The "death of the Church" - a long (un)holy saturday

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"677. The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven. God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgement after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world."
What will this "death of the Church" be like? The Catechism itself presents not a few hints (675-677): 
"The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. the supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh "(675-677).

On the other hand, does the death of Jesus shed light on the "death of the Church"?

The Catechism teaches that "Jesus did really die" (636), meaning His Soul was separated from His Body, and that during "Christ's period in the tomb, his divine person continued to assume both his soul and his body, although they were separated from each other by death. For this reason the dead Christ's body 'saw no corruption'⇒ Acts 13:37)" (630) ...

 ... food for thought or for meditation in front of the Blessed Sacrament, if the present crisis did not rob you of the ability to meditate.

Now, I do not know if we are going through what the Catechism calls the "Church's ultimate trial" -  probably not.

But even if this is just a (un)holy Saturday of the Magisterium there are more practical lessons to learn from Christ's stay in the tomb.

The Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy, states that:
"188. Saturdays stand out among those days dedicated to the Virgin Mary. ... it is a remembrance of the maternal example and discipleship of the Blessed Virgin Mary who, strengthened by faith and hope, on that great Saturday on which Our Lord lay in the tomb, was the only one of the disciples to hold vigil in expectation of the Lord's resurrection... it is a sign that the 'Virgin Mary is continuously present and operative in the life of the Church'"
The Apostles (except John), ran or tried to appease the world by abandoning or denying Jesus, but the Blessed Virgin Mary never lost the Faith.

We could do worse than spend the present looong (un)holy Saturday of the Church in the company of the Blessed Virgin Mary. For me this means praying the Rosary and practicing whatever Marian devotions God inspires me to pratice.

So, it's time to study Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort's "Treatise on the true devotion to the Blessed Virgin" (versão portuguesa).

I pray I won't have time to memorize the whole thing...


What I learned from #Synod15

  1. The latest eruption of the present crisis, AKA #Synod15, proved that we cannot trust many of those who are supposedly our shepherds:
    • Many members of the hierarchy fear, look up to, see the world through the lenses of the liberal media. They work to gain the approval of or to appease “public opinion”. Their Lord and Master and the faithful in the pews are an afterthought (or not even that).

      Some Cardinals and Bishops simply don’t have the Faith.

    • @HolySeePress office is thoroughly infiltrated and became a spin machine at the service of the Enemy.

    • Some supposed bastions of orthodoxy behaved shamefully. They bought their survival at the price of silence and subservience. They sacrificed Truth in the altar of their corporate worldly interests.

  2. Others, on the contrary, have shown their love for the Church:
    • Cardinals and bishops who paid the price for being Faithful: Cd. Burke, Cd. Erdo, Cd. Pell, … [At this point I wish to remember Bp. Liviéres (RIP)]

    • Faithful media and journalists: @Infocatolica, @EdwardPentin, …

    • The army of Davids who fought the heretical Golias when those entrusted with guarding the flock gave up or joined the wolves’ army: @ProtectthePope and many other anonymous individuals.

  3. BOTTOM LINE IS: We need a Pope that will confirm our Faith (Lk 22:32), laicize the heretic bishops and cardinals, suppress all heretic orders, proclaim the Truth to the world without fear and end the confusion (the trademark of the present pontificate). In the meantime I plan to stick with Tradition, live the Faith, teach it to my children and pray for all involved.


Sínodo sobre a legitimação do adultério e da homossexualidade: Entre S. Judas Tadeu e Judas Iscariotes

Este Papa é uma desgraça.

Desde a fatídica viagem de regresso do Brasil, todas as suas palavras, actos, nomeações, demissões, telefonemas, encontros privados, "gestos" e "sinais" apontam no mesmo sentido.

Depois da aprovação da farisaica reforma das declarações de nulidade matrimomial, que mantém a letra da indissolubilidade enquanto que ao mesmo tempo promove divórcio, e na ausência de intevenção Divina, o Papa vai permitir - por comissão, omissão ou confusão (que é a sua imagem de marca) -, que pecadores públicos, nomeadamente adúlteros e homossexuais praticantes e incontritos, recebam a absolvição e o corpo, sangue, alma e divindade de Jesus em comunhão.

É possível que, na prática, isto só venha a ocorrer naquelas (muitas) dioceses encabeçadas por bispos heréticos - os mesmos bispos que fazem parte do "Team Bergolgio" e da máfia de St. Gallen e que Francisco promoveu e/ou nomeou pessoalmente para o sínodo.

De qualquer forma, isto não é conciliável nem com a doutrina da Igreja

Despeço-me até ao dia 25 de Outubro, p.f., data em que, de uma maneira ou de outra, terminará este pesadelo.


Full transcript of Pope's in-flight interview from Cuba to US (Sept. 22, 2015)

 ... Rosa Flores, CNN: Good afternoon, Holy Father. I am Rosa Flores of CNN. We understand that more than 50 dissidents were arrested outside the nunciature [in Cuba] as they were trying to have a meeting with you. First, would you like to have a meeting with the dissidents, and if you had that meeting, what would you say?

Pope Francis: Look, I don’t have any news that that has happened. I don’t have any news. Some yes, yes, no, I don’t know. I don’t know, directly. The two questions are about reading the future. Would I like this to happen? … I like to meet with all people. I consider that all people are children of God and the law. And secondly, a relationship with another person always enriches. Even though it was soothsaying, that’s my reply. I would like to meet with everyone. If you want me to speak more about the dissidents, you can ask me something more concrete. For the nunciature, first, it was very clear that I was not going to give audiences because not only the dissidents asked for audiences, but also audiences (were requested) from other sectors, including from the chief of state. And, no, I am on a visit to a nation, and just that. I know that I hadn’t planned any audience with the dissidents or the others. And secondly from the nunciature, some people made some calls to some people who are in these groups of dissidents, where the responsibility was given to the nuncio to call them and tell them that I would greet them with pleasure outside the catedral for the meeting with the consecrated (religious). I would greet them when I was there, no? That did exist. Now, as no one identified themselves in their greetings, I don’t know if they were there. I said hello to the sick who were in wheelchairs. … Oops, I’m speaking Spanish. I greeted those who were in wheelchairs, but no one identified themselves as dissidents; but from the nunciature calls were made by some for a quick greeting.

(Follow up from Flores on what he would tell them if he met with them.)

Pope Francis: Oh, my daughter, I don’t know what I would say. (laughs) I would wish everyone well, but what one says comes in that moment and … You’ve got the Nobel Prize for being a reader of the future, eh? (laughs)

Silvia Poggioli, NPR: I would like to ask you, in the decades of the power of the state of Fidel Castro, the Church in Cuba has suffered much. In your meeting with Fidel, did you get the impression that [he] may be a bit regretful?

Pope Francis: Regret is a very intimate thing, and it’s a thing of conscience. I, in the meeting with Fidel, I spoke of the stories of known Jesuits, because in the meeting I brought a gift of a book, from Fr. Llorente, also a good friend of his, who is also a Jesuit. And also a CD with the conferences of Fr. Llorente and I also gave him two books from Fr. Pronzato [sic] which I’m sure he’ll also appreciate. And we talked about these things. We spoke a lot about the encyclical, Laudato si'. He’s very interested in the issue of ecology. It was a not-so-formal, rather spontaneous meeting. Also his family was present there. Also those who accompanied me, my driver, were present there. But, we were a bit separated from his wife. They couldn’t hear, but they were in the same place. But we spoke a lot on the encyclical because he is very concerned about this. About the past, we didn’t speak.

(inaudible question from Poggioli)

Pope Francis: Yes! About the past, the Jesuit college. And how the Jesuits were and how they made him work. All of that, yes.

Gian Guido Vecchi, Corriere della Sera: Holiness, your reflections, also your denouncements of the inequity of the world economic system, the risk of self-destruction of the planet are also very uncomfortable, in the sense that they touch the  powerful interests of arms trafficking, etc. Before this trip, there were some bizarre manifestations that came out. Also, very important world media picked them up and and sectors of North American society  were even asking themselves if the Pope was Catholic. There have already been discussions about a communist Pope, now there are event those who speak of a Pope who isn’t Catholic. In the face of these considerations, what do you think?

Pope Francis: A cardinal friend of mine told me that a very concerned woman, very Catholic, went to him. A bit rigid, but Catholic. And she asked him if it was true that in the Bible, they spoke of an antichrist, and she explained it to him. And also in the Apocalypse, no? And, then, if it was true that an anti-pope, who is the antichrist, the anti-Pope. But why is she asking me this question, this cardinal asked me? “Because I’m sure that Pope Francis is the anti-pope,” she said. And why does she ask this, why does she have this idea? “It’s because he doesn’t wear red shoes.” The reason for thinking if one is communist or isn’t communist. I’m sure that I haven't said anything more than what’s written in the social doctrine of the Church. On another flight, a colleague asked me if I had reached out a hand to the popular movements and asked me, “But is the Church going to follow you?” I told him, “I’m the one following the Church.” And in this it seems that I’m not wrong. I believe that I never said a thing that wasn’t the social doctrine of the Church. Things can be explained, possibly an explanation gave an impression of being a little “to the left”, but it would be an error of explanation. No, my doctrine on this, in Laudato si', on economic imperialism, all of this, is the social doctrine of the Church. And it if necessary, I’ll recite the creed. I am available to do that, eh.

Jean Louis de la Vaissiere, AFP: In the last trip to Latin America, you harshly criticized the capitalist liberal system. In Cuba, it appears that your critiques of the communist system weren’t very strong, but “soft.” Why these differences?

Pope Francis: In the speeches that I made in Cuba, I always put the accent on the social doctrine of the Church. But the things that must be corrected I said clearly, not “perfumed,” or soft. But, also the first part of your question, more than what I have written – and harshly – in the encyclical, also in Evangelii gaudium, about wild, liberal capitalism – I didn’t say it. All that is written there. I don’t remember having said anything more than that. If you remember, let me know. I’ve said what I’ve written, which is enough, enough.

Nelson Castro, Radio Continental: The question has to do with the dissidents, in two aspects. Why did you decide not to receive them? After having a prisoner come up to you, who was arrested. The question is, is there going to be a place for the Catholic Church in search an opening for political liberties, seeing the role that it played in the re-establishment of relations between Cuba and the United States? This theme of liberties is a problem for those who think differently in Cuba. Will this be a role that the Holy See is thinking of for the Catholic Church in Cuba?

Pope Francis: First the “them.” Not receiving “them.” No, I didn’t receive any private audience. That is for everyone, and there was a head of state; I told them “no.” And that I didn’t have anything to do with the dissidents. The contact with the dissidents was what I explained. The Church here, the Church in Cuba, made a list of (prisoners) for the pardon; more than three thousand were given the pardon, the president of the bishops' conference told me.

Fr. Federico Lombardi: There were more than 3,000...

Pope Francis: There were more than 3,000 and other cases are being studied. The Church here in Cuba is commited to this work of the pardons. And, for example, someone said to me, “It would be really good if there could be an end to life imprisonment. Speaking clearly, life imprisonment is a hidden death penalty, it is like being there dying every day, without the hope of liberation. But that is just one hypothesis: another hypothesis that they grant a general pardon of one or two years, but the Church is working, and has worked. I do not say that all those 3,000 who were released were taken from the lists of the Church. No. The Church made lists, I don't know how many, and it continues to do so.

Rogelio Mora-Tagle, Telemundo: [Explains that Popes have visited Cuba often in a short period of time.] Is Cuba suffering from something, Holy Father? Is it sick?

Pope Francis: No, no. First, John Paul II went on his historic visit, which was normal. He visited so many countries, including nations that were aggressive against the Church, but that wouldn’t be it. The second was that of Pope Benedict, as well. That would be within the norm. And mine was a bit by chance, because I thought of going to the US by way of Mexico in the beginning – that was the first idea. Ciudad Juarez, the border, no? But going through Mexico without going to Our Lady of Guadalupe would have been a slap (in the face). But this happened, it’s something that happened. So, it went ahead and this is what came out. And last December 17, it was announced that everything was more or less organized, a process of almost a year, and then I said, 'No, I’m going to the United States by way of Cuba'. And, I chose it for this reason; not because it has a particular sickness that other nations don’t have. I wouldn’t interpret the three visits, more so if there are some countries which the previous Popes have visited, including myself. Brazil, for example, and others have been visited more. John Paul II visited Brazil three or four times: it wasn’t particularly sick. I am happy for having met the Cuban people, the Cuban Christian communities. Today, the meeting with families was very nice, very beautiful. I am sorry if it came to me in Spanish. I hope that you have understood. Thank you very much.



Biografia di Cd. Danneels: Elezione di Francescoo preparata da anni a San Gallo "Mafia Club" (Marco Tossati)

Cardinal Danneels Admits to Being Part of 'Mafia' Club Opposed to Benedict XVI

"New authorised biography also reveals papal delegate at upcoming synod wrote letter to Belgium government supporting same-sex "marriage" legislation because it ended discrimination against LGBT groups.

Further serious concerns are being raised about Cardinal Godfried Danneels, one of the papal delegates chosen to attend the upcoming Ordinary Synod on the Family, after the archbishop emeritus of Brussels confessed this week to being part of a radical "mafia" reformist group opposed to Benedict XVI.

It was also revealed this week that he once wrote a letter to the Belgium government favoring same-sex "marriage" legislation because it ended discrimination against LGBT groups.

Asked about the letter, Verhofstadt said he did not recall it, but added: “I never had any problem with the cardinal. Our relationship was good.”

The cardinal is already known for having once advised the king of Belgium to sign an abortion law in 1990, for telling a victim of clerical sex abuse to keep quiet, and for refusing to forbid pornographic, “educational” materials being used in Belgian Catholic schools.

He also once said same-sex “marriage” was a “positive development,” although he has sought to distinguish such a union from the Church’s understanding of marriage...

Despite the poor record of the Belgian Church in resisting these laws, and the country being far smaller than many African countries that have one delegate representing them, Cardinal Danneels, 82, will be one of three Belgian prelates to attend the synod in October.

The Vatican listed him second in importance out of 45 delegates personally chosen by Pope Francis to participate in the upcoming meeting. He also took part in last year’s Extraordinary Synod as a papal delegate.

At the launch of the book in Brussels this week, the cardinal said he was part of a secret club of cardinals opposed to Pope Benedict XVI.

He called it a "mafia" club that bore the name of St. Gallen. The group wanted a drastic reform of the Church, to make it "much more modern", and for Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to head it. The group, which also comprised Cardinal Walter Kasper and the late Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, has been documented in Austen Ivereigh's biography of Pope Francis, The Great Reformer."


The Rigging of a Vatican Synod? (Edward Pentin) / N.º1 Amazon Best-seller


Os atos de governo do Papa podem ser questionados?

"...Seja qual for o juízo que se faça a respeito dos Motu Proprio, estes se apresentam como um ato pessoal e direto de governo do Sumo Pontífice. Surgem então as perguntas: Pode um Papa errar na promulgação de uma lei eclesiástica? E caso um fiel esteja em desacordo com essa lei, não ficaria ele obrigado a guardar silêncio? A resposta provém da doutrina e da história da Igreja.

Muitas vezes tem de fato ocorrido de os Papas errarem em seus atos políticos, pastorais e até magisteriais, sem que isso tenha prejudicado de nenhum modo a validade do dogma da infalibilidade pontifícia. A resistência dos fiéis a esses atos errôneos dos Sumos Pontífices, e em alguns casos até ilegítimos, tem sido sempre benéfica para a vida da Igreja.

Sem remontar demasiadamente no tempo, deter-me-ei num acontecimento que data de dois séculos atrás. O pontificado de Pio VII (Gregório Chiaramonti, que governou a Igreja entre 1800 e 1823), como o de seu predecessor Pio VI, conheceu momentos de dolorosa tensão e de áspera luta entre a Santa Sé e Napoleão Bonaparte, imperador dos franceses. ... Pio VII ... em 25 de janeiro de 1813, abatido pela luta, firmou um Tratado entre a Santa Sé e o imperador, no qual subscreveu certas exigências incompatíveis com a doutrina católica. O documento, conhecido como “Concordata de Fontainebleau” (cfr. o texto em Enchiridion dei Concordati. Due secoli dei rapporti Chiesa-Stato, EDB, Bologna, 2003, nn. 44-55) aceitava de fato o princípio da submissão da Santa Sé às autoridades nacionais francesas, colocando a Igreja nas mãos do imperador.

Esse ato, no qual o Papa agia publicamente enquanto cabeça da Igreja Católica, foi imediatamente julgado pelos fiéis da época como catastrófico e ainda é considerado como tal pelos historiadores católicos. O Pe. Ilario Rinieri, que dedicou três volumes ao estudo das relações entre Pio VII e Napoleão, escreve que a Concordata de Fontainebleau “foi desastrosa como nunca para a soberania do Pontífice Romano e para a própria Sé apostólica” (Napoleone e Pio VII [1804-1813]. Relazioni storiche su documenti inediti dell’archivio vaticano, Unione Tipografico-Editrice, Torino, 1906, vol. III, p. 323), acrescentando: “Como o Santo Padre Pio VII foi capaz de deixar-se induzir a subscrever um tratado que continha condições tão desastrosas, é um desses fenômenos cuja explicação ultrapassa os direitos da história” (ibid., p. 325).

“Não é possível descrever a impressão sinistra e o péssimo efeito que a publicação dessa Concordata produziu”, lembra o Cardeal Bartolomeu Pacca (1756-1844) nas suas Memórias históricas (Ghiringhello e Vaccarino, Roma, 1836, vol. I, p. 190). Não faltaram os que acolheram a Concordata com entusiasmo, nem aqueles que, criticando-a por debaixo do pano, não tinham ousado exprimir-se publicamente, por servilismo ou por uma formação teológica errada. O Cardeal Pacca, pro-Secretário de Estado de Pio VII, porém, pertencia àquela turma de cardeais que, após terem tentado em vão dissuadir o Papa de assinar o documento, declararam que “não havia outro remédio para o escândalo dado ao catolicismo e os gravíssimos males que a execução de tal Concordata acarretaria para a Igreja, senão uma imediata retratação e uma anulação geral de tudo por parte do Papa; e alegavam o exemplo de Pascoal II, conhecidíssimo na história eclesiástica” (Memórias históricas, vol II. p. 88).

A retratação veio. Diante das censuras dos cardeais “zelanti”, Pio VII, com muita humildade, deu-se conta do erro e, em 24 de março de 1813, assinou uma carta a Napoleão, na qual se leem as seguintes palavras: “Daquele documento, apesar de subscrito por Nós, diremos a Vossa Majestade o mesmo que teve a dizer nosso Predecessor Pascoal II no caso similar de um escrito por ele assinado que continha uma concessão a favor de Henrique V [imperador do Sacro Império Romano Germânico], da qual a sua consciência teve motivos para arrepender-se: ‘como reconhecemos tal escrito como mal feito, da mesma maneira como mal feito o confessamos, e com a ajuda do Senhor desejamos que imediatamente seja emendado, a fim de que dele não resulte nenhum dano para a Igreja e nenhum prejuízo para a Nossa alma’” (Enchiridion, cit. n° 45, pp. 16-21).

Na Itália, a retratação do Papa não foi conhecida logo em seguida, mas apenas a Concordata por ele assinada. O venerável Pio Brunone Lanteri (1759-1830), que dirigia o movimento das Amicizie Cattoliche (“Amizades Católicas”), compôs imediatamente um documento de firme crítica ao ato do Pontífice, escrevendo entre outras coisas o seguinte: “Mas objetar-se-á que o Santo Padre tudo pode: ’quodcumque solveris, quodcumque ligaveris etc.’ É verdade, mas ele não pode nada contra a divina constituição da Igreja; ele é Vigário de Deus, mas não é Deus, nem pode destruir a obra de Deus” (Scritti e documenti d’Archivio,II, “Polemici-Apologetici”,Edizione Lanteri, Roma-Fermo, 2002, p. 1024).

O venerável Lanteri, que era um incansável defensor dos direitos do Papado, admitia a possibilidade de resistir ao Pontífice em caso de erro, sabendo que o poder do Papa é supremo, mas não ilimitado nem arbitrário. O Papa deve, como todo fiel, respeitar as leis natural e divina, das quais ele é, por mandato divino, o guardião. Ele não pode mudar a regra da Fé nem a constituição divina da Igreja (por exemplo, os sete Sacramentos), da mesma forma como os soberanos temporais não podem mudar as leis fundamentais do reino, porque, como lembra Bossuet, violando-as “abalam-se todos os fundamentos da terra (Sl 81,5)” (Jacques-Benigne Bossuet, Politique tirée des propres paroles de l’Ecriture Sainte, Droz, Genebra, 1967, p. 28).

Ninguém poderia acusar o Cardeal Pacca de empregar uma linguagem excessivamente forte, nem o venerável Pio Brunone Lanteri de fraca adesão ao Papado. As Concordatas, como os Motu Proprio, as Constituições Apostólicas, as Encíclicas, as Bulas, os Breves, são atos magisteriais e legislativos que exprimem os ensinamentos e a vontade pontifícia, mas que não são infalíveis, a menos que o Pontífice, no ato de promulgá-los, manifeste a intenção clara de definir pontos de doutrina ou de moral de maneira vinculante para todos os católicos (cfr. R. Naz, “Lois ecclésiastiques”, in Dictionnaire de Théologie catholique, vol. VI, coll. 635-677).

O Motu Proprio do Papa Francisco sobre as declarações de nulidade matrimonial é um ato de governo que pode ser contraditado e revogado por um ato de governo sucessivo. O Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum de Bento XVI sobre a liturgia tradicional, de 7 de julho de 2007, foi vigorosamente debatido e criticado (cfr. por exemplo a confrontação a duas vozes entre Andrea Grillo e Pietro De Marco, Ecclesia universa o introversa. Dibattito sul motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, Edizioni San Paolo, Cinisello Balsamo, 2013).

Até o próximo dia 8 de dezembro, o Motu Proprio do Papa Francisco – que foi até aqui o seu mais revolucionário ato de governo – ainda não terá entrado em vigor. Será ilegítimo solicitar ao Sínodo que discuta essa reforma matrimonial e que um grupo de cardeais “zelanti” requeira a sua revogação?"