jump to navigation

Atheistic Evolution’s and False Religion November 3, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Christendom, error, General Catholic, religious, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

I thought this was a very insightful bit of reading from the great Catholic Illustrated newspaper put out by the Transalpine Redemptorists.  This little review Clothing (5)of history demonstrates that Darwin did not arrive at his famous theory on the origin of species at random.  He wasn’t just out there gathering data in the Galapagos and had a “Eureka!” moment that informed him that species “evolved” one to the other.  No, he was a man on a mission, interested in obliterating the Christian religion and seeking a theory he thought could go a long way to doing that. As such, he was simply continuing a line of rationalist thought dating almost back to the protestant revolution, wherein men who hated and denigrated God and especially His Church, sought means to eradicate love for both from the hearts of men.

Lots of good info below for your consideration. especially concerning grave weaknesses in the theory of evolution. I continue to be a bit surprised by the degree to which well meaning souls in the Church are entranced by it and unable to shake themselves – even to a position of questioning or agnosticism – from its grip.  Check out the Kolbe Center for much more along the lines below:

Charles Darwin did not invent the theory of evolution just by observing nature and thinking.  The basic idea predated him.  Before the publication of the Origin of Species, several rich men of the Midlands Enlightenment, including his grandfather Erasmus Darwin, had talked over the idea of a gradual progression of life from a common ancestor (microorganisms) to civilized society. [The thinking of atheists has long been, if they could disprove the Creation account of Scripture, they could greatly undermine the claims of the Church.  This thinking has always been overblown, but it has led to a certain wounding of the Church in the past 150 years, as weakly formed souls have fallen under the influence of atheism through its more public face, sciencism]  Charles Darwin knew this, and he was familiar with Sir George Lyell’s ideas on geology.  Lyell saw himself as “the spiritual savior of geology, freeing the science from the old dispensation of Moses.”

Charles Darwin added to the speculation about what happened, his idea of how it happened: the idea of mutations plus natural selection.  Mutation is supposed to cause change, and natural selection makes the changes into “improvements.”

Modern theorists complicate matters by interweaving into the theory mutation, migration, genetic drift, and selection.  None of these things create new forms or functions, such as hands, wings, or sight, and all of them are indifferent to what helps or hurts.  As an atheistic replacement for the miracles of the six days of Creation, this is fanciful. [Fanciful is a nice way of saying BS]  Natural selection does not make anything, it just weeds out failures.  If a frog becomes a prince, we call it a fairy tale. Do the same thing in a  billion years and we call it evolution.

Evolution is telling us that chemicals, which are not alive, became the first life form that can feed and reproduce, without God doing any miracle to make this happen.  Then, that last universal ancestor, over a few billion  years, became everything that is now alive.  All this is supposed to have happened for one simple reason: because natural forces, which are indifferent to helps or hurts, have provided changes that gave a survival advantage.

Darwin didn’t know, as we now do, that the “simplest” living creatures, bacteria, are comparable in complexity to the entire worldwide telecommunications network [I’d say they’re much more complex, since the telecom network cannot reproduce itself on its own]. Hypothetical ancestors of bacteria are nothing but imagination, on a philosophical level with Kipling’s “Just So Stories.” Speculation isn’t science. [Great point]

Consider the microscopic level of the cell – DNA, RNA, amino acids, proteins, etc., around 30% of the necessary equipment for an eye, does not give us 30% vision, it gives us a blind animal.  The same goes for blood circulation, respiration, nervous system, digestion, reproduction, and so on.  Evolution asks us to believe that all living things arose from countless tiny gradual changes, and each of all of those tiny gradual steps must have provided a real survival advantage. [There are two general theses of macroevolution – one is gradual change that results in the slow appearance of a new and different species, the other is the sudden change theory, like suddenly a frog turns into a dinosaur, or whatever.  The problem with the latter, is that the likelihood of it happening, with all those hundreds of millions of genetic bits changing simultaneously, is so low that you have to postulate literally an infinite number of alternate universes for it to become even possible. The problem with very slow change is, when does a slight growth of bone or a new protuberance of cartilidge become a new species?  And even this change has never been seen by science, and leading evolutionists admit finding proof of change of species is basically impossible]

The fact that plants and animals can breed, specialize and adapt (“micro-evolution”) does not prove that the first hand, eye, wing, etc.., morphed into their present forms from simpler ancestors over a long time.  Micro-evolution happens within a few generations, not millenia, and it doesn’t make new organs or forms.  Transitional forms between species are very few and hotly debated.  The world accepts evolution as much as the fact of gravity, or that 1+1=2, despite the fact that its champions, such as Richard Dawkins, commonly have furious debates with fellow evolutionists about exactly how selection works at the all-important genetic level. 

This is not trivial, and it impacts our Faith.  Evolution is an attempt to explain everything. Religion is part of everything, and if everything evolved without Divine intervention, then so did religion. If dogma evolved, then it wasn’t revealed.  Evolution applied to religion is what Pope St. Pius X called modernism, “the synthesis of all heresies.” [Or what we might call, Synod 2015, which revealed, for all the world to see, how a narrow, self-interested cabal could attempt to change doctrine while pretending not to do so]

There are many critics of the theory of evolution. They come from a variety of religious backgrounds, and many of them have advanced degrees in the relevant sciences.

———–End Quote———–

It’s all of a piece – evolution is just one tool in the overall leftist/progressive/modernist program against the Church. However, it’s one of the key ones, and in spite of recent unfortunate statements from the past two pontiffs, the Church has never formally endorsed evolution as correct, even if the former opposition has seriously eroded over the past 60 years or so.  I chalk that up much more to the overall weakness of Church leadership, than any particular new insights validating this theory.  Opinions may vary, I don’t hold my opinions against evolution dogmatically, so to say, but I do ask people who seem to have a need to believe in evolution how that belief helps them get to Heaven?

Haven’t gotten much of an answer, yet.

Clothing (13)

Now Francis falls victim to Vatileaks II? November 3, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, Papa, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

The woman mentioned below – Francesca “Immaculate” Chaouqui – is quite a creature.  She played a substantial role in the original Vatileaks that helped bring down the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI.  She was “rewarded” for her performance in the period circa 2009-13 with a substantial role in the Vatican Prefecture for Economic Affairs, the activities of which (in a predecessor form) also played a huge role in bringing down the pontificate of PBXVI.  There was substantial scandal when this self-promoting libertine and exceedingly progressive woman was promoted to this position by Pope Francis.  She apparently feels no compunction biting the hand that feeds, in now leaking numerous additional economic documents that form the basis for two soon to be forthcoming expose books on Vatican finances.  These books are oriented towards embarrassing and undermining the Church, furthering the flight of especially Italian souls.

God let’s our own sins be our punishment.  Admitting such an immoral soul into the very bosom of the Church apparently carries its own reward:

The Spanish Monsignor Lucio Angel Vallejo Balda [of Opus Dei] , 54, Secretary of the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See, and the Italian Francesca Immaculate Chaouqui, 33, are in custody in the Vatican. Arrests have been confirmed but the woman today has been released into freedom because she has assisted in the investigation. The investigation by the Gendarmerie and the judiciary at Oltretevere would have identified as the alleged “crows” behind the new flight of documents that are the basis of two new books that have not yet been published: “Avarice” by Espresso columnist Emiliano Fittipaldi, and “Via Crucis” by Mediaset journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi.

Both Vallejo Balda and Chaouqui were part – the first as secretary and the second as a member – of the study committee and advised the economic-administrative organization of the Holy See (COSEA), established in July 2013 to screen papers and accounts of all the ministries, and to suggest reforms to rationalize expenditure and better management overall.

It was just Vallejo, number two of the Prefecture who will disappear with the reform of the Curia, to propose Chaouqui to be introduced to the commission. Interestingly, in the weeks before the papal appointment, she had often been unable to avoid controversy: recall the tweet in which she spoke of a nonexistent “leukemia” suffered by Pope Benedict , and other messages still more controversial against the then Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone and the former Minister Tremonti. Chaouqui defended herself by saying she was the victim of false charges because of envy aroused by her new role and had denounced the intrusion of strangers in her twitter account.

Edit: They even organized a reception on the terrace of the Praefecture for Economic Affairs, where the Blessed Sacrament was served in plastic cups.

They were particularly venomous when Sandro Magister lost his press credentials.

Note that Pope Francis himself changed Vatican policy to criminalize these kinds of leaks. Will he jail the woman he shockingly promoted to such a position of influence?

When the wheels come off, it doesn’t happen gradually. It tends to be a sudden and violent event.

Have the wheels come off  Francis’ pontificate?  Is this a way for certain members of the Curia to keep from losing their jobs?

I suspect it will be some time before we find out.  I do think that opposition – from many quarters – is rapidly ramping up.


And now we hear from the modernist cabal: Cardinal Weasel’s er Wuerl’s evasive heterodoxy November 3, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Consider the previous post and this one exhibits A and B for the crisis in the Church.  Exhibit A presented a quite strong orthodox critique of the Synod, exhibit B shows the consummate Church politician (and doctrinal ne’er do well) exhibiting both the naked DISDAIN for souls that most of the hierarchy holds, as well as their inability to ever pronounce clearly on a subject of any controversy.  Cardinal Wuerl, there is a sad appropriateness in your being so long the ordinary of Washington, DC (consider it a test of  your patience to see if you can watch the whole thing):

Who do you believe – Bishop Schneider, who says 2000 years of Doctrine AND practice has been undone by the Synod’s final report, or Cardinal Wuerl, who continues the official (and obviously well-coordinated and rehearsed) line, that while the practice may be completely inverted from what the Church has always done, somehow, the “doctrine” remains sacrosanct and unchanged?  Cardinal Wuerl, you are a really bad liar.

This is how intellectually bankrupt these men are: Cardinal Wuerl really argues that because all have sinned, no one has the right to insist the Church retain her eternal moral standards, devolved directly from Divine Revelation.  Dude, what do you have in YOUR closet?  And I do mean closet.

Am I the only one noting that Raymond Arroyo – hardly anyone’s most implacable rad-trad – seems to go from dismissive to having a hard time containing his smirks and eye rolling as the interview goes on?  His incredulity seems to reach epic proportions towards the end.  And he raises very fair points, points I’ve raised on this blog for years. What the hell are the laity to think when we hear Cardinals – Princes of the Church – disagreeing on fundamental matters of Doctrine and practice, such as the correct interpretation of Dignitatis Humanae?

Arroyo: “Is there an opening in the document for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion or no?”  Wuerl replies: “I think what we see in that teaching is the clear recognition that the Church’s teaching remains intact. There’s no change in the words of Jesus, there’s no change in the Gospel, there’s no change in what the Church has said for 2000 years….but there’s also no change in the understanding that the Lord is a merciful and loving Lord.  One of the priests speaking to the entire Synod body said, the created love of God, the love of God the Creator, when it meets the human condition, becomes the merciful love of God.”  OK……and how precisely is it merciful, Cardinal, to encourage people to remain in their sins, sins that will damn them to an eternity of unimaginable suffering?

In essence, this is the same balderdash we’ve heard for years.  I’m sure you’ve heard it from priests and bishops as I have, that we have to “meet people where they are,” to “not judge them,” as “we’re all sinners,” and that after we wow them with our mercy, then we’ll start, at some indeterminate future point, “to share the fullness of the Church’s belief and encourage them to amend their lives.”  The problem is, as I’m sure your experience confirms, is that that future point is never reached, that what happens in practice is that the Doctrine gets completely forgotten and washed away, while the indifference and the utter lack of any standards whatsoever becomes the permanent norm.  Thus, there is no conversion of souls, but a conversion of the Church, from the only true source of Light and Grace on earth, to just another worldly body corrupted by money and the tyranny of evil men.  This is so because mercy cannot be decoupled from repentance.  Nor can the Justice of God be subsumed by His Mercy.  These are extremely dangerous and damaging concepts, and many more souls will be lost- and the moral standing of the Church perhaps permanently and gravely wounded – by their repetition by so many faithless and worldly prelates.

That Wuerl should choose to obfuscate is hardly surprising.  This is, after all, the man who has built a career out of refusing to deny Communion to those in the most manifest, public states of sin in rejecting Church Doctrine and advancing abortion and other atrocious evils.  Good Lord will the Church be blessed to be free of this man in a few weeks, not that I hold out much hope for his replacement.

How about Bishop Schneider of Archbishop of Washington, DC?

Key Portions of Bishop Schneider’s Response to Synod November 3, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, episcopate, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Papa, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, SOD, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

Rorate as usual coming with the truly important material, has an exclusive 5000 word reaction from Bishop Athanasius Schneider to the Synod of Divorce.  I point out some highlights below (which I would not have been able to do, save a manufacturing screw up has suddenly opened up my morning).  Do go read the whole thing (all text below via Rorate, my emphasis and comments).

The XIV General Assembly of the Synod of the Bishops (October 4 – 25, 2015), which was dedicated to the theme of “The Vocation and Mission of the Family in the Church and Contemporary World”, issued a Final Report with some pastoral proposals submitted to the discernment of the Pope. The document itself is only of an advisory nature and does not possess a formal magisterial value[Something I have pointed out several times.  Good to see it reiterated]

Yet during the Synod, there appeared those real new disciples of Moses and the new Pharisees, who in the numbers 84-86 of the Final Report opened a back door or looming time bombs for the admittance of divorced and remarried to Holy Communion. [Time-bombs a la Vatican II, nebulous statements whose full implications will not be apparent until years later, at least to those who insist on blinding themselves to the agenda being worked here] At the same time those bishops who intrepidly defended “the Church’s own fidelity to Christ and to His truth” (Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, 84) were in some media reports unjustly labeled as Pharisees.

The new disciples of Moses and the new Pharisees during the last two Assemblies of the Synod (2014 and 2015) masked their practical deny [denial] of the indissolubility of marriage and of a suspension of the Sixth Commandment on a case-by-case basis under the guise of the concept of mercy, using expressions such as: “way of discernment,” “accompaniment”, “orientations of the bishop,” “dialogue with the priest,” “forum internum,” “a more fuller integration into the life of the Church,” a possible suppression of imputability regarding the cohabitation in irregular unions (cf. Final Report, nn. 84-86).

This text section in the Final Report contains indeed a trace of a neo-mosaic practice of divorce, even though the redactors skillfully and, in a cunning manner, avoided any direct change of the doctrine of the Church. Therefore, all parties, both the promotors of the so-called “Kasper agenda” and their opponents, are apparently satisfied stating: “All is OK. The Synod did not change the doctrine.” Yet, such a perception is quite naive, because it ignores the back door and the pending time bombs in the above mentioned text section which becomes manifest by a careful examination of the text by its internal interpretive criteria. 

Even when speaking of a “way of discernment” there is talk of “repentance” (Final Report, n. 85), there remains nevertheless a great deal of ambiguity. [And confusion, both of which are the seed beds upon which modernism thrives] In fact, according to the reiterated affirmations of Cardinal Kasper and like-minded churchmen, such a repentance concerns the past sins against the spouse of the first valid marriage and the repentance of the divorced indeed may not refer to the acts of their marital cohabitation with the new civilly married partner.

The assurance of the text in the numbers 85 and 86 of the Final Report that such a discernment has to be made according to the teaching of the Church and in a correct judgement remains nevertheless ambiguous. Indeed, Cardinal Kasper and like-minded clerics emphatically and repeatedly assured that the admittance of the divorced and civilly remarried to Holy Communion will not touch the dogma of the indissolubility and of the sacramentality of marriage, and that a judgement in the conscience in that case has to be considered as being correct even when the divorced and remarried continue to cohabitate in a marital manner, and that they should not be required to live in complete continence as brother and sister.

In quoting the famous number 84 of the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio of Pope John Paul II in number 85 of the Final Report, the redactors censured the text, cutting out the following decisive formulation: “The way to the Eucharist can only be granted to those who take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples”.

This practice of the Church is based on Divine Revelation of the Word of God: Written and transmitted through Tradition. This practice of the Church is an expression of the uninterrupted Tradition since the Apostles and, thus, remains unchangeable for all times. Already Saint Augustine affirmed: “Who dismisses his adulterous wife and marries another woman, whereas his first wife still lives, remains perpetually in the state of adultery. Such a man does not any efficacious penance while he refuses to abandon the new wife. If he is a catechumen, he cannot be admitted to baptism, because his will remains rooted in the evil. If he is a (baptized) penitent, he cannot receive the (ecclesiastical) reconciliation as long as he does not break with his bad attitude” (De adulterinis coniugiis, 2, 16). In fact, the above intentional censorship of the teaching of Familaris Consortio in n. 85 of the Final Report, represents for any sane hermeneutics the very interpretation key for the understanding of the text section on divorced and remarried (numbers84-86). [And yet, in spite of such a clear demonstration from St. Augustine as to the Church’s constant belief and practice, the man charged with the sacred task of Guardian of the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Muller, was apparently wooed to embrace the Kasperite theorem through intellectual sophistries, turning St. Thomas Aquinas into a modernist]

In our days exists a permanent and omnipresent ideological pressure on behalf of the mass media, which are compliant with the unique thought imposed by the anti-Christian world powers, with the aim to abolish the truth of the indissolubility of the marriage – trivializing the sacred character of this Divine institution by spreading an anti-culture of divorce and concubinage. Already 50 years ago, the Second Vatican Council stated that the modern times are infected with the plague of the divorce (cf. Gaudium et spes, 47). The same Council warns that the Christian marriage as Christ’s sacrament should “never be profaned by adultery or divorce” (Gaudium et spes, 49). [Ah, but what Vatican II giveth, Vatican II taketh away.  These quoted statements of orthodoxy are fundamentally undermined by other texts that speak of the “primacy of the individual conscience” and the need to adapt Church teaching to “modern” times.  I really don’t favor quoting Vatican II for any defense of Doctrine, because of the internal contradictions that riddle all the documents.  I know why prelates do so – it’s so expected as to be required – but by doing so I fear they undermine their own opposition to modernism]

The profanation of the “great sacrament” (Eph 5, 32) of the marriage by adultery and divorce has assumed massive proportions at an alarming rate not only in the civil society but also among Catholics. When Catholics by means of divorce and adultery theoretically and as well as practically repudiate the will of God expressed in the Sixth Commandment, they put themselves in a spiritually serious danger of losing their eternal salvation. [Objectively speaking, they persist in a manifest state of mortal sin]

The most merciful act on behalf of the Shepherds of the Church would be to draw the attention to this danger by means of a clear – and at the same time loving – admonition about the necessarily full acceptance of the Sixth Commandment of God. They have to call the things by their right name exhorting: “divorce is divorce,” “adultery is adultery” and “who commits consciously and freely grave sins against the Commandments of God – and in this case against the Sixth Commandment – and dies unrepentantly will receive eternal condemnation being excluded forever from the kingdom of God.” [Exactly.  Unrepentant adulterers who die in that state will be damned, period, end of sentence.]

……..Those who conduct a married life with a partner, who is not their legitimate spouse, as it is the case with divorced and civilly remarried, reject the will of God. To convince such persons concerning this sin is a work moved by the Holy Spirit and commanded by Jesus Christ and thus an eminently pastoral and merciful work. [contrary to the cold, calculating indifference – one might even call it hatred –  for souls presented as the false “mercy” of today]

The Final Report of the Synod unfortunately omits to convince the divorced and remarried concerning their concrete sin. On the contrary, under the pretext of mercy and a false pastorality, those Synod Fathers who supported the formulations in the numbers 84-86 of the Report tried to cover up the spiritually dangerous state of the divorced and remarried. [Of course! Modernists have pretended sin is not sin ever since they came into being over 100 years ago]

De facto, they say to them that their sin of adultery is not a sin, and is definitely not adultery or at least is not a grave sin and that there is no spiritual danger in their state of life. Such a behavior of these Shepherds is directly contrary to the work of the Holy Spirit and is therefore anti-pastoral and a work of the false prophets to whom one could apply the following words of the Holy Scripture: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter” (Is 5:20) and: “Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive visions; they have not exposed your iniquity to restore your fortunes, but have seen for you oracles that are false and misleading” (Lam 2: 14). To such bishops the Apostle Paul without any doubt would say today these words: “Such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Cor 11:13). [WOW. Now this is rare, harsh language from one prelate to another.  Even more, it is a most stinging indictment of Pope Francis, who simply must be the author of all this chaos and division]

The text of the Final Report of the Synod not only omits to convince unambiguously divorced and civilly remarried persons concerning the adulterous and thus gravely sinful character of their life style. It justifies indirectly such a lifestyle by means of assigning this question ultimately in the area of the individual conscience and by means of an improper applying of the moral principle of imputability to the case of cohabitation of the divorced and remarried. In fact, the applying of the principle of imputability to a stable, permanent and public life in adultery is improper and deceptive. [I’d say it’s evil.  It is the worst kind of lie, replacing salvific Truth with satanic falsehood, and consigning potentially tens or hundreds of millions of souls to eternal damnation.  The monstrosity of this inversion of the Truth is truly mind-boggling, and when one considers the source, positively soul-rocking.]

The diminution of the subjective responsibility is given only in the case when the partners have the firm intention to live in complete continence and make sincere efforts therein. As long as the partners intentionally persist to continue a sinful life, there can be no suspension of imputability. The Final Report gives the impression to intimate that a public life style in adultery – as it is the case of civilly remarried – is not violating the indissoluble sacramental bond of a marriage or that it does not represents a mortal or grave sin and that this issue is furthermore a matter of private conscience. Hereby one can state a closer drift towards the Protestant principle of subjective judgement on matters of faith and discipline and intellectual closeness to the erroneous theory of “fundamental option,” a theory already condemned by the Magisterium (cf. Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 65-70). [The “fundamental option” being that all souls, regardless of belief or conduct, were saved by Jesus Christ, and that everyone goes to Heaven automatically, even Adolf Hitler. Bishop Schneider rightly points out the indistinguishable nature of the thinking that encourages such a lowest common denominator view in both morals and with regard to salvation……it is the indifference of a completely worldly mindset that no longer believes really ANY of revealed Truth except the “good stuff.”  It is identical to unitarianism]

……..Those who in our days strongly defend the sanctity of the sacraments of Marriage and Eucharist are labeled as Pharisees. Yet, since the logical principle of non-contradiction is valid and common sense still functions, the contrary is true.

The obfuscators of the Divine truth in the Final Report are more like Pharisees. For in order to reconcile a life in adultery with the reception of Holy Communion, they skillfully invented new letters, a new law of “discernment and integration,” introducing new human traditions against the crystalline commandment of God. To the advocators of the so-called “Kasper agenda” are addressed these words of the Incarnated Truth: “You made void the word of God by introducing your own tradition” (Mark 7: 13). Those who during 2,000 years spoke relentlessly and with an utmost clarity about the immutability of the Divine truth, often at the cost of their own life, would be labelled in our days as Pharisees as well; so Saint John the Baptist, Saint Paul, Saint Irenaeus, Saint Athanasius, Saint Basil, Saint Thomas More, Saint John Fisher, Saint Pius X, just to mention the most glowing examples.

The real result of the Synod in the perception of the faithful and of the secular public opinion was that there has been practically only one focus on the question of the admittance of the divorced to Holy Communion. One can affirm that the Synod in a certain sense turned out to be in the eyes of public opinion a Synod of adultery, not the Synod of family. [Or a Synod of Divorce, even Death] Indeed, all the beautiful affirmations of the Final Report on marriage and family are eclipsed by the ambiguous affirmations in the text section on the divorced and remarried, a topic which was already confirmed and decided by the Magisterium of the last Roman Pontiffs in faithful conformity with the bi-millennial teaching and practice of the Church. It is therefore a real shame that Catholic bishops, the successors of the Apostles, used synodal assemblies in order to make an attempt on the constant and unchangeable practice of the Church regarding the indissolubility of the marriage, i.e. the non-admittance of the divorced who live in an adulterous union to the Sacraments.

Each period of confusion during the history of the Church is at the same time a possibility to receive many graces of strength and courage and a chance to demonstrate one’s love for Christ the Incarnated Truth. To Him each baptized and each priest and bishop promised inviolable fidelity, everyone according to his own state: through the baptismal vows, through the priestly promises, through the solemn promise in the episcopal ordination. Indeed, every candidate to the episcopacy promised: “I will keep pure and integral the deposit of faith according the tradition which was always and everywhere preserved in the Church.” The ambiguity found in the section on divorced and remarried of the Final Reportcontradicts the abovementioned solemn episcopal vow. Notwithstanding this, everyone in the Church – from the simple faithful to the holders of the Magisterium – should say:

“Non possumus!” I will not accept an obfuscated speech nor a skilfully masked back door to a profanation of the Sacrament of Marriage and Eucharist. Likewise, I will not accept a mockery of the Sixth Commandment of God. I prefer to be ridiculed and persecuted rather than to accept ambiguous texts and insincere methods. I prefer the crystalline “image of Christ the Truth, rather than the image of the fox ornamented with gemstones” (Saint Irenaeus), for “I know whom I have believed”, “Scio, Cui credidi!” (2 Tim 1: 12).

———End Quote———-

I left out over half, but I really do encourage you to not let the length intimidate and read all of it.  This is one of the best documents from a current-day prelate I can ever recall reading.  It is a firm defense of the Faith, and an equally firm condemnation of the heterodox “modernizers.”  The criticism of the Pope is most severe.  No, he does not give the emotional satisfaction (over which, we might want to check our motives) of calling the Pope a heretic, but the implications of his condemnations are readily apparent.

God bless Bishop Schneider. May we all follow his call of non possumus.  We will be persecuted for doing so.  We already have bishops on record as saying they will eagerly implement any new “divorce regulations” that come from Pope Francis or he Synod.  As painful as that may be, we must adhere to the Truth that saves.  To do otherwise would be to throw away our own salvation.

The final exhortation raises an interesting point.  Vatican II – by Bishop Schneider’s own admission – is already full of “obfuscated speech.”   And it is also the departure point for the Revolution within the Church (yes Revolution predated but at Vatican II it burst out into the open).  The crisis in the Church is inseparable from the disordered aspects of the concliar texts.  That point must also be recognized, even preached with the same kind of clarity and stridency we see above, if the crisis is ever to be overcome.

Otherwise the modernists will simply resume their march under another guise.