Uma "excomunhão" para Galat?

Hoje em dia, os hierarcas tudo toleram e premeiam com o seu silêncio (quando não com o seu acordo): sacrilégio eucarístico, adultério, sodomia, eutanásia, aborto, ... universalismo, indiferentismo, ... modernismo.


Tudo, não.

É proibido acreditar naquilo que a Igreja sempre ensinou.

A "liberdade das consciências", o "discernimento", o "diálogo", a "cultura do encontro", a "misericórdia" têm limites.

Galat ousou criticar os "dogmas" bergoglianos, pôs-se a jeito e foi imediatamente "misericordiado":

É pena que não tenha sido utilizado o mesmo critério entre os anos de 1978 e 2013.

Ter-se-iam evitado muitam chatices (e o atual pontificado).


The Church and the anti-church (3): life in the occupied Church

In summary, the anti-church grew and the hierarchy failed to contain the damage.

The infection spread and, one fine evening AD MMXIII, "the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself" modernist.

Thankfully, St. Augustine layed out a survival plan for stranded catholics:
Aug., Cont. Ep. Parm., iii. 2: "... when the same infection has spread to a large number at once, nothing remains but sorrow and groans. Therefore let a man gently reprove whatever is in his power; what is not in let him bear with patience, and mourn over with affection, until He from above shall correct and heal, and let him defer till harvest-time to root out the tares and winnow the chaff. But the multitude of the unrighteous is to be struck at with a general reproof, whenever there is opportunity of saying aught among the people; and above all when any scourge of the Lord from above gives opportunity, when they feel that they are scourged for their deserts; for then the calamity of the hearers opens their ears submissively to the words of their reprover, seeing the heart in affliction is ever more prone to the groans of confession than to the murmurs of resistance.

And even when no tribulation lays upon them, should occasion serve, a word of reproof is usefully spent upon the multitude; for when separated it is wont to be fierce, when in a body it is wont to mourn.them into bundles to burn.



The Church and the anti-church (2): dealing with the tares before judgement day

In the previous post we chronicled the rise of the anti-church using the parable of the wheat and the tares and comments of the doctors of the church on same collected by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Catena Aurea.

Interestlingly, the distiguished commentators were not very partial to dialogue and encounter with our in-house heretics:

Don't kill the heretics...

Chrys.: This the Lord spake to forbid any putting to death. For we ought not to kill an heretic, seeing that so a neverending war would be introduced into the world; and therefore He says, “Lest ye root out with them the wheat also;

Jerome... room for repentance is left, and we are warned that we should not hastily cut off a brother, since one who is today corrupted with an erroneous dogma, may grow wiser tomorrow, and begin to defend the truth...

Aug., Quaest. in Matt., q. 12: ... [and] because good while yet weak, have need in some things of being mixed up with bad, either that they may be proved by their means, or that by comparison with them they may be greatly stimulated and drawn to a better course.

... but limit their freedom of speech, break their synods and anathematize them.

Chrys.: Hereby He does not indeed forbid all restraint upon heretics, that their freedom of speech should be cut off, that their synods and their confessions should be broken up—but only forbids that they should be put to death. 
Aug., Cont. Ep. Parm., iii. 2: For when any one of the number of Christians included in the Church is found in such sin as to incur an anathema, this is done, where danger of schism is not apprehended, with tenderness, not for his rooting out, but for his correction. ... when that fear has ceased, and when the safety of the crop is certain, that is, when the crime is known to all, and is acknowledged as so execrable as to have no defenders, or not such as might cause any fear of a schism, then severity of discipline does not sleep, and its correction of error is so much the more efficacious as the observance of love had been more careful.

If necessary follow the example of Jesus and use force (it's for their own good and it may save many). 

Aug., Ep. 93, 17: This indeed was at first my own opinion, that no man was to be driven by force into the unity of Christ; but he was to be led by discourse, contended with in controversy, and overcome by argument, that we might not have men feigning themselves to be Catholics whom we knew to be declared heretics. But this opinion of mine was overcome not by the authority of those who contradicted me, but by the examples of those that shewed it in fact; for the tenor of those laws in enacting which Princes serve the Lord in fear, has had such good effect, that already some say, This we desired long ago; but now thanks be to God who has made the occasion for us, and has cut off our pleas of delay...let the the kings of the earth shew themselves the servants of Christ by publishing laws in Christ’s behalf.

Aug., Ep. 185, 32 et 22: ... our Catholic mother the Church, when by the loss of a few she gains many, soothes the sorrow of her motherly heart, healing it by the deliverance of so many people. Where then is that which those are accustomed to cry out, That it is free to all to believe? Whom hath Christ done violence to? Whom hath He compelled? Let them take the Apostle Paul; let them acknowledge in him Christ first compelling and afterwards teaching; first smiting and afterwards comforting. And it is wonderful to see him who entered into the Gospel by the force of a bodily infliction labouring therein more than all those who are called by word only. [margin note: 1 Cor 15:10]

Why then should not the Church constrain her lost sons to return to her, when her lost sons constrained others to perish?
Unfortunatelly, ous pastors failed to heed the wise counsel of the Fathers and we ended up in our current predicament.


The wheat and the tares, the Church and the anti-church (1): genesis

24. Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 25. But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field; from whence then hath it tares? 28. He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29. But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers,Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."

Mt 13, 24-30

In the Catena Aurea, St. Thomas Aquinas collected the comments of the Fathers of the Church on the parable of the wheat and the tares .

This is what they taugth us about the anti-church:

  1. The good seed was planted by Jesus
  2. Remig.: Here He calls the Son of God Himself the kingdom of heaven; for He saith, “The kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that sowed good seed in his field.”
  3. Our Sheppards were negligent...
  4. Aug., Quaest in Matt., q. 11: He says, “While men slept,” for... the heads of the Church were abiding in supineness ...;
    Chrys.: ...heretics at first keep themselves in the shade; but when they have had long license, and when men have held communication with them in discourse, then they pour forth their venom.
    Jerome: ...let not him sleep that is set over the Church, lest through his carelessness the enemy should sow therein tares, that is, the dogmas of the heretics.
  5. ... and the devil had the bad seed planted...
  6. Aug., Quaest in Matt., q. 11: ... then came the Devil and sowed upon the rest those whom the Lord in His interpretation calls evil children.
    Chrys.: ... the Devil sees somewhat to imitate... Therefore because he... saw that this man bears fruit an hundred, this sixty, and this thirtyfold, and that he was not able to carry off or to choke that which had taken root, he turns to other insidious practices, mixing up his own seed, which is a counterfeit of the true, and thereby imposes upon such as are prone to be deceived. So the parable speaks, not of another seed, but of tares which bear a great likeness to wheat corn. ... 
  7. .... by anti-prophets, anti-apostles and anti-christ.
  8. Chrys.: ... the false prophets came after the Prophets, the false apostles after the Apostles, and Antichrist after Christ. ...
    Aug.: ...when he found that he had no power in open warfare against a Master of such great name, he had introduced his fallacies under cover of that name itself...
  9. The bad seed was planted after the wheat … [or in other words the bad seeds are novelties]
  10. Chrys.: ...He here shews that error arose after truth... the malignity of the Devil is shewn in this, that he sowed when all else was completed, that he might do the greater hurt to the husbandman.
    Aug., Quaest in Matt., q. 11... When then the Devil had sown upon the true Church divers evil errors and false opinions; that is to say, where Christ’s name had gone before, there he scattered errors...
  11. The seeds sprang and generated (at first silent) heretics and schismatics inside the Church [what I call the anti-church]
  12. Chrys., Hom., xlvi: "... the Lord spoke ... here of those who receive a corrupting seed... He more particularly draws the picture of an heretic, in the words, “When the blade grew, and put forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.” For heretics at first keep themselves in the shade; but when they have had long license, and when men have held communication with them in discourse, then they pour forth their venom."
    Aug., Quaest in Matt., q. 11: ... we do well to enquire whether by such are meant heretics, or Catholics who lead evil lives. That He says, that they were sown among the wheat, seems to point out that they were all of one communion... Indeed it is not necessary that every heretic or schismatic should be corporally severed from the Church; for the Church bears many who do not so publicly defend their false opinions as to attract the attention of the multitude, which when they do, then are they expelled. ...When then the Devil ... sown upon the true Church divers evil errors and false opinions; ... Though indeed in this parable, as we learn from His own interpretation, the Lord may be understood to have signified under the name of tares all stumbling-blocks and such as work iniquity.


The Schismatic Pope / O Papa Cismático (2): a summary

A summary of the previous post, based on the "ancient theologians ... who thought, in agreement with the “Decree” of Gracian (part I, dist.XV, c. IV), that the Pope... could ... fall into schism".

The Pope could fall into schism, if he did the following with pertinacity:

  • If he refused to celebrate Holy Mass with the other bishops;

  • “... if he tried to excommunicate the whole Church";

  • "... if he ... refused to the Chrch ... the spiritual orientation which she has the right to expect from him in the name of Someone who is greater than he: in the name of Christ and of God”;

  • "... by ordering something which is contrary to natural or divine law ...";

  • "... if he does not observe that which the Church Universal observes on the basis of the Tradition of the Apostles ...";

  • "... if he did not observe that which was universally ordained by the universal Councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See above all in relation to Divine Worship. ...";

  • "... lt he did not wish to do everything he could for the reestablishment of unity."

O Papa pode tornar-se cismático se, com pertinácia:

  • Se recusar a celebrar a Santa Missa com os outros bispos;

  • “... tentasse excomungar toda a Igreja";

  • "recusasse à Igreja ... a orientação espiritual que ela tem o direito de esperar dele em nome de Alguém que é maior do que ele: do próprio Cristo e de Deus”;

  • "... ordena[sse] o que é contrário ao direito natural ou divino ...";

  • "... não observar aquilo que a Igreja universal observa com base na tradição dos Apóstolos...";

  • "... não observar aquilo que foi, pelos Concílios universais ou pela autoridade da Sé Apostólica, ordenado universalmente, sobretudo quanto ao culto divino. ...";

  • não fizer "quanto possa o restabelecimento da unidade."


The Schismatic Pope / O Papa cismático

The following is taken from of Chapter VIII of Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira's 1970 study titled "The theological hyphotesis of a heretic Pope", pp.  179-182 ( notes and bibliographical references available in the linked document):

The possibility of the Pope falling into schism appears absurd in principle. For is schism not the breaking off of one of the faithful from the Pope? How can the Pope break off with himself? Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia: Where Peter is, there is the Church.

Nevertheless, numerous authors of importance do not exclude the hypothesis (1).

Suarez explains it in the following terms:

“...  the Pope could be schismatic, in case he did not want to have due union and coordination with the whole body of the Church as would be the case if he tried to excommunicate the whole Church, or if he wanted to subvert all the ecclesiastical ceremonies founded on apostolic tradition, as we observed by Cajetan (ad II-II, q. 39) and, with greater amplitude, Torquemada (1. 4, c.11)” (2).

... Cardinal Journet writes:

1. The ancient theologians (Torquemada, Cajetan, Banez), who thought, in agreement with the “Decree” of Gracian (part I, dist.XV, c. IV), that the Pope, infallible as Doctor of the Church, could however personally sin against faith and fall into heresy (see L’Eglise du Verbe Incarne t. I, p. 596), admitted with greater reason that the Pope could sin against charity, even in the measure that this latter constitutes the unity of the ecclesiastical communion, and thus fall into schism (1).

The unity of the Church, according to what they said, subsists when the Pope dies. Therefore, it could subsist also when a Pope fell into schism (Cajetan, II-II, q. 39, a. 1, n VI).

They ask themselves, however, in what manner can the Pope become schismatic. For he can separate himself neither from the chief of the Church, that is, from himself, nor from the Church, for where the Pope is, there is the Church.

To this Cajetan responds that the Pope could break the communion by ceasing to comport himself as the spiritual chief of the Church, deciding for example to act as a mere temporal prince. To save his liberty, he would flee thus from the duties of his charge; and if he did this with pertinacity there would be schism (2). As for the axiom “where the Pope is, there is the Church”, it holds when the Pope comports himself as Pope and chief of the Church; otherwise, the Church is not in him, nor is he in the Church (Cajetan, ibidem).

2. ... he also can sin against the ecclesiastical community in two ways: 1) breaking the unity of connection, which would suppose on his part the will to avoid the action of grace as far as this is sacramental, and what brings into being the unity of the Church; 2) breaking the unity of direction, which would result, according to the penetrating analysis of Cajetan, if he rebelled as a private person against the obligations of his charge and refused to the Church (trying to excommunicate the whole Church or simply resolving, in a deliberate way, to live as a mere temporal Prince) the spiritual orientation which she has the right to expect from him in the name of Someone who is greater than he: in the name of Christ and of God” (4).

... Cardinal Torquemada uses three arguments:

“1 – (…) by disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ, who is the principal head of the Church and in relation to whom the unity of the Church is primarily constituted. He can do this by disobeying the law of Christ [n4 ... in that in which one denies the very principle of authority in the Church, breaking thus the ecclesiastical unity] or by ordering something which is contrary to natural or divine law. In this way he would separate himself from the body of the Church, while it is subject to Christ by obedience. Thus, the Pope would be able without doubt to fall into schism.

2. ... if he does not observe that which the Church Universal observes on the basis of the Tradition of the Apostles ... or if he did not observe that which was universally ordained by the universal Councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See above all in relation to Divine Worship. ... Departing in such a way, and with pertinacity, from the universal observance of the Church, the Pope would be able to fall into schism. ... For this reason, Innocent says (c. De Consue.) that one ought to obey the Pope in everything as long as he does not turn against the universal order of the Church, for in such a case the Pope must not be followed, unless there be reasonable cause for this.

3. ... let us suppose that this true Pope comported himself with such negligence and obstinacy in the pursuit of unity in the Church, that he did not wish to do everything he could for the reestablishment of unity. In this hypothesis the Pope would be considered as a fomenter of schism, according to the way many have argued, even in our days, in connection with Benedict XIII and Gregory XII” (1).

The authors who admit the possibility of a schismatic Pope, in general do not hesitate to affirm that in such a hypothesis, as in that of a Pope heretic, the Pontiff loses the charge. The reason for this is evident: schismatics are excluded from the Church, in the same way as heretics (2).

... we can conclude, with Cajetan, that “(…) the Church is in the Pope when he comports himself as Pope, that is, as Head of the Church; but in case he did not want to act as Head of the Church, neither would the Church be in him, nor he in the Church” (5).

Moreover, it is opportune to remember that “he who is pertinacious in schism, is practically indistinguishable from a heretic” (6); that “no schism fails to think up some heresy to justify it separation from the Church” (7); that schism constitutes a disposition for heresy (8); and that the schismatic, according to Canon Law and Natural Law, is suspect of heresy (9).

A possibilidade de queda do Papa em cisma parece em princípio absurda. Pois o cisma não é o rompimento do fiel com o Papa? Como pode o Papa romper consigo mesmo? ―Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia‖: onde está Pedro, aí está a Igreja.

Contudo, numerosos autores de peso não excluem a hipótese

Suarez no-la explica nos seguintes termos:

"... o Papa poderia ser cismático, caso não quisesse ter com todo o corpo da Igreja a união e a conjunção devida, como seria se tentasse excomungar toda a Igreja, ou se quisesse subverter todas as cerimônias eclesiásticas fundadas em tradição apostólica, como observaram Caietano (ad II-II, q. 39) e, com maior amplitude, Torquemada (l. 4, c. 11).

...  Card. Journet escreve:

"1. Os antigos teólogos (Torquemada, Caietano, Bañez), que pensavam, de acordo com o ―Decreto de Graciano (parte I, dist. XV, c. VI), que o Papa infalível como Doutor da Igreja, podia entretanto pessoalmente pecar contra a fé e cair em heresia (ver ―L’Église du Verbe Incarné‖, t. I, p. 596), com maior razão admitiam que o Papa podia pecar contra a caridade, mesmo enquanto esta realiza a unidade da comunhão eclesiástica, e assim cair no cisma.

A unidade da Igreja, segundo eles diziam, subsiste quando o Papa morre. Portanto, ela poderia subsistir também quando um Papa incidisse em cisma (Caietano, II-II, q. 39, a. 1, n.º VI).

Eles se perguntavam, entretanto, de que maneira pode o Papa tornar-se cismático. Pois ele não pode separar-se nem do chefe da Igreja, isto é, de si próprio, nem da Igreja, porque onde está o Papa está a Igreja.

A isso Caietano responde que o Papa poderia romper a comunhão renunciando a comportar-se como chefe espiritual da Igreja, decidindo por exemplo agir como mero príncipe temporal. Para salvar sua liberdade, ele fugiria assim aos deveres de seu cargo; e se fizesse isso com pertinácia, haveria cisma. Quanto ao axioma ―onde está o Papa está a Igreja‖, vale quando o Papa se comporta como Papa e chefe da Igreja; em caso contrário, nem a Igreja está nele, nem ele na Igreja (Caietano, ibidem).

2. ... ele pode pecar de duas maneiras contra a comunhão eclesiástica: 1º) quebrando a unidade de conexão, o que suporia de sua parte a vontade de se subtrair à invasão da graça enquanto esta é sacramental e realiza a unidade da Igreja; 2º) quebrando a unidade de direção, o que se produziria, conforme a penetrante análise de Caietano, se ele como pessoa privada se rebelasse conta os deveres de seu cargo e recusasse à Igreja – tentando excomungá-la toda ou simplesmente resolvendo, de modo deliberado, viver como mero príncipe temporal – a orientação espiritual que ela tem o direito de esperar dele em nome de Alguém que é maior do que ele: do próprio Cristo e de Deus".

... o Cardeal Torquemada usa de três argumentos:

―1- (...) pela desobediência, o Papa pode separar-se de Cristo, que é a cabeça principal da Igreja e em relação a quem a unidade da Igreja primariamente se constitui. Pode fazer isso desobedecendo à lei de Cristo [... desobediência... naquele em que se nega o próprio princípio de autoridade na Igreja, rompendo, assim a unidade eclesiástica] ou ordenando o que é contrário ao direito natural ou divino. Desse modo, ele se separaria do corpo da Igreja, enquanto, está sujeito a Cristo pela obediência. Assim, o Papa poderia sem dúvida cair em cisma.

2- ...se não observar aquilo que a Igreja universal observa com base na tradição dos Apóstolos, ... ou se não observar aquilo que foi, pelos Concílios universais ou pela autoridade da Sé Apostólica, ordenado universalmente, sobretudo quanto ao culto divino. ... Afastando-se de tal modo, e com pertinácia, da observância universal da Igreja, o Papa poderia incidir em cisma. ... Por isso, Inocêncio diz (c. ―De Consue.‖) que em tudo se deve obedecer ao Papa enquanto ele não se volte contra a ordem universal da Igreja, pois em tal caso o Papa não deve ser seguido, a menos que haja para isso causa razoável.

3- ... suponhamos que esse Papa verdadeiro se comporte com tanta negligência e obstinação na busca da união da Igreja, que não queira fazer quanto possa o restabelecimento da unidade. Nessa hipótese, o Papa seria tido como fomentador do cisma, conforme muitos argumentavam anda em nossos dias, a propósito de Bento XIII e do Gregório XII".

Os autores que admitem a possibilidade de um Papa cismático, em geral não hesitam em afirmar que em tal hipótese, como na do Papa herege, o Pontífice perde o cargo. A razão disso é evidente: os cismáticos estão excluídos da Igreja, do mesmo modo que os hereges.

... podemos concluir, com Caietano que: ―(...) a Igreja está no Papa quando este se comporta como Papa, isto é, como Cabeça da Igreja; mas caso ele não quisesse agir como Cabeça da Igreja, nem a Igreja estaria nele, nem ele na Igreja".

Ademais, é oportuno lembrar que ―quem é pertinaz no cisma, praticamente não se distingue do herege‖5; que ―nenhum cisma deixou de excogitar alguma heresia a fim de justificar sua separação da Igreja‖6; que o cisma constitui uma disposição para a heresia7; e que o cismático, segundo o Direito Canônico e o Direito Natural, é suspeito de heresia8.


Demolição em curso: agora foi a vez da mensagem de Fátima

Antonio Socci: Ha distrutto anche la messaggio della madonna


P.S.2 Roberto de Mattei: "The tragic dimension of the Fatima message, which rotates around the concepts of sin and punishment, has been put aside. Our Lady had said to little Jacinta that wars are nothing other than  punishment for the sins of the world and that the sins which carry most souls to hell are the ones against purity. If today we are experiencing “a [world]war in pieces” , as Pope Francis has often repeated, how can we not connect this to the horrifying explosion of present-day immorality, which has gone as far as legalizing the inversion of the moral laws?  Our Lady once again had said to Jacinta, that if there had not been any amendment and penance, humanity would have been punished, but in the end Her Immaculate Heart would triumph and the entire world would be converted. 


#FrancisEffect is #FakeNews: number of practising catholics reaches historical low under Bergoglio

Il Giornale, 07/05/2017

"...Se nel 2007 una persona su tre (esattamente il 33,43 per cento) dichiarava di frequentare luoghi di culto almeno una volta alla settimana, oggi la percentuale è scesa al 27,5%, minimo storico degli ultimi dieci anni. 

Altro che «effetto Bergoglio»! Papa Francesco, così popolare e apprezzato, sembra non sortire alcun effetto positivo sulla pratica religiosa degli italiani.

Insomma, mentre rimane stabile il numero di coloro che continuano a professarsi cattolici non praticanti, diminuisce progressivamente il numero di coloro che almeno la domenica si recano in una chiesa o in parrocchia per assistere alla funzione religiosa.

La presenza nei luoghi di culto, in buona sostanza, è arrivata proprio sotto Bergoglio ai minimi storici..."
"...Se em 2007 um pessoa em cada três (exactamente 33,43%) dizia frequentar um lugar de culto pelo menos uma vez por semana, hoje este valor desceu para os 27,5%, um mínimo histórico dos últimos dez anos.

Que «efeito Bergoglio»! O Papa Francisco, tão popular e apreciado, parece não ter qualquer efeito positivo sobre a prática religiosa dos italianos. 

Em resumo, enquanto se mantém estável o número daqueles que se declaram católicos não praticantes, diminui progressivamente o número daieles que pelo menos ao Domingo vão a uma Igreja ou a paróquia para assistir a uma função religiosa.

A presença nos lugares de culto, em substância, chegou sob Bergoglio a um mínimo histórico..."



[Original published by Sandro Magister]

"...3. The case of Francis

However, the doctrinal deviation that is taking place during the current pontificate instead has an aggravating circumstance, because it is not countering doctrines that are still unclear, or still being determined, but doctrines that, in addition to being solidly anchored in Tradition, have also been exhaustively debated in recent decades and clarified in detail by the recent magisterium...

Let us see, in four points, the progress of this destruction of the deposit of the faith.


If marriage is indissoluble, and yet in some cases communion can be given to the divorced and remarried, it seems evident that this indissolubility is no longer considered absolute, but only a general rule that can admit exceptions.

Now this, as Cardinal Carlo Caffarra has explained well, contradicts the nature of the sacrament of marriage, which is not a simple promise, as solemn as it may be, made before God, but an action of grace that works at the genuinely ontological level. Therefore, when it is said that marriage is indissoluble, what is stated is not simply a general rule, but what is said is that ontologically marriage cannot be dissolved, because in it is contained the sign and the reality of the indissoluble marriage between God and his People, between Christ and his Church. And this mystical marriage is precisely the end of the whole divine plan of creation and redemption.


The author of “Amoris Laetitia” has instead chosen to insist, in his argumentation, on the subjective side of moral action. The subject, he says, may not be in mortal sin because, for various reasons, he is not fully aware that his situation constitutes adultery.

Now this, which in general terms can certtainly happen, in the utilization that “Amoris Laetitia” makes of it instead involves an evident contradiction. In fact, it is clear that the much-recommended discernment and accompaniment of individual situations directly contrast with the supposition that the subject remains, for an indefinite time, unaware of his situation.

But the author of “Amoris Laetitia,” far from perceiving this contradiction, pushes it to the further absurdity of affirming that an in-depth discernment can lead the subject to have the certainty that his situation, objectively contrary to the divine law, is precisely what God wants from him.


Recourse to the previous argument, in turn, betrays a dangerous confusion that in addition to the doctrine of the sacraments goes so far as to undermine the very notion of divine law, understood as the source of the natural law, reflected in the Ten Commandments: a law given to man because it is suited to regulating his fundamental behaviors, not limited to particular historical circumstances, but founded on his very nature, the author of which is none other than God.

Therefore, to suppose that the natural law may admit exceptions is a real and proper contradiction, it is a supposition that does not understand its true essence and therefore confuses it with positive law. The presence of this grave confusion is confirmed by the repeated attack, present in “Amoris Laetitia,” against the quibblers, the presumed “pharisees” who are hypocrites and hard of heart. This attack, in fact, betrays a complete misunderstanding of the position of Jesus toward the divine law, because his criticism of pharisaic behavior is based precisely on a clear distinction between positive law - the “precepts of men” - to which the pharisees are so attached, and the fundamental Commandments, which are instead the first requirement, indispensable, that he himself asks of the aspiring disciple. On the basis of this misunderstanding one understands the real reason why, after having so greatly insulted the pharisees, the pope ends up in de facto alignment with their own position in favor of divorce, against that of Jesus.

But, even more deeply, it is important to observe that this confusion profoundly distorts the very essence of the Gospel and its necessary grounding in the person of Christ.


Christ in fact, according to the Gospel, is not simply a good man who came into the world to preach a message of peace and justice. He is, first of all, the Logos, the Word who was in the beginning and who, in the fullness of time, becomes incarnate. It is significant that Benedict XVI, right from his homily “Pro eligendo romano pontifice,” made precisely the Logos the linchpin of his teaching, not by coincidence fought to the death by the subjectivism of the modern theories.

Now, in the realm of this subjectivist philosophy there is the justification of one of the postulates most dear to Pope Francis, according to which “realities are more important than ideas.” A maxim like this, in fact, makes sense only in a vision in which there cannot exist true ideas that not only faithfully reflect reality but can even judge and direct it. The Gospel, taken as a whole, presupposes this metaphysical and epistemological structure, where truth is in the first place the conforming of things to the intellect, and the intellect is in the first place that which is divine: indeed, the divine Word.

In this atmosphere it can be understood how it is possible that the editor of “La Civiltà Cattolica” could state that it is pastoral practice that must guide doctrine, and not the other way around, and that in theology “two plus two can equal five.” It explains why a Lutheran lady can receive communion together with her Catholic husband: the practice, in fact, the action, is that of the Lord’s Supper, which they have in common, while that in which they differ is only “the interpretations, the explanations,” mere concepts after all. But it also explains how, according to the superior general of the Society of Jesus, the incarnate Word is not capable of coming into contact with his creatures through the means that he himself chose, the apostolic Tradition: in fact, it would be necessary to know what Jesus truly said, but we cannot, he says, “since there was no recorder.”

Even more thoroughly in this atmosphere, finally, it is explained how the pope cannot answer “yes” or “no” to the “dubia.” If in fact “realities are more important than ideas,” then man does not even need to think with the principle of non-contradiction, he has no need of principles that say “this yes and this no” and must not even obey a transcendent natural law, which is not identified with reality itself. In short, man does not need a doctrine, because the historical reality suffices for itself. It is the “Weltgeist,” the Spirit of the World.

... Conclusion

What leaps to the attention in the current situation is precisely the underlying doctrinal deformation that, as skillful as it may be in evading directly heterodox formulations, still maneuvers in a coherent way to carry forward an attack not only against particular dogmas like the indissolubility of marriage and the objectivity of the moral law, but even against the very concept of right doctrine, and with it, of the very person of Christ as Logos. The first victim of this doctrinal deformation is precisely the pope, who I hazard to conjecture is hardly aware of this, victim of a generalized epochal alienation from Tradition, in large segments of theological teaching.

In this situation, the “dubia,” these five questions presented by the four cardinals, have put the pope into a situation of stalemate. If he were to respond by denying Tradition and the magisterium of his predecessors, he would also be heretic formally, so he cannot do it. But if he were to respond in harmony with the previous magisterium, he would contradict many of the doctrinally significant actions carried out during his pontificate, so it would be a very difficult choice. He has therefore chosen silence because, humanly, the situation can seem to have no way out. But meanwhile, the confusion and the “de facto” schism are spreading in the Church.

In the light of all this, it therefore becomes more necessary than ever to make a further act of courage, truth, and charity, on the part of the cardinals but also of the bishops and then of all the qualified laity who would like to adhere to it. In such a serious situation of danger for the faith and of generalized scandal, it is not only licit but even obligatory to frankly address a fraternal correction to Peter, for his good and that of the whole Church.

A fraternal correction is neither an act of hostility, nor a lack of respect, nor an act of disobedience. It is nothing other than a declaration of truth: “caritas in veritate.” The pope, even before being pope, is our brother."


St. Francis of Assisi: "Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true pastor, but a destroyer"

"A SHORT time before the holy Father's death, he called together his Children and warned them of the coming troubles, saying:

'Act bravely, my Brethren ; take courage, and trust in the Lord.

The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions ; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound ; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase. 

The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity.

At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error and death.

Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it.

There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God.

Then our Rule and manner of life will be violently opposed by some, and terrible trials will come upon us.Those who are found faithful will receive the crown of life; but woe to those who, trusting solely in their Order, shall fall into tepidity, for they will not be able to support the temptations permitted for the proving of the elect.

Those who preserve their fervour and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and persecutions as rebels and schismatics ;
for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth. But the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in Him. And in order to be like their Head, these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than man, they will fear nothing, and they will prefer to perish rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy.

Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision if by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.*

[* Mark of Lisbon and others think that this prophecy received its accomplishment in the great schism which desolated the Church after the election of Urban VL in the year 1378. But it may also partially refer to other calamities which befallen the Church in the latter ages.]"

St. Francis Of Assisi, "Prophesies great schisms and tribulations in the Church"
in Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi, pp. 248-250, 1892
[Imprimatur +William Bernard, Bishop of Birmingham]


Cum Oecumenicum Concilium: "alguns erros na leitura e interpretação dos documentos do Concílio Vaticano II"

No Senza Pagare recorda-se a 'Cum Oecumenicum Concilium'. Nessa carta do então Pró-Prefeito da Congregação para a Doutrina da Fé listam-se "alguns erros na leitura e interpretação dos documentos do Concílio Vaticano II". É um autêntico syllabus dos erros do 'espírito' do concílio.

O Senza não diz, mas estes são os erros que têm infestado a Igreja durante as últims décadas e que, de forma muito clara, enformam o presente pontificado.


  • Regina Prophetarum Traditional Sermons for Traditional Catholics.

  • Sensus Fidelium: A collection of Catholic homilies, apologetic videos, & other resources to grow in the One True Faith.


The benedict internal option

"As for the internal solution, since you read the ‘Eleison Comments,’ then you know how often and repeatedly I recommend praying the full 15 Mysteries of the Rosary every day. Good books (and good music) can also help considerably to nourish and protect the mind and the heart. Read what genuinely interests you, and do not read merely dutiful books because you will not get out of them nearly as much. Almighty God has seen from eternity what a mess the modern world would get itself into. He has also seen from eternity that there would be souls today still wanting to go to Heaven. Is it imaginable that even in today’s infernal big cities He would have left such souls with no recourse if only they wanted to stay on track for Heaven?

Yet He foresaw that everything external would fall under the control of His enemies: telephone calls, emails, drones, universities, politics, law, medicine, etc., etc. That is why I think that what He means by allowing such power to His enemies is to drive us back to Him and to a true inner practice of His holy religion despite the worst that Popes and priests can do. Therefore, in my opinion, be content to attend the least contaminated Tridentine Mass that there is anywhere near you, get regularly to Confession with any priest still willing to hear Confessions and who does not tell you that a sin is not a sin, and find the way to work into your day all 15 Mysteries of the Rosary. And then “possess your soul in patience” and quietly beg God to show you the way to Heaven, and to intervene here below before everything is lost. Despite all appearances, He is still in perfect control.

Kyrie eleison