Monday, April 30, 2018

Sacrilege Communion: Pope Francis vs. Pope Benedict XVI

Vatican expert Maike Hickson at Onepeterfive reported:

"A possible reason as to why Pope Francis wishes this CDF [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] letter [accordingly to Kath.net approved by Francis rejecting the majority of the German bishops move to give Communion to Protestants] to remain unpublished is that he is not happy with it."

"... it was Pope Francis himself who... in 2015... opened up to the idea that a Protestant spouse could... [receive] Holy Communion... One well-informed clerical source therefore told Onepeterfive that this move was coming "from the very top in Rome [Francis]."
(Onepeterfive.com," A Crucial Moment For the Church: Intercommunion Debate in Rome in May," April 30, 2018)

Vatican expert Edward Pentin revealed:

""The Register understands from reliable and authoritative sources that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has given his full support to the seven [German] bishops and their letter to the Vatican [CDF which rejected the move to give sacrilege Communion to Protestants].
(National Catholic Register, "Complete Letter of Seven German Bishops on Holy Communion for Protestant Spouses Published," April 25, 2018)

If both reports are true then this is the first time that Benedict has directly went against Francis's moves to give Communion sacrilegiously.

Benedict never countered Francis's moves to give Communion sacrilegiously to adulterous couples, but is apparently directly moving against the current pope, if Onepeterfive's source is correct that the majority of German bishops move comes "from the very top in Rome," on sacrilegiously shared Communion with Protestants

Former consulter to the Congregation for the Doctrine the Faith Msgr. Nicola Bux told Pentin:

"[S]hared Eucharistic Communion... would 'go against Revelation and the Magisterium', leading Christians to 'commit blasphemy and sacrilege.'"
(National Catholic Register, "Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege," January 2, 2017)


Pray an Our Father now for Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI to strongly move against all of Pope Francis's moves to promote sacrilege Communion and to work for a true restoration of the Church as did St. Pope Pius V.





Saturday, April 28, 2018

Is Pope Francis a Practical Atheist?

The Catholic News Agency headline on December 7, 2013 at the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Francis summarized his talk that day and his whole papacy:

"Pope: Neglect of human dignity causes 'practical atheism'"

Pope John Paul II in a General Audience on April 1999 said:

"The contemporary era has devastating forms of 'theoretical' and 'practical' atheism. Secularism... with its indifference to ultimate questions and... the transcendent." (Vatican.va>hf_jp_ii_ 14041999)

Francis's primary focus on only earthly human dignity, it appears, could be a form of practical atheism or secularism.

The Pope rarely focuses on "ultimate questions and... the transcendent" such as heaven and hell as well as the Last Judgement, but almost always on non-ultimate/transcendent issues that tend to bring leftist pro-abortion politicians into power such as radical environmental issues, leftist economic policies and unlimited immigration.

This form of practical atheism has brought about the Pope's seamless garment teachings which we will see appears to be a form of Kantian practical atheism.

The upcoming abortion holocaust in Ireland can, to some extent, be blamed on the Irish bishops following Pope Francis's seamless garment "pro-life" teachings that equates killing innocent human life with pro-abortion politician issues such as the death penalty, leftist economic policies and radical ecology policies.

Even after the abortion referendum was overwhelming lost, to some extent, due to the seamless garment focus as well as inaction by Francis and the Irish bishops, Dublin Bishop Diarmuil Martin had the gall to call for more seamless garment Kantian practical atheism. Martin said:

"Pro-life means being alongside... economic deprivation, homelessness and marginalization." (Crux, "After abortion loss, Irish prelates look to pope's vision of 'pro-life," May 27, 2017)

The seamless garment teachings of Francis and the Irish bishops, to some extent, can be blamed for the coming death of thousands even millions of babies

This teachings come about because of their conscious or unconscious Kantian practical atheism which is this world materialistic and tends to exclude the eternal.

The practical atheist Immanuel Kant while not explicitly denying the existence of God said:

"God is not a being outside me but merely a thought within me." (Fr. Stanley Jaki, Angels, Apes and Men, page 10)

Below is a summary of the type of Kantian practical atheism which appears to be part of the thinking of Francis and the Irish bishops.

In this part of the academic article "Categorical imperatives impair Christianity in culture" by scholar Douglas A. Ollivant it is explained that Kantian practical atheism infiltrated Catholicism and gives a background, to some extent, to why the protection of the unborn ended in Ireland.(July 20, 2010, Religion and Liberty, Volume 13, Number 4):


Traditional Christian anthropology views human beings as participating in both the temporal and the eternal... historical Christian scholars, such as Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, have striven to understand and apply this Christian anthropology, contemporary Christian scholars seem to have moved in a different direction. In addition to our own sloth-induced forgetfulness, we have Immanuel Kant to thank for this wrong turn.

The Categorical Imperative Surfaces

In his must-read Christian Faith and Modern Democracy, Robert Kraynak introduces us to the concept of “Kantian Christianity.” [1] Kraynak claims that the “Kantian influence on modern Christianity is … deep and pervasive.” 

What he means is that Christian thinkers no longer speak about culture and politics in terms of the more enduring principles of moral virtue, law, and the common good but now focus on social justice, understood as solely the immediate, material rights and dignity of the human person. 

Moreover, they have drastically reduced the role of prudence in politics accepted under the historical Christian anthropological understanding, which has recognized a variety of political regimes depending on the circumstances. This historical understanding also acknowledged the harsh realities of the political realm in a fallen (albeit redeemed) world, and the difficulties and agonies involved in fashioning a just or moral response to contingent events. 

Instead of prudential judgments, Kraynak maintains that we now hear only moralistic pronouncements about peace and justice that severely limit the range of (legitimately recognized) political options.
Kraynak maintains that Kantian Christianity has seeped into the language of contemporary Christians even though contemporary Christians do not seem to have a full understanding of the underlying anthropology that comes with it. 

The rights and dignity of each person replaces moral and theological virtues: rational and spiritual perfection. Further, an emphasis on personal autonomy or personal identity diminishes long-established Christian teachings about the dependence of the creature on the Creator, original sin, grace, and a natural law through which human beings may share or “participate” in eternal law.

Following Kraynak, it is clear to see that in our public life and culture, this language of rights and dignity tends to lead to absolutes in morality, or “categorical imperatives.” Now, Christianity has no problem with moral absolutes (and in fact dictates several), provided they are properly stated. But a proper statement of a moral absolute is made difficult by the anthropology lingering in Kant’s legacy.

Kant’s original categorical imperative, of course, states that one must live in such a manner that one’s actions could form the basis of a universal law. It is the quest for “universal laws,” exclusive of a prudent account of circumstance, that proves troubling.

This universalist language is incompatible with the more prudential approaches to public life articulated by Augustine and Aquinas, which was driven by their much richer understandings of the human person and his or her relation to the physical world and the divine..."

The Authentic Culture of Life

But the most flagrant use of categorical imperatives in our current political culture deals with life issues. It must be stated up front that no practicing Christian disputes that life is one of the most precious gifts that God has given to us. The second century “Letter to Diognetus” bears testimony to early Christians not taking part in the Roman custom of “exposing [or “discarding”] their offspring” – the preferred method of pagan infanticide for the weak or unwanted. [3]

But to speak of a “culture of life” – if used simply to express a “seamless garment” univocal defense against any taking of life – has become a categorical imperative. For instance, the core of what we might call the “Bernadin project” is that Christians (in this case Catholics) must dogmatically oppose and fight against any early termination of human life. But this understanding fails to see that there may be an important, and even a critical, difference between a true culture of life and a “culture of merely life.” The former taking into account the authentic existence of human beings within not only the material realm, but also the immaterial, the spiritual; the latter limiting human existence to the breathing of the air in this temporal world only.

This issue cuts very close to home, as it deals with some of the most controversial politics in our culturally fragmented society: abortion, war, capital punishment, infanticide, and euthanasia. To introduce questions of prudence into these debates is often difficult, but such introductions must take place to prevent the categorical imperative from seeping further into contemporary Christian thought. On issues of great import, no matter whether these issues involve economics, politics, or human life itself, making proper distinctions is always of the essence. To choose perhaps the least charged of these issues, Christians – and particularly Roman Catholics – have been engaging in a debate over the proper limits of state-imposed punishment for some time. 

Led by the personal opposition of Pope John Paul II, the Catholic Church has grown ever more dubious of the appropriateness – and therefore the justice – of capital punishment. Many prominent Catholics in America – some out of deep conviction, others in reaction to the dissolving Democratic party monopoly on Catholic political allegiance – have sought to link opposition to the death penalty with opposition to abortion, having the effect (whether intended or not) of neutralizing any partisan distinctions on “life issues.”

But this categorical language seems to conceal more than it clarifies, for even Pope John Paul II has conceded that the death penalty is a legitimate option “when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.” Now, a categorical use of this language seems to imply that the state can only take a life when failure to do so endangers other lives. But as Cardinal Avery Dulles has pointed out to us, it may be that:

When the pope speaks of the protection of society as grounds for using the death penalty, he may have more in mind than mere physical defense against the individual criminal. To vindicate the order of justice and to sustain the moral health of society and the security of innocent persons against potential criminals it may be appropriate to punish certain crimes by death. [4]
In other words, to insist on categorical language – maintaining that the Church must insist on the continuation of physical existence regardless of the attendant circumstances – may actually be contrary to the “culture of life” that the Church seeks to promote. It is not self-evident that a “culture of life” is promoted by the continuation of human lives that have been tainted by egregious sins against human dignity. By committing the churches to this univocal definition of the culture of life, forbidding any prudential account of circumstances, the lives of the innocent become equated with the lives of the guilty. This inability to make relevant distinctions is indicative of a certain poverty in our contemporary understanding, a focus on the material that implicitly denies access to, and perhaps even the reality of, the transcendent. This univocal focus on pure physical existence does not permit us to assess, to use the Cardinal’s terms, the “moral health of society,” let alone its Christian witness or sanctity. But it does excel in permitting the generation of convenient “categorical imperatives.”

Instead of speaking dogmatically about a “right to life,” it may be that Christians could better promote human dignity by returning to more traditional language, explicitly grounded in a Christian anthropology, that allows for proper distinctions of this sort. 

To quote at length from Kraynak:
Proclaiming a right to life easily turns into the claim that biological existence is sacred or that mere life has absolute value, regardless of whether it is the life of an innocent unborn child, or the life of a heinous criminal. And the claim that life is a “right” diminishes the claim that life is a “gift” from God: How can a gift be a right? Proclaiming a right to life eventually leads to the mistaken idea of a “seamless garment of life” that is indistinguishable from complete pacifism or a total ban on taking life, including animal life, even for just and necessary causes. It also makes one forget that the good life, not to mention the afterlife, is a greater good than merely being alive in the present world – an unintended but significant depreciation of Christian otherworldliness. [5]
Christian Life in Otherworldliness, Not Categorical Imperatives

Kraynak forcefully reminds us that in the end the Christian life is about “otherworldliness.” We are merely pilgrims here in this world. A world of “categorical imperatives” seeks to bring about the kingdom of God on earth. This goal is, however laudable in intention, subject to serious abuse, as the totalitarianisms of the past century have so forcefully taught us. And while the categorical language of Kantian rights hardly threatens human dignity and decent government in the same manner or with the same severity as the ideologies of the past century, it does threaten to diminish effective Christian witness in our fallen world. If Christians merely echo the claims of modern Kantians, where is the “sign of contradiction?”

A return to a more prudent politics does not mean that the debate on capital punishment has been resolved in favor of the practice. It may in fact be the case that even a prudential assessment of the societal costs and benefits of executing certain criminals may prove the practice to be undesirable. Perhaps, in the final analysis, a culture of life would be best promoted by the elimination of capital punishment. But I suggest that the churches can only begin to make this assessment by moving away from categorical language, permitting considerations other than the mere continuance of physical existence to enter into the calculus.

The churches and Christians do have an important temporal witness in a fallen world, and part of that witness is an eternal vigilance against the crimes of theft, tyranny, and murder. However, Christians must always be prepared to defend certain truths; not all taking of property is theft, not all restriction of liberty is tyranny, and not all taking of life is murder. Kantian Christianity has indeed seeped into the language of contemporary Christianity and, by discounting its eternal realities, threatens to diminish its temporal witness. A return to the politics of prudence –“Love God and do as you will” – provides the basis for a much more consistent and Christian public ethic.

[Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.]

ENDNOTES:
1. Robert Kraynak, Christian Faith and Modern Democracy: God and Politics in the Fallen World (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001).
2. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Volume III, IIa–IIae QQ. 1-148 (Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, 1981), pp. 1474-75 (IIa-IIae, q. 66, a. 7).
3. This same letter also contains another amusing warning against “categorical imperatives,” stating that the Christians have a “common table,” but not a “common bed.” Food is to be freely shared, while sexuality is to be guarded. Again, proper distinctions are important.
4. Avery Cardinal Dulles, “Antonin Scalia and His Critics: An Exchange on the Church, the Courts, and the Death Penalty,” First Things 126 (Oct 2002), p. 8.
5. Kraynak, Christian Faith and Modern Democracy, p. 173.

Friday, April 27, 2018

Why doesn't Pope Francis believe in Truth & Good and Evil like Pope John Paul II?

Certain teachings of Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia are exactly the opposite of Church doctrine in Familiaris Consortio and deny the existence of objective truth and objective morality according to Veritatis Splendor.

Father Raymond J. de Souza said:

"Veritatis Splendor, entitled 'Lest the Cross of Christ Be Emptied of Its Power,' warns precisely against the view that the demands of the moral life are too difficult and cannot be lived with the help of God’s grace. Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia appears to be exactly what St. John Paul II had in mind in writing Veritatis Splendor."
[http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/debating-amoris-laetitia-a-look-aheaquestionsXOIYwi]


Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor wrote:

"Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute... This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent or which are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil... But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear."[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]

Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio wrote:

"This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]

John Paul II's above teachings reject the denial of objective truth and situation ethics or the denial of objective morality, but Veritatis Splendor explicitly says situation ethics by making the "individual conscience... a supreme tribunal of... good and evil" leads or causes "the inescapable claims of truth [to] disappear."

This article will show that the denial of truth also leads to situation ethics or the denial of objective morality.

Francis's Amoris Laetitia goes against the above teachings of John Paul II because of his apparent denial of truth which leads to his promoting "situation ethics" which by name was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1956. (CatholicCitizens.org, "Pius XII's Condemnation of Situation Ethics: 'Accusations of rigidity first attack the adorable person of Christ,'" 5-30-2017)

Theologian Dr. E. Christian Brugger, writing on AL 305, gives a quick summary of the Pope's situation ethics:

"But the passage does not presume that the sinner is in invincible ignorance or that the pastor supposes that. The passage supposes that people who are objectively committing adultery can know they are 'in God’s grace', and that their pastor can know it too... The pastor must help them find peace in their situation, and assist them to receive “the Church’s help”, which (note 351 makes clear) includes 'the help of the sacraments... '"

"Pastors should help them discern if their situation is acceptable, even if it is 'objectively' sinful, so they can return to the sacraments."
[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]


Francis in Amoris Laetitia and recently on Holy Thursday appears to be promoting the heresy of situation ethics because he denies truth. Canon lawyer , in The Catholic Thing, wrote at the Chrism Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica on Holy Thursday morning "Francis made a startling claim" when he called truth an idol:

"We must be careful not to fall into the temptation of making idols of certain abstract truths. They can be comfortable idols, always within easy reach; they offer a certain prestige and power and are difficult to discern. Because the “truth-idol” imitates, it dresses itself up in the words of the Gospel, but does not let those words touch the heart. Much worse, it distances ordinary people from the healing closeness of the word and of the sacraments of Jesus."

Fr. Murray then defines truth as the Catholic Church and St. Thomas Aquinas teaches and shows that apparently Francis denies truth and makes "erroneous opinion into an idol": 

"Truth is the conformity of mind and reality. The truth about God is understood when we accurately grasp the nature and purpose of His creation (natural theology), and when we believe in any supernatural revelation He may make. Jesus told us that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. All truths have their origin in the Truth who is God made man. The Christian understands that the truth is a Person."

"... Pope Francis states that “the ‘truth-idol’ imitates, it dresses itself up in the words of the Gospel, but does not let those words touch the heart.” Is the Gospel obscured or falsified by truths taught by the Magisterium of the Church – which are drawn from that Gospel?

"If the truth could be an idol, then naturally any use of the Scriptures to illustrate that particular truth would be a charade. But the truth of God cannot be an idol because what God has made known to us is our means of entering into His reality – the goal of our existence."

"Francis states that this 'truth-idolatry' in fact 'distances ordinary people from the healing closeness of the word and of the sacraments of Jesus.'”

"Here we have the interpretative key to what I think he is getting at. He is defending his decision in Amoris Laetitia to allow some people who are living in adulterous unions to receive the sacraments of penance and the Holy Eucharistic while intending to continue to engage in adulterous relations."

"... The truth will set you free, it will not enslave you in error and darkness. Those who seek to be healed by coming close to Christ in his sacraments will only realize that goal by knowing and doing what Jesus asks of them. To reject in practice his words about the permanence of marriage and the obligation to avoid adultery, and then assert a right to receive the sacraments risks making an erroneous opinion into an idol." [https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2018/04/21/of-truth-and-idols/]

Francis because of his apparent denial of truth appears to be denying objective morality and intrinsically evil acts. Professor Claudio Pierantoni, a Patristic Scholar of Medieval Philosophy at the University of Chile and Member of JAHLF (John Paul II Academy for Human Life and Family), said that  Francis's Gaudete et Exsultate appears to deny "the existence of intrinsically evil acts" and is promoting "situation ethics":

"[T]he document is read within the context of the present controversies in the Church, especially that about Amoris Laetitia and situation ethics, one gets the strong impression that many passages are directly aimed at harshly rebuking all those people (cardinals, scholars, journalists and simple laypeople writing on blogs) that have opposed the papal agenda about giving Communion to the divorced and remarried, Communion to Protestants, permitting contraception in certain cases, too mild opposition or silence in the face of anti-family and anti-life legislation (pro-abortion, pro-birth control pro-euthanasia and pro same-sex marriage). In this sense, the document brings no progress or clarity in any of the most controversial and anti-doctrinal stances of Pope Francis. Quite to the contrary, it seems to represent one more step towards giving a kind of official approval to situation ethics."

"So, the reading of this document should once more to urge us to plead before the Pope for an answer to the dubia, and in particular to dubium no. 2 about the existence of intrinsically evil acts, which are not justifiable in any situation. We should not forget that to deny this doctrine, or sow doubts about it, in any field of ethics, is the principal heresy of our times and the most dangerous enemy of sanctity." [http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/professor-pierantoni-gaudete-et-exsultate-supports-error-of-situational-eth#.WuLDtN9lDqC]

Why does Francis deny truth which has lead to his promoting situation ethics?

Pope Francis expert Austen Ivereigh points to how this happened:

"Bergoglio’s fascination with polarities began in the 1960s, when he first began exploring as a Jesuit via Gaston Fessard’s 1956 monumental anti-Hegelian work on the dialectics of grace and freedom in St. Ignatius of Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises. Fessard, Francis tells Borghesi, 'gave me so many of the elements that later got mixed in.'”

"Fessard was one of a 1950s group of Lyons-based jésuites blondéliens - that is, Jesuits inspired by Maurice Blondel - that included Henri de Lubac, Gaston Fessard and Michel de Certeau." [https://cruxnow.com/book-review/2017/11/18/new-book-looks-intellectual-history-francis-pope-polarity/]

Francis theological advisor Fr. Juan Carlos Scannone connects the final dots of the close connection of Francis's thinking with Blondel's teachings which explains why the Pope does not believe in truth and promotes situation ethics:


"Between Blondel’s philosophy of action and Pope Francis’ pastoral action, there are significant coincidences, probably because they both draw from the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. However, indirect links between the two should not be excluded, for example, through the relationship between Gaston Fessard (strongly influenced by Blondel) and Miguel Ángel Fiorito, much appreciated by Bergoglio. This article focuses first on the convergences regarding action; then it compares the coincidences between the two authors regarding the overcoming of social and existential conflicts. Finally, it studies the parallelism between the «logic of love», nominated and applied by the Pope, and the «logic of a moral life» by Blondel, focused on charity. ( La Civiltà Cattolica 2015 III / www.laciviltacattolica.it )" [https://m.facebook.com/civiltacattolica/photos/a.10150836993325245.745627.379688310244/10242607255245/?type=3]

Scannone connecting the Pope's thinking to Blondel is very important because he is one of "Francis’ closest theological advisors" according to an expert on Latin America and Francis's theology, Claudio Remeseira:

"In the almost fifty years since its appearance, the Theology of the People has become the Argentine theological school by default. The generation of its founders was followed by a second generation of disseminators, the most prolific of whom is father Scannone... Scannone, Galli, and Fernández are among Francis’ closest theological advisors. ["https://medium.com/@hispanicnewyork/pope-francis-per%C3%B3n-and-god-s-people-the-political-religion-of-jorge-mario-bergoglio-2a85787e7abe ]

Theologian John Lamont explains what Blondel taught:

"The neomodernists, due to their historical perspectivism, did not think that the theology and dogma of previous epochs could satisfy this understanding, but they did not want to dismiss them as false. They accordingly held that dogma was true, but that its truth could not be understood in Aristotle's sense. Garrigou-Lagrange saw them as reviving the philosopher Maurice Blondel's rejection of the traditional definition of truth as bringing the mind into conformity with reality ('adaequatio rei et intellectus') in favour of an account of truth as bringing thought into line with life ('adaequatio realis mentis et vitae'). While this definition of truth was not explicitly stated by the neomodernists, the importance of Blondel for their thought makes this interpretation a plausible one; Bouillard, for example, wrote extensively and approvingly on Blondel.12 What they did explicitly assert was that the truth of past dogmatic pronouncements does not consist in their being an accurate description of reality, and that a theology that was not relevant to the present day ('actuel') was untrue." [https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/01/a-christmastide-gift-for-our-readers.html?m=1]

Even liberal neo-modernist philosophy writer Anthony Carroll wrote:

"Conscious of the challenge to the traditional Thomist theory of knowledge that had been ushered in by modern philosophy, Blondel, for example, sought to identify the practical level of human action as the place where one might find a new apologetic for the Christian faith. In his L’Action (1893), he analyses the dynamics of human action and argues that the distance between what we desire and what we actually realise in our actions indicates that what we truly desire lies always beyond the particular object that we are momentarily fixed upon. This transcendental horizon of desire draws the mind and heart towards God as the only One who can satisfy truly our infinite longings. For Blondel, it is this Augustinian unrest that leaves a trace of the divine in our human experience. Such a turn to the interiority of human experience as grounds for the proof of God’s existence is what is meant by immanentism in Pascendi."

"Rather than pointing towards the historical existence of Jesus, the factual occurrence of miracles and the fulfilment of earlier prophecies for proof of God’s existence, the Blondelian schema holds that justification for the faith is to be found by turning inwards to the personal experience of the human subject. This turn to the subject is characteristic of modern philosophy, from Descartes right up to the Idealism of Kant and Hegel and beyond, and presented a major challenge to the traditional Catholic apologetics of the time, which had been constructed on the basis that external revelation could be taken for granted. With this turn to the interior experience of the human subject, more than simply philosophical questions were raised. If it were the case that inner experience justified the faith, if each person was to find the proof of God’s existence within their own life, then what would be the basis for the teaching authority of the Church?" [https://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20090724_1.htm]

Finally, the great theologian and teacher of Pope John Paul II, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., wrote about Blondel and why anyone who was influenced by his teachings, directly or indirectly, would deny truth, as apparently Francis is influenced according one of his closest advisor's Scannone:

"One sees the danger of the new definition of
truth, no longer the adequation of intellect and reality
but the conformity of mind and life.™ When Maurice
Blondel in 1906 proposed this substitution, he did not
foresee all of the consequences for the faith. Would he
himself not be terrified, or at least very troubled?
What life" is meant in this definition of: "conformity
of mind and life"? It means human life. And so then,
how can one avoid the modernist definition: "Truth is
no more immutable than man himself inasmuch as it
is evolved with him, in him and through him. (Denz.
2058) One understands why Pius X said of the
modernists: "they pervert the eternal concept of truth. 11
(Denz. 2080) " [https://archive.org/stream/Garrigou-LagrangeEnglish/_Where%20is%20the%20New%20Theology%20Leading%20Us__%20-%20Garrigou-Lagrange%2C%20Reginald%2C%20O.P__djvu.txt]
             



 
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.





Friday, April 20, 2018

Why Pope Francis's Gaudete et Exsultate won't make you Holy, but could help you lose your Salvation?

Pope Francis's document Gaudete et Exsultate, which is supposed to be a call to holiness, has a lot of flowery religious Catholic language and even mentions prayer.

This is why Dan Hitchens in First Things says of the document "there is an orthodox interpretation," but then writes:

"But there is a different interpretation: that when someone says 'The Church teaches that X is intrinsically wrong,' he is probably a bit of a Pharisee. The history of Amoris Laetitia suggests that more expansive interpretation often gains the upper hand." (First Things, "An Ambiguous Exhortation," 4-12-18)

Hitchens suggests that this papal document is mocking those Catholics who believe and teach the infallible moral doctrines of Divine Revelation.

Obviously if one knowingly rejects Divine Revelation, one rejects God and loses his salvation.

But there is another reason why Gaudete et Exsultate will not make you holy and could help you lose your salvation.

St. Augustine said that no one can save his soul if he doesn't pray.

Augustine is talking about true prayer.

Prayer simply means to communicate or have dialogue with God. St. Teresa of Avila says prayer is conversation with God.

An excellent book on prayer by Tim Gray titled "Praying Scriptures for a Change: An Introduction to Lectio Divina" explains what is needed to have true prayer:

"With the effects of original sin distorting both the book of nature and the book of the human person, how can we hear God's communication?... When the Word became flesh, God's voice at last could be heard... Only through Jesus can we come to discern and hear clearly God's Word to us."

"This Word of divine revelation is handed down to us through Scripture and Tradition [infallible Church doctrines], which provide us with the Rosetta Stone for deciphering all that God wants to communicate to humanity. God desires enter into dialogue with us." (Pages 13-14)

St. Ignatius of Loyola couldn't have put it better on how to pray and make discernment.

Unfortunately, Francis's Gaudete et Exsultate says " the Holy Spirit... discernment... develop[s]... [by] prayer, reflection, reading and good counsel" (First Things, "An Ambiguous Exhortation, 4-12-18)," but not through Divine Revelation.

In fact, the document apparently condemns or as Hitchens says "criticizes... 'dogmatism'" and thus those who discern or pray using "dogmatism" or Divine Revelation as the only foundation to true prayer.

As all saints in history have taught, the only way to become holy is by prayer using Divine Revelation as it's only foundation.

So, Gaudete et Exsultate's method of prayer and discernment apparently will not make you holy and could help you lose your salvation if all the saints and St. Augustine are correct.

Pray an Our Father now for more Catholics to come to true prayer and discernment.







Saturday, April 14, 2018

In Sex Abuse Pope Francis admitted "I made Serious Mistakes... due to lack of Truthful and Balanced Information," now he must admit Serious Mistakes" in Amoris Laetitia or he will be called the WORST POPE IN HISTORY

In the Bishop Juan Barros sex abuse case, Pope Francis admitted he made serious errors because of his inner circle, the famous "magic circle," gave him false and unbalanced information. He said:

"I made serious mistakes... due to lack of truthful and balanced information."

Vatican expert Robert Royal said to EWTN's Raymond Arroyo that the information came from the "magic circle" or inner circle that advises him.

Francis now has to admit that he "made serious mistakes... due to lack of truthful and balanced information" from his inner circle in his Amoris Laetitia.

If the Pope thought he couldn't endure the push back on the Barros sex abuse case and he thinks that the push back on Amoris Laetitia will not increasingly get greater, he is seriously getting a "lack of truthful and balanced" information from his "magic circle" if he thinks all faithful Catholics will not increasingly opposed him for the rest of his life.

He needs to see like in the Barros cases that it is only going to get worst for him as each month goes by as more Catholics are seeing at the moment that he is the WORST POPE IN HISTORY and they are praying.

Only those Catholics who are totally ignorant or those who willfully desire to destroy the moral law of the Church don't oppose Amoris Laetitia.

Anyone that can read knows that he is teaching the 100 percent opposite of Pope John Paul II on giving Communion to public adulterers because of "conscience" making exceptions when there are absolutely no exceptions in Veritatis Splendor and Familiaris consortio both of which are based on infallible Divine law and Church moral law.

Francis and his inner circle are attempting to overthrow and destroy the infallible moral teachings of the Church and Divine law, that is God's law.

Francis if you don't admit you made "serious mistakes" now, not only are you going to lose in total disgrace by the Hand of God, but all future Catholics are going to call you the WORST POPE IN HISTORY.

A million times more terrifying than that for you Francis is your death for if you only fear the secular media and not God then you are to be pitied because soon you will be facing the Living God.

Pray an Our Father now, in total confidence knowing God will win this battle for us, that every faithful Catholic oppose Amoris Laetitia in prayer and in anyway God gives them the grace to defend His Divine law.



Friday, April 13, 2018

Pope Francis, Soros, Gaudete et Exsultate and the Push to make Killing the Unborn Babies Last "for at Least a Generation" according to Chuck Norris

Does George Soros's money, to some extent, move the agenda of Pope Francis's Rome as well as the Democrats in Washington and is he now attempting to control Texas?

Ganesh Sahathevan is a Fellow at the (American Center for Democracy) ACD’s Economic Warfare Institute said Pope Francis's closest collaborator has "an illegal slush fund financed by George Soro":

"Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga, the so-called "Vice Pope" given his close association with Pope Francis, has refused to answer questions concerning his work with a number of NGOs funded by billionaire George Soros. Cardinal Oscar has also refused to answer queries concerning any funding he, or entities associated with him, may have received from Soros..."

"... It does appear as if the "Vice Pope" is on some campaign to change the Vatican from within, and that he is doing so with what amounts to an illegal slush fund financed by George Soros." (realpolitikasia.blogspot.com, "'Vice Pope' Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga does not deny being funded by George Soros,and working with the 'Catholic Spring' movement ,"February 9, 2017),[
https://acdemocracy.org/ourteam/], [http://realpolitikasia.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/vice-pope-cardinal-oscar-rodriguez.html?m=1]

Financial expert Sahathevan, also, reported that the most powerful official in Francis's Vatican, Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, apparently knew that funds not appearing on "official balance sheets" could be illegal and he may be covering up illegal slush funds and asked Francis & Parolin to "come clean":


"..It does seem as if there is some concern within the Vatican that slush funds such as that which appear to be controlled by Cardinal Oscar, that ought to have been reported and accounted for as required by Canon Law, remain secret. Wikileaks and in time other publications are going to make that task  near impossible, and hence it is best that all concerned come clean."
(realpolitikasia.blogspot.com, "Vice Pope" Cardinal Oscar's Soros funding-Has the Vatican Bank acted as conduit , is it in breach of international AML,CTF and KYC regulations?,"February 14, 2017), [http://realpolitikasia.blogspot.com/2017/02/vice-pope-cardinal-oscars-soros-funding_14.html?m=1]



The website The Eye Witness reported on suspicious spying done on Pope Benedict and Pope Francis before and after the last conclave by the Soros funded Democrat Obama Administration's NSA:

"It is now revealed that the NSA was tapping the phones and communications of the entire Vatican establishment, including Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis before, during and after the Conclave.  Is such a thing possible?  Here is one of many reports:"
  
"http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_10_30/Nothing-is-sacred-to-US-NSA-snoops-on-Pope-7540/..."

"In another report, from
Al-Jazeera we read:

 
"Bergoglio ' had been a person of interest to the American secret services since 2005, according to Wikileaks' it said."

"The bugged conversations were divided into four categories: 'leadership intentions', 'threats to financial systems', 'foreign policy objectives' and 'human rights', it claimed."

"Why the American Secret Service considered Cardinal Bergoglio a person of interest for the past eight years is an interesting question although the Secret Service like all other US agencies is widely believed to have been corrupted, so it remains unclear as to how one should assess this piece of information or what it was about the activities of the Cardinal that prompted their extreme interest.  Still it is curious to say the very least..."

"...But if the Conclave was compromised in some way (and even if it wasn't we do know that the NSA has been listening to electronic communications of high Churchmen in Rome and probably everywhere else) then this opens up a whole new avenue of inquiry."
[
http://theeye-witness.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-compromised-conclave.html?m=1]

One reason why the NSA could reasonably have been spying on Pope Benedict and Cardinal Bergoglio who would become Pope Francis at that conclave could be that the spy agency was corrupted by the Obama administration.

It is not unreasonable to assume that the administration wanted Bergoglio to replace Benedict.

Benedict's agenda put anti-abortion and moral pro-family issues as top priorities while Francis gives lip services to those issues, but sees them as secondary to his agenda which is almost identical to the Obama administration and Soros agendas such unrestricted mass immigration (See: http
://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-dark-lord-soros-his-servant-white_27.html?m=1).

Zero Hedge shows that NSA became a servant of the Democrats and the Obama administration agenda and it's FISA abuses:

"Donald Trump must veto reauthorized NSA spying powers which passed both the House and the Senate yesterday 
without a single reform, in light of an explosive four-page memo said to detail sweeping FISA Abuses by the FBI, DOJ and the Obama Administration during and after the 2016 presidential election, says former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden." [https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-19/snowden-trump-must-veto-reauthorized-nsa-spying-powers-light-fisa-memo]

Another reason is related to the first reason for the spying is that the Democrats and some liberal Republicans are funded by Soros who is pushing unrestricted mass immigration:

"There does indeed seem to be a “hidden Soros Slush Fund” in the Democratic Party’s official platform, as commentator Michelle Malkin recently
pointed out... Malkin suggests that Obama’s rival for the White House, John McCain, hasn’t criticized the slush fund proposal because his Reform Institute received $150,000 from the Open Society Institute." [https://capitalresearch.org/article/the-hidden-soros-slush-fund/]

Francis in Gaudete et Exsultate joins the Democrats funded by Soros who are pushing unrestricted mass immigration by making it equivalent to abortion. Francis appears to want to bring the Democrat regime into power.

Unrestricted mass immigration will bring the 100 percent pro-abortion Democrats into power by changing the demographics of the voters of the USA. If the Latin American immigrants whom President Reagan granted amnesty and the illegal immigrants who followed them into California and other states like Texas had voted for pro-life candidates, I would be the first in line to say grant amnesty again. But the vast majority of them have voted like the mayor of Mexico City for abortion.

Francis with Gaudete et Exsultate, it appears, is joining Soros in attempting to bring the party of abortion Democrats into power.

According to Chuck Norris, Soros is willing to spend huge sums of money to insure the victory for the party of abortion:

"Left-wing BILLIONAIRE George Soros and liberal Washington, D.C. special interests believe that taking Texas is the key to seizing control of the entire country. If Soros and his liberal pals can take Texas and its 38 electoral votes, they’ll have a lock on the White House for at least a generation!"

"Just this year, George Soros dumped $900,000 into a local Texas district attorney’s race—and won. If he’ll spend that much on a local race, Soros will likely pour in millions (if not tens of millions) to install a Democrat Governor in Texas."

"That way he’ll be able to control Texas redistricting after the next census, draw Texas Republicans out of office, and ensure Democrat control of the U.S. House for years!"
"...Sincerely,


Chuck Norris

"P.S. Friend, no governor in the United States has a bigger bull’s-eye on his back right now that Governor Greg Abbott, with special interests and national Democrats targeting Texas as the key to seizing PERMANENT political control of our entire country. This fight is only the beginning." (Chuck Norris (info@gregabbott.com))


If Pope Francis, Soros and Gaudete et Exsultate bring about unrestricted mass immigration and win Texas then the Democrats will be in power and will be killing the unborn babies "for at least a generation."

Pray an Our Father now for the end of the killing of unborn babies.

Stupid Betrayal: Trump turns into Hillary threatens World War III with Russia so he can get Impeached

In the campaign, Donald Trump said elect me because:

"Hillary wants to start a shooting war in Syria in a conflict with nuclear-armed Russia which could lead to World War III."

All the leading Democrats are 100 percent on board with starting a possible World War III by attacking Syria.

The only ones against the possible beginning of a nuclear war are the conservatives who elected Trump and his only base against his being impeached by his new warmongering Democrat allies.

It is a stupid betrayal for Trump turned into Hillary.

Maybe he wants to start World War III.

Maybe he wants to be impeached.

Say an Our Father now that Trump doesn't start World War III.




Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Even Cdl. Bernardin & Vatican II Condemn Pope Francis and Gaudete et Exsultate

Cardinal Joseph Bernardin in 1988 said:

"[S]ome people on the left.. don't hold anyone's feet to the fire on abortion. That is a misuse of consistent ethic, and I deplore it." (Catholic World Report, "The Consistent-and Not So Seamless-Ethic of Life," August 13, 2015)

Even the least pro-life American Cardinal of the 1980's, Bernardin, would "deplore" Francis's celebrating abortion promoters and politicians as well as his Vatican giving them papal awards despite the Pope's lip service to being against abortion.

The teachings of Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and even Vatican II, also, deplore Gaudete et Exsultate.

Francis's making abortion (an intrinsic evil that is always wrong according the two previous pontificates and 20 centuries of Church teaching) equivalent to immigration (a prudential matter that is the responsibility of the laity according to the two previous pontificates) obviously contradicts the two previous popes teachings.

Gaudete et Exsultate even goes against Vatican II's the Decree on the Laity Apostolicam Actuositatem which states that renew of the temporal order belongs to the laity not to the clerics or the pope:

"'[T]he laws of the political community, international relations, and other matters of this kind, as well as their development and progress' (AA 7)- primarily belongs to the Laity (AA 2, 5)." (Catholic World Report, "The Consistent-and Not So Seamless-Ethic of Life," August 13 2015)

Monday, April 09, 2018

Pope Francis's "could almost be a Atheistic Document" still doesn't Reaffirm Existence of Hell

Reuter and the leftist Catholic media are really excited because Pope Francis in the Apostlic Exhortation "Gaudete et Exsultate" mentions the devil "over a dozen" time.

In their minds this proves somehow that Francis is explicitly reaffirming that he believes in the existence of hell. (Reuter, "After 'no hell's report, Pope give the devil his due," April 9, 2018)

The Pope may believe that there is no hell as his atheist friend Eugenio Scalfari reported him saying, therefore the devils may be on the earth or even in heaven and not in hell which doesn't exist accordingly to the words attributed to him.

Remember that Francis thinks heaven is inviting many atheists over those rigid Catholics who believe in Jesus's words about adulterous sexual acts being intrinsically evil as Pope John Paul Il reaffirmed and taught.

Maybe Heaven is not only inviting many atheists, but many devils, too.

That the Pope may believe this is not that far-fetched. Tracy Rowland in "Catholic Theology" (page 193) says Francis in 1984 reviewed a book of Hans Urs Von Balthasar.

Fr. John Hardon refused to review a book by Balthasar for Fr. Joseph Fessio's Ignatius Press because of the author's heretical views on hell. Hardon said the book "leaves doubt if whether there's anyone yet in hell." (therealpresence.org, "Seduction of Evil Spirits," September 7, 1997)

The heart of the matter is that to this point and in this new papal document Francis has not as Cardinal Raymond Burke said "clearly reaffirmed the truth about... hell." (Breitbart, "Cardinal Burke: Pope Francis Feeds Confusion in the Church," April 5, 2018)

But, surely someone will excitedly say Reuter in the above article says one time in the document "Francis did mention hell."

If the Pope had "clearly... reaffirmed the truth of hell" then with this passage he might have condemned to hell all the rigid Catholics who believe in the Ten Commandments and the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church in the media and on blogs who point out that many of Francis's teachings contradict Revelation.

Reuter quotes the Exhortation as saying:

"Even in Catholic media... we see how the unguarded tongue, set on fire by hell, sets all things ablaze."

Nice metaphor, but hardly a clear reaffirmation of the existence of hell.

Strangely enough, as far as I saw, the Exhortation only speaks of the "mission" and "the perennial 'today'" but not of the afterlife.

It could almost be a atheistic document.

An atheistic globalist could have written this document as a call for the masses to forget about national security remembering that the only sins are not to support unlimited immigration and the Islamic take over of what is left of Christian Europe (which are as important as the holocaust of the unborn babies), if it didn't have so much flowery Catholic language and the lip service to the unborn.

This Exhortation could almost be a atheistic document.

If Francis can't apparently talk about the afterlife in this document, as least as my quick look through the Exhortation seems to show, even after he just made worldwide headlines denying hell which was attributed to him by his friend and refuses to this day to reaffirm the existence of hell and apparently in this document doesn't speak of heaven, I didn't see a reference to heaven, then he needs to read the following words of St. Paul.

Even if someone finds the word "heaven" mentioned somewhere, nowhere in the Exhortation, that I saw, is there anything remotely coming close to St. Paul's:

"If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people to be pitied."
(1Cor. 15:19)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.










Friday, April 06, 2018

Pope Francis Supporters who Oppose Cld. Zen and want to "Annihilate" the Chinese Church are Laughing Stocks yet Sinister

Cardinal Joseph Zen, Emeritus Bishop of Hong Kong, told EWTN'S Raymond Arroyo what the Chinese communist regime will do to the underground Church:

“They will be allowed to function like underground bishops?” he asked. “Surely not. They are bringing them into the cage! That’s terrible. They are going to annihilate the underground Church.”

Arroyo asked the Cardinal’s opinion on Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo’s statement that the Chinese communist regime best realize the social doctrine of the Catholic Church:

“Please leave him in peace. We don’t have to waste time to talk about that… That made everybody laugh, okay? It’s a good laugh,” Zen replied

Many of Francis's inner circle who oppose Zen like Sorondo are laughing stocks while others have little experience of contemporary China yet accuse the Cardinal of not knowing China. Catholic News Agency on the Catholic World Report reported:

"Against his detractors, who have said the cardinal has little experience of contemporary China, Cardinal Zen cited his seven years’ experience teaching in China’s official Church seminaries from 1989-1996"

“"From my direct, immediate experience, I know that the Church is completely enslaved to the government,' he said, stating that he is still kept updated on the situation by discreet visitors."
[https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/03/08/cardinal-zen-vatican-china-proposal-weakens-the-church/]

But, there are others who do have experience of contemporary China and yet oppose Cardinal Zen.

These Catholics who support Francis's apparent diplomatic attempt to "annihilate the underground Church” in attempting to appear reasonable are much more sinister.

Zen’s successor Cardinal John Tong Hon who also is a Emeritus Bishop of Hong Kong is the greatest enemy of those trying to stop the Francis diplomatic effort to give the Chinese communist regime control over the underground Church.

Catholic News Agency on the Catholic World Report reported:

"Cardinal Tong... argued that China is a large country where incidents of arrests or imprisonments are largely isolated to certain areas."

"Cardinal Zen has often said that 'no deal is better than a bad deal,' and in a recent blog-post called the proposal an act of 'suicide' and a 'shameless surrender' to the communist government.'

'On the other hand, in an interview with CNA last week, Cardinal Tong said opposing the deal was 'unreasonable.' He argued that the Chinese government has generally become more tolerant, and called the deal 'far-sighted,' saying that at times, sacrifice is necessary in order for Catholics to become 'members of one family.'

Compounding the debate is yesterday’s arrest of Bishop Vincent Guo Xijin of Mindong, who is recognized by the Vatican but not the government, and who was taken into custody by police alongside the diocesan chancellor. He was held overnight but was later released, and was barred from celebrating any Mass as a bishop, including Holy Week liturgies." [http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/03/28/analysis-francis-china-and-the-art-of-the-deal/]

China expert  shows how ridiculous or laughable and "unreasonable" are Tongs claim that "China is a large country where incidents of arrests or imprisonments are largely isolated to certain areas."

Mosher explains why "incidents of arrests or imprisonments are largely isolated to certain areas" and why the Tong and Francis diplomatic effort to give the Chinese communist regime control over the underground Church is a blunder:

"Pietro Cardinal Parolin, who had earlier been involved with the establishment of diplomatic relations with Mexico and ongoing negotiations with Vietnam, was put in charge of the effort. He established direct contact with Beijing in 2005 with the goal of signing a written agreement with the atheistic regime over the appointment of bishops"
.
"This was a major blunder on several counts."

"First, it drew the attention of the Chinese Party-State to the activities of the Catholic Church in China. Whereas Mexico has been predominantly Catholic for centuries, and Vietnam has one of the largest Catholic populations in Asia, Catholics in China were a small minority, scattered in communities throughout the length and breadth of China. As such, they were able to evangelize, build churches, and even open seminaries, all while attracting relatively little hostile attention from the central government. 'The mountains are high, and the emperor is far away,' as the Chinese say."

"Once Beijing entered into formal negotiations with the Vatican, however, the Party-State began to pay a lot more attention to the activities of the domestic followers of this 'hostile foreign power.' In other words, the mere fact of negotiations put a target on the backs of Chinese Catholics. The 'space' in which it had operated began to shrink under the unblinking eye of state surveillance."

"Vatican diplomats seem not to have realized that they were dealing with a one-party dictatorship that was far more brutal, and far less tolerant of any expressions of religious faith, than Mexico in the 1990s or Vietnam in the 2000s. For in the view of the CCP, all belief in transcendental religions, especially those with foreign connections like Catholicism, is suspect, even treasonous..."

"In order to reach an agreement, China informed the Vatican’s Secretary of State, two things must happen."

"First, the holy father must, without exception, consecrate all the Patriotic bishops that he and Pope Benedict, for very good reasons, had previously rejected."

"Second, he must eliminate the Underground Church, starting with its bishops. Elderly Underground bishops must be forcibly retired and replaced with Patriotic bishops of Beijing’s choosing, while younger Underground bishops must be reassigned to subordinate roles in the Patriotic church.'

"On the mere promise of a future agreement, the Vatican has bowed to these demands. This is why we have recently been treated to the heartbreaking spectacle of 88-year-old Underground bishop Peter Zhuang being forced, by Cardinal Parolin’s emissaries, to hand over his Shantou diocese to excommunicated Patriotic bishop Huang Bingzhang. This is also why a younger Patriotic bishop, Joseph Guo of Fujian province, has been demoted to be an assistant to an illegitimate Patriotic bishop."

"This process will obviously continue until the last of the 30-odd Underground bishops have been sidelined and silenced, one way or another."

"It is the prospect of this “sell-out” of the Underground Church that sent Hong Kong’s Cardinal Joseph Zen to Rome, to plead the cause of his Chinese co-believers to the holy father himself."

"Pope Francis reportedly told Cardinal Zen that 'we don’t want another Mindszenty.'”

"But these wrongheaded, politically naïve negotiations have already created, in Bishop Zhuang, 'another Mindszenty.'”

"And now we have the prospect of several dozen more to follow."
[https://onepeterfive.com/parolin-china-negotiations/]

Getting back to Cardinal Tong, why would he want "the prospect of several dozen" Mindszentys and a Chinese Church controlled by Marxists?

To understand Tong we need to look at those who are advising the Cardinal.

One adviser of Tong is Anthony Lam Sui-ki who is many times on hand for articles featuring Cdl. Tong to oppose Zen. Here is an example from the :

"In a blog written in December last year, Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, the former bishop of Hong Kong, said mainland authorities had demolished the crosses on many church buildings, and questioned if the Vatican was knowledgeable about what had been happening there."

"Zen also said he was worried that by signing a deal with Beijing, the church would be handing over its power to 'an atheist regime'”.

"But Anthony Lam Sui-ki, executive secretary and researcher at the Holy Spirit Study Centre of the Hong Kong diocese, said a deal between both sides would help solve the problems surrounding the ordination of priests in mainland China because Beijing was often worried about which priests would be ordained."
It is ridiculous or laughable that Lam who is suppose to understand the Chinese communist regime and care about the underground Church could say "a deal between both sides would help solve the problems surrounding the ordination of priests in mainland China because Beijing was often worried about which priests would be ordained."

Of course, the communist are worried about "which priests would be ordained." As China expert Mosher said "in the view of the CCP, all belief in transcendental religions, especially those with foreign connections like Catholicism, is suspect, even treasonous."

Lam advises Cdl. Tong, but who does he work with besides the Cardinal at the Holy Spirit Study Centre of the Hong Kong diocese and it's publication Tripod who, also, gives advise to him and Tong?

The Hong Kong diocese website list shows that Lam works as a editor under the diocese publication Tripod editor Maryknoll priest Fr. Peter James Barry and that Barry is in the unalphabetical list placed as number one on the researchers list with Lam listed sixth:

"Researchers: Rev. Peter J.Berry... Dr. Anthony Lam... Editors of Tripod:
His Eminence Cardinal John Tong
Rev. Peter J. Barry, MM Dr. 
Anthony Lam"

[Holy Spirit Study Center, Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong, catholic.org.hk/en/]


Who is Barry?


Barry is a member of the Marynoll order. The order is famous for being Marxist infested and oriented as well as pushing liberation theology. Crisis magazine reported that a source in the "Vatican investigation of Marynoll" said "Marynoll was doing an excellent job of training Marxists, but a terrible job of training priests." (Crisis, "Message from Rome: Marynoll Seminary to Close This Fall" April 1, 1988)

Who are Barry's friends?:

"On Sunday Barry celebrated his achievement in his home city of Troy, with a 50th anniversary Mass at Sacred Heart Church, followed by a reception in the Sacred Heart School Hall, where many relatives, classmates and friends came to help him celebrate."


"Among those friends were [leftist] Bishop Emeritus Howard Hubbard and [leftist] Troy Mayor Lou Rosamilia. 'We’re excited to be here,' the mayor said, standing next to his wife Peg. Back in 1969, the Rosamilias were the first couple that Barry ever married in the United States. That ceremony also took place at Sacred Heart Church." [http://www.troyrecord.com/general-news/20150726/local-preacher-celebrates-50-years-of-priesthood]

Who is Cardinal Tong's adviser Fr. Barry's leftist friend Bishop Hubbard besides being "considered to be one of the most liberal prelates in the United States" according to onepeterfive.com?:

"Stephen Brady, head of the Illinois-based Roman Catholic Faithful, was the first to contradict that report of events. Brady revealed that Fr. Minkler had been working with his lay Catholic group for at least three years in order to document homosexual misconduct and abuse among Albany priests, including Bishop Howard Hubbard. "[Fr.] Minkler was scared to death that the bishop would find out," Brady told Albany’s Times-Union. Brady said the priest left him a voice mail message asking for advice the day before his death."

"Brady confirmed that Fr. Minkler was indeed the author of the controversial 1995 report. The priest sent Brady a copy of the report in 2001, and although the report itself was signed with the pseudonym 'Henry,' the fax coversheet accompanying the letter was signed by Fr. Minkler."

"According to Paul Likoudis, news editor for The Wanderer, he received a phone call from Fr. Minkler shortly after the priest returned from signing the affidavit. In the course of their conversation, said Likoudis, Fr. Minkler indicated that, contrary to Bishop Hubbard’s claim, he was summoned to the chancery by diocesan chancellor Fr. Kenneth Doyle, former spokesman for the U.S. bishops conference in Washington. According to Likoudis, Fr. Minkler explained that Fr. Doyle had the affidavit all made out and told the priest to sign it during their brief meeting."

"Fr. Joseph F. Wilson of the Diocese of Brooklyn also spoke with Fr. Minkler by telephone that same evening. Although the Albany priest made no mention to him of being summoned to the chancery, he did tell Fr. Wilson that 'the bishop made me lie.' Fr. Wilson said he assumed Fr. Minkler was referring to being forced to sign the affidavit disavowing authorship of the 1995 report to Cardinal O’Connor."

"'I talked to Fr. Minkler for about an hour,' Fr. Wilson explained. 'He wanted advice on how to smooth things over with his bishop. I had no reservations whatsoever about his state of mind when I finished talking to him that night.' Fr. Wilson added that the Albany priest also mentioned that he had talked with at least one other priest and a lay canon lawyer to solicit advice that same evening. 'Not exactly the actions of a man who’s planning to commit suicide,' commented Fr. Wilson."

"Likoudis agreed, but admits that he doesn’t know the circumstances surrounding the priest’s death, other than that they seem suspicious. 'It’s all speculation at this point,' he said. What is not speculation is the fact that Fr. Minkler, a former secretary to Cardinal O’Connor, was asked by the late Archbishop of New York to prepare a brief detailing clerical corruption in the Albany diocese. That report, said Likoudis, was supposedly delivered directly into the hands of Pope John Paul II during a private 1995 meeting with Cardinal O’Connor, who was allegedly trying to facilitate the removal of the Albany bishop."

"Likoudis was a featured speaker, along with Stephen Brady, at a public meeting held by Roman Catholic Faithful at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in downtown Albany a week after Fr. Minkler’s death. Likoudis told a crowd of 500 that for the past 13 years Fr. Minkler was a trusted source of inside information in the Diocese of Albany. In 1991, Likoudis added, Fr. Minkler was a primary source for a series of Wanderer articles ('Agony in Albany') critical of Bishop Howard Hubbard."

"Brady revealed that Fr. Minkler was also a close collaborator with Roman Catholic Faithful: 'Fr. Minkler had been seeking RCF’s assistance to help bring about reformative changes in the Albany diocese.'"

"Fr. Minkler is not the first priest associated with Roman Catholic Faithful to die under mysterious circumstances. In 1998 Fr. Alfred Kunz was murdered at his rural Wisconsin parish. His throat was slit by a razor blade, and he bled to death before his body was discovered the next morning. Although the subject of one of the most extensive FBI investigations in Wisconsin history, the murder of Fr. Kunz remains a mystery."

"Fr. Kunz was an accomplished canon lawyer who lent his expert assistance to Brady as Roman Catholic Faithful investigated homosexual corruption in the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois. Less than two years after the death of Fr. Kunz, Springfield’s Bishop Daniel Ryan resigned after Frank Bergen, a former male prostitute, identified the bishop as one of his regular high-paying clients for 11 years, going so far as to describe in detail the bishop’s private residence. Bishop Ryan, however, steadfastly denied that charge and others for years before he resigned."

"One of Bishop Hubbard’s accusers is also a former male prostitute. Anthony Bonneau, now 40, says he was a 16-year-old runaway when the Albany bishop twice paid him for sex in Albany’s Washington Park. Bonneau told the Times-Union that he recognized Hubbard as one of his johns about ten years ago when he saw the bishop on television. At the time, he said he told only his wife."

"Bonneau, a self-described born-again Christian, called the bishop 'a Washington Park predator.' He came forward with his allegations, he said, only after he saw Bishop Howard Hubbard deliver his public statement of denial about the first accusation of a homosexual encounter. He stated he has no intention of filing a suit against the diocese, and is motivated only out of a sense of Christian duty in hopes of protecting other children."

"'I was appalled, I was totally appalled,' Bonneau said of Bishop Hubbard’s assertion that he’s 'never had sexual relations with anyone.'"

"'There were many times he approached me,'Bonneau announced at an Albany press conference."

 "'There were also times when he paid me cash to have sex with him. It hurts me…to think that this person [Bishop Hubbard] could stand there and lie to the public.'"
[http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2004_01_06/2004_02_27_cruxnews_PriestsMysterious.htm]