Northwest Territory bishops stated in pastoral guidelines that the Catholic Church has not changed her practice towards divorced and civilly remarried Catholics” and that they must repent of their adultery and commit to an amendment of life by ceasing their adulterous relations before receiving absolution and being admitted to Holy Communion. The same is true for Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia, who insists that the Church’s bimillenial teaching and Eucharistic discipline remain in effect and that divorced and “remarried” people, if they cannot separate on account of children, must live chastely in order to be admitted to the sacraments. Likewise Bishop Thomas Olmstead of Phoenix, pointedly ignoring Amoris, declares that he will abide by “the Church’s Magisterium especially that of Blessed Paul VI, St. John Paul II, and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI which reaffirm the constant tradition of the Church.”

    Then again, Archbishop Cupich of Chicago, a notorious archliberal whom Francis elevated to this major episcopal key, has already gone beyond mere sacrilegious Communion for public adulterers in “second marriages” to declare that even those involved in “homosexual unions” involving the habitual practice of sodomy may approach the Blessed Sacrament if they “come to a decision in good conscience” and that the Church should “help them move forward and to respect that.”

    Perhaps the most astute view of this terrifying situation is expressed by the SSPX: “Is Amoris laetitia bringing division within the Church or is it rather manifesting heresies and schisms already present among the clergy throughout the world?” I would have to say that the answer is both. As Father Ray Blake has observed with admirable candor and no little courage, given the prevailing banana republic ethos Bergoglianism has engendered: “It is an irony that the Pope, himself, ‘the minister of unity’ should become the focus and source of disunity. Perhaps that is precisely what the Conclave of 2013 desired when it elected Jorge Bergoglio, he was already known as a divisive figure in both the Society of Jesus and his home diocese of Buenos Aires.”

    John Allen’s piece on this development concludes that “Whether by design or not, what Pope Francis effectively has done is to opt for decentralization on one of the most contentious issues in Catholic life today.” Allen recounts that when he asked the now-retired Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria about the “decentralization option” during the Phony Synod on the Family, Arinze replied: “Are you going to tell me that we can have a national bishops’ conference in one country that would approve something which, in another conference, would be seen as sin? Is sin going to change according to national borders? We’d become national churches.”

    God help us! When 45 scholars of the Catholic mainstream petition a Pope to repudiate the numerous errors in his own document lest schism ensue, we know that the Church is experiencing an unprecedented event. Remember that according to Cardinal Mario Ciappi, another friend of John Paul II who was no less than his personal papal theologian, the Third Secret predicts that “the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” If this situation does not represent apostasy, spreading everywhere with the aid of the Pope himself, then words have lost their meaning.

    Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
    Mac and SgCatholic like this.
  15. BrianK

    BrianK Resident Kook, Crank, Curmudgeon - & Mod Staff Member

    Homosexual unions are, by definition, sodomitic. The game of semantics David is playing is evil.
    Frodo and Mac like this.
  16. BrianK

    BrianK Resident Kook, Crank, Curmudgeon - & Mod Staff Member

  17. BrianK

    BrianK Resident Kook, Crank, Curmudgeon - & Mod Staff Member


    Two thoughtful critiques of the Pope's approach
    By Phil Lawler (bio - articles - email) | Sep 28, 2016

    "Has Pope Francis Failed?" by Matthews Schmitz is a remarkable little essay, not only because it is persuasively argued, but also because it appears today in, of all places, the New York Times! The fact that the Times would run such a piece is, in a way, evidence for the author's thesis.

    Schmitz reports that although Pope Francis undoubtedly won popular attention early in his pontificate, the "Francis effect" has not been visible in the longer term. Mass attendance continues to slide, as does participation in other sacraments. "In spite of Francis' personal popularity," Schmitz writes, "young people seem to be drifting away from the faith." Nor has there been any notable increase in converts to replace the young Catholics who defect. Thus while the "approval ratings" for the Pope himself remain high, the ratings for the Catholic Church continue to slip. Is that a coincidence, or are the two facts (and they are facts) related? Would a Pontiff who was more vigorous in upholding traditional Church teachings be more successful in bringing people into the fold? Liberal Catholic commentators, responding to the Schmitz essay on Twitter, have made the argument that the shrinkage of the active Catholic population is attributable to secularization, and cannot be blamed on the current Pope. No doubt that's true. But what we can say is that the unusual pastoral approach taken by Pope Francis has failed to change the secularizing trend. The expectation that Pope Francis might reverse that trend, by stepping aside from the "culture wars," has been proven wrong.

    For that matter—as Schmitz also demonstrates—the initial excitement that Pope Francis would bring fresh winds of reform to the Vatican has also dissipated, as the promise of sweeping change in the Roman Curia has given way to reality that a few offices will be merged, a few other new offices created, but the "old guard" and the old way of business remain intact.

    For First Things, meanwhile, Villanova theologian Jessica Murdoch argues against "Creeping Infallibility," with a critical eye on Amoris Laetitia—or, to be more precise, on those (such as Cardinal Christoph Schönborn) who have claimed that the apostolic exhortation should be regarded as an act of the magisterium, requiring the assent of the faithful. Murdoch explains, thoroughly and clearly, how different papal statements command different levels of assent.

    To be authoritative, she explains, a papal document must be clear, must be read in continuity with previous magisterial statements, and above all must be demonstrably in accord with Revelation. She argues that Amoris Laetitia does not meet those tests, and along the way she details why the document does not constitute a "development of doctrine" by Cardinal Newman's criteria. All this does not mean, of course, that Amoris Laetitia should be disregarded. Murdoch's point is that the Pope's document does not definitely settle the questions that are clearly still in dispute among the faithful. (One test of an authoritative doctrinal statement is that it should represent what the faithful have always and everywhere believed. No one could possible claim that the Kasper Proposal qualifies.)

    "Distinctions are necessary," Murdoch writes. "And for this reason any sort of 'creeping infallibility' that would attach the same level of authority to every papal utterance or document must be avoided."

    Phil Lawler has been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years. He has edited several Catholic magazines and written eight books. Founder of Catholic World News, he is the news director and lead analyst at CatholicCulture.org. See full bio.
    Mac and Harper like this.
  18. Dolours

    Dolours Powers

    I'm afraid, Brian, that Pope Francis will never read these critiques because nobody will bring them to his attention and he only reads La Repubblica.

    I read another piece from Mr. Schmitz on this topic. I think you might have posted a link to it on the forum. Someone in the comments section remonstrated with Mr. Schmitz, saying: "It is irresponsible and burdensome for writers to put out calls like this for regular people to doubt their own pastors and try to grapple with arguments and history that take a life time of devoted study."

    One response to that comment sums up for me the very serious problems that are coming out into the open during this Papacy and I hope and pray that the Pope is not knowingly promoting this disgraceful agenda:

    "You have perceived a portion of the reality before us, but do not be deceived. The heterodox among the clergy and hierarchy are counting on you letting them have their way because, you see, they regard us as inferior groundlings. Never forget that. They engineered it. That was determined by the abandonment of catechesis in the late sixties. Up until then a conscientious fifth grader could have taken this crew on. You don't need to be a scholar to follow Jesus Christ. You need to be faithful.
    The heterodox within Roman Catholicism cling to the current structure in order to claim the credibility provided by its pedigree. That is the best that can be gleaned regarding their intention. The financial security provided by the institution they debase is vital for the inauguration of their new and improved Franzneukirche and ultimately to their personal security.
    The tactics employed by this connivance over the last fifty years appear all too apparent to those of us who live in the Church – disparage, distract, deceive, disarm, defeat. This is their arsenal in their attempt to undermine the papacy and once done refigure the office to suit the purpose of the new “church” they are confecting.
    Those who respect the papacy are thus demoralized, neutralized. Wielding boldly “evangelical obedience” as a weapon, and subconscious appeals to loyalty to silence orthodox, pious and devout clergy, religious and laity, the vipers are having their way. How is one to defend the papacy when it has been debased – and from within? It is urgently necessary for those who can – bishops – to call to a halt the works and the pumps now set in motion to render impotent the Church of Jesus Christ."

    Ever since Amoris Laetitia was issued, the fallback position of its most ardent defenders has been to disparage the dissenters by claiming that only a theologian had the right to question it. Even theologians who question AL are being dismissed as uppity rigorists. And the Pope who had no trouble running his plans by an atheist journalist can't be bothered to respond to the genuine concerns of observant Catholics. The longer this goes on, the more harm it does to the Church.
  19. Mac

    Mac "To Jesus, through Mary"

    Evil and foreseen.

  20. padraig

    padraig New Member


    Exorcist warns of a demon that seeks to attack FAMILIES and has been encountered in numerous exorcisms carried out by the Catholic Church
    • Priest César Truqui said he had encountered a demon called 'Asmodeus'
    • Claims demon 'targets families' and is present in an Old Testament story
    • He said it was 'present' in an exorcism he held with Gabriele Amorth
    • Amorth, once exorcist of the Vatican, died recently at the age of 91

    An exorcist has warned of a demon that seeks to attack families and has been encountered in numerous exorcisms carried out by the Catholic Church.

    Priest César Truqui, based in Rome, Italy, said the demon, called Asmodeus, was also present in the Old Testament story of Tobias.

    He said it was 'present' in many exorcisms including ones carried out alongside the former exorcist of the Vatican and the Diocese of Rome, Father Gabriele Amorth who died earlier this month.

    According to the Catholic News Agency, Father Truqui said: 'I remember a young couple, very united, who wanted to get married, however, the woman had to undergo an exorcism to be set free.'

    He said that during the exorcism 'the demon was furious and threatened Father Amorth in order to prevent the marriage, otherwise he would kill the young woman. Obviously, it was a threat from the Liar which in fact did not happen.'

    Father Truqui claimed the evil spirit looked to attack families through ideologies and lifestyles - as well as through the spread of divorce, the Catholic News Agency reported.

    It comes just days after the death of Father Amorth at 91.

    Amorth, who had been suffering from pulmonary problems, entered the priesthood in 1954 and was soon seconded to Father Candido Amantini, whom he succeeded in his post as the Vatican's chief exorcist in 1990.

    He also founded the International Exorcists' Association (AIE), which he oversaw until his retirement in 2000 and which today has some 250 exorcists working in 30 countries.

    In 2013, a French publishing house quoted him as saying he had performed 160,000 cases of exorcism - including prayer rituals as opposed to the casting out of demons 'possessing' people.

    Several cases of casting out evil spirits are ascribed to Jesus himself in the Gospels.

    Amorth's work, 'The Last Exorcist - My Fight Against Satan,' was published in France in 2013.

    The Vatican officially recognised the AIE in 2014, some in the Roman Catholic Church having viewed exorcism as a questionable practice.

    Amorth was famously asked several years ago if the Devil, to whom he often referred, was present inside the Vatican, to which he responded: 'He has tried already,' referring notably to the 1981 assassination attempt against John Paul II and also sex scandals within the Church.

    He also spoke out against Harry Potter books, indicating that reading them encourages children to believe in black magic.

    Pope Francis has often referred to the 'Devil,' demons and 'Satan' being at work and cited the need to fight against evil.


    Fr Cesar

Share This Page