Anatomy of a conspiracy: The forced resignation of Pope Benedict XVI

 

Long before Pope Benedict XVI's forced resignation,  I warned - with the help of Catholic Prophecy  - of what was coming.

See here for example 

And here

The Dark Church foretold by Venerable Ann Catherine Emmerich,  the Mystical Body of Antichrist within the Mystical Body of Christ has arrived.

The way is prepared for the Man of Sin and his one-world religion. 

Bishop Michael Martin considers himself wiser than Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI

The National Catholic Register is reporting that:

"Controversy in a North Carolina diocese has broadened beyond traditional Latin Mass restrictions after it was revealed that the local bishop had also planned to ban the use of Latin, altar rails, and other traditional practices in all diocesan liturgies — a development with implications far beyond the Tar Heel State.

Bishop Michael Martin of Charlotte proposed the restrictions in a leaked draft of new liturgical norms, which was first made public by the blog Rorate Caeli on May 28 and confirmed by the Register. Bishop Martin wrote that the purpose of the new norms, which also included barring ad orientem worship and traditional prayers at the foot of the altar, including the St. Michael Prayer, were made with the intention of “purifying and unifying the celebration of the Mass” in the diocese. 

The bishop also wrote that the proposed norms are called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Second Vatican Council’s pastoral constitution on the liturgy, a perspective that has been widely challenged in reactions to the document."

Bishop Martin is either supremely ignorant on this matter or he is a contemptible liar. Readers of this Blog know full well that I do not sugar coat the facts. This in keeping with the teaching of Saint Francis de Sales that the wolf is always called the wolf.

Now with regard to the Bishop's nonsense:

In his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, Pope John Paul II said that, "Respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition...for the use of the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition."

And, in his book "Salt of the Earth," Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said, "I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It's impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent."

To be sure, Vatican II called for an extended use of the vernacular. But nowhere did Vatican II call for the Latin language to be abolished from the liturgy. And anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant of the facts or a liar. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) No. 36 states clearly that, "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites."

Number 54 of this same Vatican II document teaches that, "In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them."

This is the teaching of Vatican II and the mind of the Church on the use of Latin and the attitude Catholics should have toward those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition.

Perhaps instead of appealing to some vague bullshit "spirit of Vatican II," Bishop Martin should sit down and actually READ the Conciliar documents.

Is that really too much to ask? If the Bishop cannot do his one job, perhaps it's time for him to step down.

Good Catholics cannot ignore the controversy over Francis...but at Saint Mary's Church in Orange, Massachusetts, that's standard operating procedure

Barbara Simpson writes:

"Roman Catholics were just entering the critical weekend of their Easter celebration – Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday, perhaps the most important commemorations in their religion – when Pope Francis threw another of his religious bombshells into the lives of his followers.

Just before Holy Thursday dawned, an interview with the pope was published in La Repubblica. It was written by the founder of the left-wing publication, Eugenio Scalfari, an Italian atheist.

In the article, the 93-year old journalist claimed the pope told him hell does not exist because people are not punished. If they do not repent and go to heaven, they just 'disappear.'

According to Scalfari, the pope said, 'There is no hell – there is the disappearance of sinful souls.'

Inasmuch as that’s a refutation of a core belief of Catholicism, when word of the interview got out, it spread like wildfire, in religious and mainstream publications.

Criticism was widespread, from The Drudge Report to the New York Times, to say nothing of the international press. There was consternation among clergy, and the average churchgoer was at a loss as to what was going on.

The Italian press acknowledged the pope had met with Scalfari five or six times in the past for lengthy 'interviews' and that the journalist does not take notes, nor does he record any interviews. As a result, there clearly were doubts raised as to the accuracy of what he claimed were Francis’ statements. In fact, this was not the first time such questions have been raised about his 'interviews' with the pope.

The Vatican also jumped to respond – but not forcefully. Its reaction didn’t deny what the pope said, but also didn’t affirm it, saying essentially that some of the words were not those of the pope.

Uh, exactly, what does that mean? The problem is that his statements are indeed heretical, so what now?

Apparently, nothing. Francis goes his merry way leaving bits and pieces of his Church and doctrine fraying around the edges and thoughtful clergy beginning to be angry.

American Cardinal Raymond Burke is greatly concerned about what is happening with this pope, saying that by not clarifying what was said, he only 'feeds the confusion.'

Burke is a well-known canon lawyer and the former head of the highest Vatican court. He didn’t mince any words, saying that what Pope Francis said 'went beyond what is tolerable' and is 'a source of deep scandal.'

The whole situation has left many questions, and it appears that there will be no answers, at least not yet. Either Pope Francis is the most naive of men or an individual dedicated to shaking up the lives of Catholics for a purpose he hasn’t revealed.

To the layman, it would appear he’s intent on undermining Catholic beliefs and watering down Church doctrines to suit some ulterior motive.

Regardless of which, it’s dangerous territory and could threaten to tear apart a Church already losing membership and clergy. There are those who believe the Church faces the possibility of collapse during this generation.

And speaking of church destruction, Cardinal Joseph Zen, who is the emeritus bishop of Hong Kong, is furious with how the pope has handled dealing with China and Catholic Church activities in that country. He’s blasted the deal, which he says, appeases China by agreeing to have the government choose Church leadership. He says that will be the annihilation of the 'underground church,' which is, in fact, a church that follows traditional Catholicism.

He should know: He spent seven years teaching in China’s official, state-approved church and said he 'know[s] that the church is completely enslaved to the government.' Remember, it’s a Communist government.

But there’s more. Over time, it’s been clear Francis veers left on most of his public positions on world affairs, from war to the environment to the family to borders and refugees.

And there he is again – this time, equating protecting the lives of the unborn to protecting the lives of migrants and their rights. In his latest 'guidance for Catholics,' published just last week, Pope Francis said that Christians must care for immigrants just as they care for the unborn.

In his text, 'Gaudate et Exsultate' ('Rejoice and Be Glad'), he said all human lives matter, and he went on to enumerate everything from the living, the sick, slaves, victims of trafficking and anyone rejected for any reason. While he reaffirmed the Church’s position of the sinfulness of abortion, he criticized those who see it as more important than migration.

He said the defense of the 'innocent unborn' should not supersede the defense of the poor or migrants.

Again, just what does that mean? Here he’s dealing with the issues of borders and massive migrations across Europe and North America. The pope has spoken out before that migrants have rights that supersede the sovereign rights of countries. Now that he is putting the burden of 'sin' on those who oppose open borders, the picture, for Catholics, at least, has changed.

But there’s even more: The pope has just released a written apology to the bishops of Chile for a long-standing child abuse situation.

There are 64 victims in New York and Chile involving a cover-up by Chilean Bishop Juan Barros, a man the pope has supported over the years. Despite the allegations of abuse, the pope continually denied knowing of their validity and said he’d never heard from any of the victims.

The recent Vatican investigation, as reported on LifeSite, finally forced the pope to admit that 'he made grave errors' in this case. In his written note, he asks 'the forgiveness of all those whom I offended over the years,' blaming it on a lack of true information.

He omitted any call for justice against those who committed the abuses. Just an 'I’m sorry.'

So Pope Francis is human and made a big mistake. Now what?

It’s not common for Catholics to criticize a pope – but it is the opinion of this cradle Catholic, and I suspect I am not alone, that he’s used up his 'passes.'

It’s time for Pope Francis to step aside and spend time in deep reconciliation with his faith and God – thus putting an end to his reign of Catholic confusion."

While many clergy, religious and laity are deeply concerned over the errors and misguided actions of Francis, sadly some blindly follow him, preferring to keep their heads in the sand.

And while Raymond Arroyo, over at EWTN, has said that good Catholics cannot ignore the controversy over Francis - see here -  some prefer to view the pope not so much as the Custodian of immutable truths, but as a sort of ersatz wizard with a magic wand, capable of changing that which has been revealed by the Lord Jesus, the true Head of the Catholic Church, Who will judge us all - Popes included.

This is the situation at Saint Mary's Church in Orange, Massachusetts. For Father Shaun O'Connor and his "pastoral team," there is not only no reason for concern, but we should all be enthralled with Francis, his errors, falsehoods and wreckovation included.

Which makes me wonder: Whom do they worship?  Christ the Second Person of the Trinity, the Incarnate Word, or a frustrated modernist who seems Hell-bent on undermining Catholic teaching while sowing confusion.

Confusion is not a gift of the Holy Spirit. It is, in fact, a mark of the Devil. Perhaps this explains

why the Saint Michael Prayer has been dropped after weekend liturgies at the parish.

Father Zuhlsdorf gets to the crux of the controversy over Amoris laetitia: Christ or Chaos?

“You must do your duty and make chaos all night..." - Francis to Krakow, Poland youth.

Father John Zuhlsdorf, referring to Francis' Amoris laetitia, gets to the crux of the matter:

"If the unrepentent sinner, unshriven and without a firm purpose of amendment, can officially be admitted to Holy Communion, it’s game over for discipline in the Church.  It’s over for authoritative teaching on faith and morals.

If Christ was wrong about marriage and divorce, then He isn’t God and everything we are doing is pointless and idolatrous."

Lumen Gentium, No. 25, referring to the Pontiff's infallibility, teaches clearly that, "...this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded."

Got that?  Pay attention now.  The Pope's infallibility "extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends."  It does not surpass or supercede Revelation, a Revelation from the Lord Jesus which must be "religiously guarded and faithfully expounded."

The Pope is the Custodian of the Deposit of Faith, not its Master.

Pope Saint John Paul II, in Familiaris Consortio, No. 84, taught authoritatively that:

"The Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. 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." —Familiaris Consortio, “On the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World”, No. 84.

There is confusion in the Church because Francis isn't satisfied with being the Custodian of the Deposit of Faith.  He wants to be its Master.

The Big Picture on Catholic Education for Children of Homosexual Parents

Joe Sacerdo of Bryan Hehir Exposed has written a comprehensive overview of an unfortunate controversy which has erupted in the Archdiocese of Boston. One which has far-reaching implications for the Church It may be found here.

Some background on the controversy here.

Related reading here.