That is perfectly put! How refreshing it is to hear these statements by this Catholic woman. Wish I could thank her myself!
Pope Leo going to Turkey on Thanksgiving day lol https://ewtnvatican.com/articles/po...first-apostolic-journey-to-turkey-and-lebanon and he issued an apostolic letter ahead of the visit to celebrate the 1700th year anniversary of the Nicene Creed. https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/apost_letters/documents/20251123-in-unitate-fidei.html The letter goes through the Nicene Creed and how it was constructed and some of the prevailing attitudes at the time of its composition. One point of controversy is that the letter omits the wording that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the SON, it says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father but in a footnote, it says that the wording that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son was added later. I think we ought to read it and study what it says.
The document contains subtle yet definitive elements that align it with the False Prophet's (FP) blueprint to merge all Christian Churches as one and create the One World Religion (OWR). The document's true purpose, hidden behind its platitudes, is to prepare the framework for this false unity by prioritizing human fraternity and the abandonment of essential doctrinal purity. I. The Incongruity: Abandoning Theological Controversy The most incongruous element in the Apostolic Letter, given its subject matter, is the call to cease the very activity that established the Creed in the first place—doctrinal rigor. • The Call to Abandon Controversy: The IUF urges the faithful to "leave behind theological controversies that have lost their raison d’être" in order to develop a common understanding and prayer. • The Historical Contradiction: The Council of Nicaea, which the letter commemorates, was called because the Arian controversy "was not a minor detail. It concerned the essence of the Christian faith." St. Athanasius was upheld as the "firm foundation of the Nicene Creed" precisely because of his "unyielding and steadfast faith" in resisting heresy. II. The Blueprint for the One World Religion The letter employs specific language of humanistic unity that echoes the False Prophet's mandated new mission, replacing the divine emphasis on repentance with a focus on human acceptance. • The Goal of Synthesis: The FP's plan involves creating a Christian type religion which promotes love and is deemed all-inclusive. • Embracing All Creeds: The IUF's emphasis that "what unites us is much greater than what divides us!" and the recognition of "members of other Churches and ecclesial communities as our brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ" sets the stage for the FP's next step: convincing followers to embrace the doctrine of all religions outside of Christianity. • The Humanistic Lie: The letter's use of unity is a veiled attack on doctrine. The FP's final gospel is that God loves all His children and therefore wants them to "unite as one." This leads to the command that Christians must embrace pagans within their church, which is insulting to God. The IUF document subtly transitions the meaning of "unity" from the true unity that requires "repentance and conversion" to the false unity that demands the suppression of definitive dogma to accommodate schismatics and eventually, pagans.
The last two paragraphs of our Pope's recent encyclical on unity are crucial, as it defines the scope of the sought for unity: In order to carry out this ministry credibly, we must walk together to reach unity and reconciliation among all Christians. The Nicene Creed can be the basis and reference point for this journey. It offers us a model of true unity in legitimate diversity. Unity in the Trinity, Trinity in Unity, because unity without multiplicity is tyranny, multiplicity without unity is fragmentation. The Trinitarian dynamic is not a dualistic and exclusive “either/or,” but rather a decisive bond, “both/and.” The Holy Spirit is the bond of unity whom we worship together with the Father and the Son. We must therefore leave behind theological controversies that have lost their raison d’être in order to develop a common understanding and even more, a common prayer to the Holy Spirit, so that he may gather us all together in one faith and one love. This does not imply an ecumenism that attempts to return to the state prior to the divisions, nor is it a mutual recognition of the current status quo of the diversity of Churches and ecclesial communities. Rather, it is an ecumenism that looks to the future, that seeks reconciliation through dialogue as we share our gifts and spiritual heritage. The restoration of unity among Christians does not make us poorer; on the contrary, it enriches us. As at Nicaea, this goal will only be possible through a patient, long and sometimes difficult journey of mutual listening and acceptance. It is a theological challenge and, even more so, a spiritual challenge, which requires repentance and conversion on the part of all. For this reason, we need the spiritual ecumenism of prayer, praise and adoration, as expressed by the Creed of Nicaea and Constantinople. Let us therefore invoke the Holy Spirit to accompany and guide us in this work. The first highlight above appears to me as vague. Could I say easy to misinterpret? On this PNF and I agree. The second highlight looks to me as if an unfolding future holds the key to a complete understanding and achievement of unity. I thought the most exquisite and complete expression of unity has already been taught: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, at Nicea.
Besides the abandonment of doctrinal rigor, here are some key heretical quotes from the document: COMMUNISM / NATURE WORSHIP "Am I willing to share the goods of the earth, which belong to everyone, in a just and equitable manner? How do I treat creation, the work of his hands? Do I exploit and destroy it, or do I use it with reverence and gratitude, caring for and cultivating it as the common home of humanity?" REVERSAL OF THE TRADITIONAL ORDER OF CHARITY "In following Jesus, the ascent to God passes through descent and dedication to our brothers and sisters, especially the least, the poorest, the abandoned and the marginalized." Here is the actual Catholic Theological Order of Charity: God: The highest priority is God, as the source of all goodness and the ultimate purpose of our lives. Self: The next priority is oneself, as a necessary foundation for properly loving others. Proper self-love is a prerequisite for charity toward others. Neighbors: Love for neighbors is then structured by their relationship to you and their needs. The specific order varies, but a general hierarchy includes: Spouse, children, and parents Brothers and sisters Other relatives Benefactors Friends Acquaintances General neighbors
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/35354/pg35354-images.html 1158. The Order of Charity.—Charity not only requires that we love God, ourselves, and our neighbors, but it also obliges us to love these objects according to a certain order, some being preferred to others. (a) God must be loved above all, more than self (Matt, xvi. 24), more than father and mother (Matt., x. 37; Luke, xiv. 26), for He is the common good of all, and the source of all good. (b) Other things being equal, one should love self more than one’s neighbor, for the love of self is the model for the love of neighbor (Matt., xxii. 39), and nature itself inclines to this in accordance with the saying: “Charity begins at home.” (c) Among neighbors those should be loved more who have more of a claim on account of their greater nearness to God or to ourselves. 1159. Love can become greater in two ways: (a) objectively, when the person loved is esteemed as of greater worth, or has more titles to affection, or has a more enduring right to be loved; (b) subjectively, when the person loving is more touched and moved in his feelings, even though the object be not more amiable in itself. 1160. The Character of our Love of God.—(a) It must be supreme objectively, since He is infinite perfection and has the highest of all claims on our love. Hence, one should be disposed to suffer any loss rather than abandon God. (b) It must be supreme subjectively, in our desire, that is, realizing that God is the highest good, we should at least wish to give Him the utmost of our fervor and ardor. (c) It need not be supreme subjectively, in fact; for we are not always masters of our feelings, and things that are nearer to us affect us more than those that are more important, but remote from sense. Hence, it is not against charity that one should be more moved sensibly at the thought of a dear human friend than at the thought of God, provided the will places God above all. 1161. Regarding the love of God for the sake of reward, we must note: (a) If there is question of the eternal reward, one may love and serve God for the sake of reward, provided one makes the reward the end of one’s service, but not the end of God; for salvation is really the end of our faith (I Pet., i. 9), but God is the end of all, and He is to be preferred to all. This love of God for the sake of reward coexists with charity, for one may love a friend for his own sake, and at the same time expect benefits from the friendship, provided the love of benevolence is uppermost. (b) If there is question of a temporal reward, one may love and serve God for the sake of the reward, not in the sense that spiritual things are made a means and temporal things their end, but in the sense that one hopes one’s service of God will be so blessed that one will have health, strength and opportunity, so as to be enabled to continue and progress in that service. 1162. Regarding the love of self (i.e., of the inner man, or our spiritual nature), we should note: (a) Objectively, one esteems others who are higher in sanctity than oneself (e.g., the Blessed Virgin), as more worthy of love. But one may desire for self according to charity such progress in virtue that one will pass some others who are now better than oneself; for the virtue of charity is given us that we may perfect ourselves. (b) Subjectively, one holds self as being nearer than other persons, and thus loves oneself with a greater intensity. 1163. Is it lawful to sacrifice one’s own spiritual goods for the benefit of a neighbor? (a) One may not sacrifice necessary spiritual goods for the benefit, spiritual or temporal, of any one, not even of the whole world; for in so doing one inflicts a wound on one’s own soul and prefers the good of others to one’s own spiritual welfare. Hence, it is not lawful to wish to be damned in place of another; to commit sin, mortal or venial, to prevent another from sinning; or to expose oneself to the certain and proximate danger of sin for the sake of another’s spiritual progress. (b) One may, however, sacrifice unnecessary or less necessary spiritual goods for the benefit, spiritual or temporal, of a neighbor; for, by doing this, one chooses the course which God wishes, and does not lessen but rather increases one’s own profit. Thus, a priest should interrupt his devotions to hear the confession of a penitent; a daughter should give up the idea of becoming a nun as long as her parents need her; a lay person should stay away from Mass on Sunday, if an invalid has to be cared for, or a dying person must be baptized; it is laudable to make the heroic act of charity, by which one transfers the satisfactory value of one’s good works to the souls in purgatory; one may expose oneself to a remote danger of sin in order to perform a great service of charity, as in waiting on a sick person who on account of irritability is a great temptation to anger; one may wish that one’s entrance into heaven be delayed, so that one may labor longer for souls (Philip., i. 23, 24). 1164. The Love of the Body.—(a) One should prefer the spiritual welfare of one’s neighbor to one’s own bodily welfare, for our neighbor is called to be a partaker with us in the beatific vision, while the body will share only in accidental glory. (b) One should prefer one’s own bodily welfare to that of another, all other things being equal, for it has more of a claim on one. 1165. There are three kinds of spiritual necessity in which a neighbor may be placed, and in which one might be called on to sacrifice one’s bodily welfare for the other’s good (cfr. 1236), Thus, there is: (a) extreme spiritual need, or that in which a neighbor will perish eternally unless help is given him, as when an infant is about to die without baptism; (b) grave spiritual need, or that in which a neighbor runs grave danger of losing his soul unless help is given, as when a dying person, who is in mortal sin, asks for a confessor, because he is scarcely able to make an act of perfect contrition; (c) ordinary spiritual need, or that in which a neighbor is in remote danger of damnation, or in proximate danger of sin, but can easily help himself, as is the case with those who from choice live in occasions of sin. 1166. For a neighbor who is in extreme spiritual need, one should risk death (I John, iii. 16) or lesser evils, if the following conditions are present: (a) if there is a good prospect of success in helping the needy one (e.g., a mother is not obliged to undergo an operation dangerous to her life, in order to secure the baptism of her child, if it is uncertain that the baptism can be administered); (b) if there is no one else who can and will give the needed help; (c) if there is no reason of public good that stands in the way; thus, if by helping one in extreme need a person would lose his life, and so deprive of his aid a large number who are also in extreme need, he should prefer to help the many rather than the one. 1167. For a neighbor who is in grave spiritual necessity, the same risk is not required of all. (a) The risk of death itself is required of pastors of souls (John, x. 11), since they have bound themselves to this. Hence, a pastor who would refuse to go to a parishioner dying of pestilence and needing absolution and Extreme Unction, would offend against justice, while another priest who would go to such a dying person would practise the perfection of charity; for the dying person can help himself by an act of contrition, and the strange priest is not bound by office to care for him. (b) The risk of some great corporal evil (such as a sickness or impairment of health) should be taken even by those who are not pastors of the person in need, if there is no one else to help. Thus, if a pastor were sick, another priest ought to visit a dying person, even at the risk of catching a severe cold. 1168. For a neighbor who is in ordinary spiritual necessity charity requires that something be done (Ecclus, xvii. 12). (a) But it does not require the risk of life or of serious bodily loss, for the person in danger can easily and better help himself. Thus, it is not necessary that one should penetrate into the haunts of criminals and endanger one’s life, in order to drag away one who chooses to go to such places. (b) It does require that one be willing to undergo a slight bodily inconvenience or deprivation. Thus, an ordinary headache or the loss of a meal ought not to stop one from counselling another in order to keep him away from bad company.
The theological controversies with the Eastern Orthodox are being used as a pretext to weaken doctrinal rigor and adherence to traditional Catholic teaching and practices. The Eastern Church disagreements are a seemingly harmless wedge that will open up the possibilities of ignoring bigger theological controversies that prevent "all from being One." We have already seen where they intend to go with this. It will not stop with the Eastern Churches. The goal is to place "human fraternity" above the proper theological understanding of God. It is theological relativism and, ultimately, a reversion to Roman paganism. "The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom" -Bergoglio 2019 “Unity is not uniformity“..."and the diversity of our cultural and religious identities is a gift from God" -Bergoglio 2024 “All religions are paths to God. I will use an analogy, they are like different languages that express the divine.” -Bergoglio 2024
Pope Leo XIV downplays the Filioque in new apostolic letter https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/p...tter/?utm_source=most_recent&utm_campaign=usa
I have a feeling that the theme of the extraordinary consistory in January might have something to do with this. Perhaps a new ecumenical council, with the participation of other Christian religions or at least the Orthodox Church, since the current synodal structure does not allow them to participate with voting rights. Maybe the trip to Turkey is the starting point for this, or even the announcement of the event itself.
The people in control of the Vatican at the moment are mostly Western homosexuals. They could care less about polygamy in Africa one way or other so it is easier for them to back the party line. It does not effect their sinful sodomite lifestyles one way or another.
This is a very prophetic talk by our favorite Archbishop Fulton Sheen. Essentially the reason the church is failing is because she walked away from the Cross. He also explains how the demonic is the rejection of the cross, rejection of self-sacrifice.
One thing I notice about what Fulton Sheen was saying was that he was not only warning about what was going to happen in the future but what was actually happening back then after Vatican 2 and was warning about this. He knew that something was going seriously wrong. Among other things the amount of nuns and priests who were running away from their vocations and leaving.
