Among the bizarre principles of bergoglian philosophy is this nugget: “unity is greater than conflict”. The consequences of this pseudo-principle are explained in Evangelii Gaudium, which claims to indicate the direction of Francis’ pontificate: we find expressions like “communion amid disagreement”, “friendship in society”, “multifaceted unity” and many others that, although deliberately ambiguous as Francis’ ideas and gestures have always been, nonetheless still permit an attentive observer to discern their true meaning.
En passant, it is noteworthy that someone who tries to appear as perfectly accessible to all – as a pastor who uses a telephone in order to reply to those who write to him, who devotes more time to greetings than to instruction when he meets pilgrims – prefers to keep one of the primary aspects of his doctrine shrouded in a nebulous mystery…. For what reason?
The Denzinger-Bergoglio has already studied other aspects of this false unity. Especially worth mention are our studies on Francis’ toxic “doctrine of the polyhedron” and the much touted “hymn of peace.” Now it is time to analyze one more aspect.
‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me’ (Jn 14:6) said the Lord. Yet, in attempting to find ‘communion amid disagreement’ — as Bergoglio teaches in his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaudii — he proposes the possibility of ‘ways’ that lead to life, and not solely ‘the Way,’ which is Christ. Bergoglio also seeks a unity that is greater than conflict, but a unity based on a ‘friendship in society’ and, therefore, one not centered on the Person of Our Divine Redeemer. Is he insinuating that a ‘friendship in society’ disconnected from Christ be a ‘way’ superior to Christ, the Way? What does Francis’ ‘friendship in society’ consist of? Does it consist of the true friendship, of wishing the best for one’s neighbor, that is, the salvation of his soul? Or does Francis dream of a world where all enjoy the absence of war so as to more easily offend God as they please…and afterward suffer the torments of eternal hellfire? To us this does not seem to be a very a ‘friendly’ manner for a shepherd to tend his sheep!
The unfailing Magisterium of the Church is always very clear, and offers us all that we need in this time of confusion. More…
Bergoglian ‘diversified unity’: does it have anything to do with Christ? was last modified: October 4th, 2016 by EN - Denzinger Bergoglio
In face of the confusion caused by the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, and after having shown in two recent studies the lamentable incoherencies and falsities in the document (see here and here), and Denzinger-Bergoglio would like to remind its readers of the teachings that the Church has always conveyed to the ‘remarried divorced’ and to sinners in general.Continue Reading
Amoris Laetitia versus the Church’s enduring Magisterium was last modified: October 4th, 2016 by EN - Denzinger Bergoglio
Let us examine an important section of John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio. It does not require much explanation because the text is clear, as opposed to Francis’ document that we analyzed in the first part of this study (see here). It clearly shows that John Paul II didn’t have anything to hide…
The law of gradualness cannot be identified with ‘gradualness of the law’
Since the moral order reveals and sets forth the plan of God the Creator, for this very reason it cannot be something that harms man, something impersonal. On the contrary, by responding to the deepest demands of the human being created by God, it places itself at the service of that person’s full humanity with the delicate and binding love whereby God Himself inspires, sustains and guides every creature towards its happiness. But man, who has been called to live God’s wise and loving design in a responsible manner, is an historical being who day by day builds himself up through his many free decisions; and so he knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by stages of growth. Married people too are called upon to progress unceasingly in their moral life, with the support of a sincere and active desire to gain ever better knowledge of the values enshrined in and fostered by the law of God. They must also be supported by an upright and generous willingness to embody these values in their concrete decisions. They cannot however look on the law as merely an ideal to be achieved in the future:they must consider it as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with constancy. ‘And so what is known as ‘the law of gradualness’ or step-by-step advance cannot be identified with ‘gradualness of the law,’ as if there were different degrees or forms of precept in God’s law for different individuals and situations. In God’s plan, all husbands and wives are called in marriage to holiness, and this lofty vocation is fulfilled to the extent that the human person is able to respond to God’s command with serene confidence in God’s grace and in his or her own will.’  (John Paul II. Apostolic exhortation Familiaris consortio, no. 34, November 22, 1981)
There cannot be any split or ‘dichotomy’ between instruction and doctrine
Let us interrupt the reading of the text Familiaris consortio in order to examine citation 95, extracted from a homily of John Paul II at the closing of the V Synod of the Bishops, October 25, 1980. The citation in itself is quite clear, andeven preceded by this pearl (was it perhaps directed to bishop Bergoglio? The bolding is ours):
Thinking of those who have pastoral care of married couples and families, the synod fathers rejected any split or ‘dichotomy’ between instruction (which is necessary for any progress in fulfilling the will of God) and doctrine (which the Church teaches with all its consequences and which includes the command to live according to that doctrine).It is not a matter of keeping the law as a mere ‘ideal’to be obeyed in the future. It is a question of the mandate of Christ the Lord that difficulties should be overcome continually. (John Paul II. Homily at the Close of the Fifth Synod of Bishops, no. 8, October 25, 1980)
Alas! If Pope John Paul II had read Amoris Laetitia…what would he have said?
Continuing with Familiaris consortio, it is very clear that there are no ‘different degrees or forms of precept in God’s law for different individuals and situations’:
On the same lines, it is part of the Church’s pedagogy that husbands and wives should first of all recognize clearly the teaching of Humanae vitaeas indicating the norm for the exercise of their sexuality, and that they should endeavor to establish the conditions necessary for observing that norm.
As the Synod noted,this pedagogy embraces the whole of married life. Accordingly, the function of transmitting life must be integrated into the overall mission of Christian life as a whole, which without the Cross cannot reach the Resurrection. In such a context it is understandable that sacrifice cannot be removed from family life, but must in fact be wholeheartedly accepted if the love between husband and wife is to be deepened and become a source of intimate joy.
This shared progress demands reflection, instruction and suitable education on the part of the priests, religious and lay people engaged in family pastoral work: they will all be able to assist married people in their human and spiritual progress, a progress that demands awareness of sin, a sincere commitment to observe the moral law, and the ministry of reconciliation.(John Paul II. Apostolic exhortation Familiaris consortio, no. 34, November 22, 1981)
Pardon one more interruption in our reading of Familiaris consortio, but we wish to emphasize one point in particular: Pope John Paul II points toward a ‘sincere commitment to observe the moral law’ from the beginning, as well as the sacrament of reconciliation to continually maintain oneself in the state of grace. And he continues:
It will be easier for married people to make progress if, with respect for the Church’s teaching and with trust in the grace of Christ, and with the help and support of the pastors of souls and the entire ecclesial community, they are able to discover and experience the liberating and inspiring value of the authentic love that is offered by the Gospel and set before us by the Lord’s commandment. (John Paul II. Apostolic exhortation Familiaris consortio, no. 34, November 22, 1981)
Intermediate states between sin and grace?
John Paul II makes an invitation to experience true interior liberation by following the doctrine of Christ with the help of his grace. That is, the teachings of the Holy Church, for two millennia, that it is necessary to practice the Law of God, and that this is not impossible for anyone with the help of grace, which God never fails to grant.
This means that John Paul II is not speaking about intermediate states between sin, where it is possible to come to a stop. On the contrary, the gradualness that he speaks of is a progressive path within virtue to obtain greater union with God.
This is very clear from the beginning: he is speaking of the family in the true meaning of the term: two people united by the sacrament and their legitimate children, not ‘second unions’, ‘civil marriage’ or other euphemisms for adultery.
The real interpretation of Familiaris consortio cannot have been unknown to Francis, for in 1997 (16 years after the publication of the document in question) the Pontifical Council for the Family published a Vademecum for confessors regarding some topics of conjugal morality, that also mentions the same part of Familiaris consortio cited by Francis regarding the ‘law of gradualness’, saying:
The teaching could not be clearer: the ‘law of gradualness’ refers to a ‘progressive path towards total union with the will of God’ following a ‘decisive break with sin’.
And, since we are analyzing ‘citations’ from the sources presented by Francis, let’s take a look at the Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts ‘Concerning the admission to Holy Communion of Faithful who are divorced and remarried’ (from the year 2000).
It is not licit to receive Holy Communion in mortal sin
The Code of Canon Law establishes that ‘Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion’ (can. 915). In recent years some authors have sustained, using a variety of arguments, that this canon would not be applicable to faithful who are divorced and remarried. It is acknowledged that paragraph 84 of the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, issued in 1981, had reiterated that prohibition in unequivocal terms and that it has been expressly reaffirmed many times, especially in paragraph 1650 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1992, and in the Letter written in 1994 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Annus internationalis Familiae. That notwithstanding, the aforementioned authors offer various interpretations of the above-cited canon that exclude from its application the situation of those who are divorced and remarried. For example, since the text speaks of ‘grave sin’, it would be necessary to establish the presence of all the conditions required for the existence of mortal sin, including those which are subjective, necessitating a judgment of a type that a minister of Communion could not make ab externo; moreover, given that the text speaks of those who ‘obstinately’ persist in that sin, it would be necessary to verify an attitude of defiance on the part of an individual who had received a legitimate warning from the Pastor. (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. Declaration, Concerning the admission to Holy Communion of Faithful who are divorced and remarried, July 6, 2000)
Once again, we inquire: did the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts not have mind a certain Archbishop Bergoglio at the time of promulgating this document, when it mentions that some exclude in practice the situation of the divorced that has remarried of the prohibition to receive Holy Communion alleging subjective conditions?
The text deserves to transcribed in its entirety:
Given this alleged contrast between the discipline of the 1983 Code and the constant teachings of the Church in this area, this Pontifical Council, in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments declares the following:
The prohibition found in the cited canon, by its nature, is derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church. The scriptural text on which the ecclesial tradition has always relied is that of St. Paul: ‘This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord. A man should examine himself first only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself.’
This text concerns in the first place the individual faithful and their moral conscience, a reality that is expressed as well by the Code in can. 916. But the unworthiness that comes from being in a state of sin also poses a serious juridical problem in the Church: indeed the canon of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches that is parallel to can. 915 CIC of the Latin Church makes reference to the term ‘unworthy’: ‘Those who are publicly unworthy are forbidden from receiving the Divine Eucharist’ (can. 712). In effect, the reception of the Body of Christ when one is publicly unworthy constitutes an objective harm to the ecclesial communion: it is a behavior that affects the rights of the Church and of all the faithful to live in accord with the exigencies of that communion. In the concrete case of the admission to Holy Communion of faithful who are divorced and remarried, the scandal, understood as an action that prompts others towards wrongdoing, affects at the same time both the sacrament of the Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage. That scandal exists even if such behavior, unfortunately, no longer arouses surprise: in fact it is precisely with respect to the deformation of the conscience that it becomes more necessary for Pastors to act, with as much patience as firmness, as a protection to the sanctity of the Sacraments and a defense of Christian morality, and for the correct formation of the faithful.
Any interpretation of can. 915 that would set itself against the canon’s substantial content, as declared uninterruptedly by the Magisterium and by the discipline of the Church throughout the centuries, is clearly misleading. One cannot confuse respect for the wording of the law (cfr. can. 17) with the improper use of the very same wording as an instrument for relativizing the precepts or emptying them of their substance. The phrase ‘and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin’ is clear and must be understood in a manner that does not distort its sense so as to render the norm inapplicable. The three required conditions are:
a) grave sin, understood objectively, being that the minister of Communion would not be able to judge from subjective imputability; b) obstinate persistence, which means the existence of an objective situation of sin that endures in time and which the will of the individual member of the faithful does not bring to an end, no other requirements (attitude of defiance, prior warning, etc.) being necessary to establish the fundamental gravity of the situation in the Church.
c) the manifest character of the situation of grave habitual sin.
So then, why all the complex and heart-rending cases brought up by Francis, that drive us to tears?
These situations have always existed throughout the History of the Church. Let’s not forget that human nature is the same, and it was the Church that elevated it from the most wretched condition to the heights of morality demanded by God; within the degradation of the Roman Empire (denounced so astutely by Saint Paul in Romans 1, 26 – 27, and by Saint Augustine within his brilliant work the ‘City of God’, and by so many other saints) or in any other situation where Christ is not the center of human life, degraded in their nature by original sin. And the Church, as a tender Mother, has always known how to attend to these situations, as the document of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts demonstrates. Citing Familiaris Consortio, even using the moving example – mentioned by Francis also (but he uses it to arrive at an opposite conclusion) – of children born of a second union.
Those faithful who are divorced and remarried would not be considered to be within the situation of serious habitual sin who would not be able, for serious motives – such as, for example, the upbringing of the children – ‘to satisfy the obligation of separation, assuming the task of living in full continence, that is, abstaining from the acts proper to spouses’ (Familiaris consortio, no. 84), and who on the basis of that intention have received the sacrament of Penance. Given that the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio is per se occult, while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo. (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. Declaration, Concerning the admission to Holy Communion of Faithful who are divorced and remarried, July 6, 2000)
Finally, the document of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts ends with words of true maternal solicitude that perfectly express how the Church thinks and acts in light of these problems:
Bearing in mind the nature of the above-cited norm (cfr. no. 1), no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it.
The Church reaffirms her maternal solicitude for the faithful who find themselves in this or other analogous situations that impede them from being admitted to the Eucharistic table. What is presented in this Declaration is not in contradiction with the great desire to encourage the participation of these children in the life of the Church, in the many forms compatible with their situation that are already possible for them. Moreover, the obligation of reiterating this impossibility of admission to the Eucharist is required for genuine pastoral care and for an authentic concern for the well-being of these faithful and of the whole Church, being that it indicates the conditions necessary for the fullness of that conversion to which all are always invited by the Lord, particularly during this Holy Year of the Great Jubilee.
One of the more important aspects of Francis’ Amoris laetitiae that has not attracted much attention yet in the ‘catholic’ media is his reference to the so-called ‘law of gradualness’, which he attributes to Pope John Paul II. But anyone who takes the trouble to analyze what Francis states comes up with a poorly veiled attempt to abolish the Law of God in relation the sixth and ninth Commandments of the Decalogue, as well as the teachings of Jesus regarding the sacraments of the Eucharist and of Matrimony. Let us have a better look at this, and let each one draw his own conclusions.Continue Reading
The ‘law of gradualness’ according to Francis: a path toward full union with God or a way of being comfortable within sin? was last modified: October 4th, 2016 by EN - Denzinger Bergoglio
Francis receives the woman who called John Paul II ‘a swine’ who should ‘burn alive in Hell’
Recently, invited by Francis, Hebe de Bonafini went the Vatican to have a private audience with Francis — whom she had earlier labelled as a “fascist”, “trash” and other things that can’t be mentioned here, though she now admits: “I did not know of your commitment to the poor.”
This pious pilgrim to the Eternal City had “on one occasion publicly expressed her desire for the death of John Paul II, and after he died, she said the Pontiff would “go to hell.”
She also said clearly : “We want him to burn alive in hell. He’s a swine. Even though a priest told me that a swine is to be eaten, this Pope is uneatable.”
But, she did much more than that. Having taken over the cathedral of Buenos Aires in an act of protest, she relieved herself behind the main altar. And there are countless other affronts committed against Bishops, priests and faithful Catholics, together with eulogies to the FARC and ETA and the regimes of Castro, Maduro and of course of the Kirchners, her protectors. Bonfini is also notorious for having publically rejoiced after the attacks of September 11 in New York.
It must be noted that Bonafini herself set the rules for this encounter with Francis, to the humiliation of Vatican diplomacy: “He invited me to an event on July 25 but I will only meet him if he complies with my request to give a mass re-vindicating the Third World priests killed and forcibly disappeared. He said he would” (Interview, June 2015)
In Argentina, we know very well who Hebe de Bonafini is: one of the most brutish, hate-filled women ever to appear in the media and political scene of our country.
But many Catholics from other parts of the world are unaware who this left-wing radical is, and may take her encounter with Francis as just another visit among that of so many other atheists, heretics or libertines (and of course, some decent people also, it must be acknowledged!) who have visited the Vatican in recent times. When Francis’ “kindness” goes as far as receiving and kissing the cheek of this intolerable anti-Catholic activist the fissure between the few that still like or respect him in Argentina and those who progressively detest and criticize him will only widen.
The situation we refer to here is not about political ideologies — we are well aware what Bergoglio’s preferences are — nor of personal or temperamental affinities, that do exist. It is a question of decorum, of etiquette and of dignity. Francis simply does not have the right to stain the venerable precinct of the Holy See, not even within the laid-back decor of Santa Marta, with the presence of the likes of Hebe de Bonafini. Or perhaps, just as the Bolivian dictators, each bishop of Rome may do whatever he so wishes with Vatican politics?
The ‘others’: those who were turned away
It is unfortunate that during the same week that Bonafini accepted the reiterated invitations to visit Francis, he had refused to receive another social activist for political reasons: Margarita Barrientos, Social Worker and Illustrious citizen of Buenos Aires. Barrientos is foundress of numerous charities: the soup kitchen Los Piletones, the Kindergarten San Cayetano, the Health Center Angela Palmisano, and a Day Center for Grandparents. Why then wasn’t she acceptable? The problem is that she is allied with President Mauricio Macri…
In fact, Margarita Barrientos was merely going to be present in a public audience, not a private audience as Bonafini “We were to participate in the audience and we had tickets for a place to sit…But suddenly the Swiss Guard came and took us out of our places without explanations, they only said that there were other people who had more priority and the Francis could not receive us.” “The fact that the Pope didn’t receive me was because of politics. I was accompanied by a well-known journalist (Karina Villela) and Juan Carlos Pallarols. It hurt me that he didn’t receive me due to my connection with Mauricio Macri. Today I no longer have any desire that he receive me. We were situated in the “sagrato” and they took us from our places in a shocking manner. They lacked in respect toward us. I left a letter for the Pope but he never answered me” (source: ArgentinaViral)
It is significant that before even Margarita Berrientos had been invited to leave the audience, Estela de Carlotto, member of the ‘Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo’ was given a place at her side… Ellisa Carrió, a renowned deputy and practicing Catholic, declared in her Twitter account that: “As a Christian I feel embarrassed that the Pope didn’t receive Margarita Barrientos. Thank God I always refused to go to the Vatican.” “It is highly dangerous to nourish violence, above all from the spiritual plane”, “I say, and repeat: To Rome I will not go” (Source: La Nación)
Francis’ handpicked ‘gestures of encounter and mercy’
The consternation caused by Francis’ friendship with Cristina, Pérez Esquivel, Milagro Sala, and the Curas Villeros (the so-called ‘slum priests’ – our brothers in the priesthood but not in the faith nor in discipline) and so many others, gives us the profound reasons to understand the private encounter with Bonafini.
The president of the Argentine Episcopal Conference (AEC), Monsignor José María Arancedo, asked to “not make political interpretations” of Pope Francis’ attitudes, such as the meeting he will hold with Hebe de Bonafini in the Vatican, or regarding the rosary he sent to the imprisoned social activist Milagro Sala (see study here), affirming that these are “gestures of encounter and mercy.”
Let’s take a look at some other personages that preceded Francis in “gestures of encounter and mercy” with Hebe de Bonafini: warm embraces with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales.
But for Francis, it’s very clear:“My obligation as pastor is that of understanding with meekness. She doesn’t know how and how much they tortured her sons. What I see there is the sorrow of a mother. And I cannot close the doors to her” (source: MDZonline). How moving!
It is just too bad that he sheds (crocodile) tears only from his left eye. It’s also too bad that he didn’t think the same of the poor families of the political prisoners he did not wish to receive in Cuba, nor the victims of the Bolivarian repression of Maduro, nor the family of Asia Bibi, the Christian condemned to death in Pakistan for having defended her faith….
Vatican diplomacy at the service of a banana republic
In criticizing this visit, which for us constitutes a total aberration, we are not judging the intentions but rather the facts, for it is obvious that until now we haven’t reaped any fruits from the numerous “cordial” encounters that Francis holds with people hostile to the Church…and who continue to be.
Those in charge of protocol in the Vatican, the Secretary of State, the Prefect of the Papal Household and the Swiss Guard (why ever not? whoever you are, whatever you can do…) still have the chance to brake this affront to our Church, already so stained by the happenings from the ends of the earth… “The end of the earth” – this is how the bishop emeritus of Buenos Aires had qualified our poor country from the balcony of Saint Peter’s right after he was invested as Supreme Pontiff.
In doctrine, Francis is definitively writing a new ‘Magisterium’, for which a new Denzinger is becoming necessary. But with these populist audiences, Francis is definitely bringing Vatican diplomacy to the level of a banana republic…
Note from Denzinger Bergoglio: Some documentary pearls about this woman who received “a gesture of encounter and mercy” from Francis. Enjoy the videos:
Vatican diplomacy knocked out… But, just the diplomacy? was last modified: October 5th, 2017 by EN - Denzinger Bergoglio
The internet is seething with commentaries about the so-called Pope-videos, which no doubt fill the emptiness of those minds which only react in a positive manner to musical stimulus. To such individuals, the videos offer the complacent impression that ‘without a doubt, love triumphs over all’ (Francis’ words in his first video). We would like to share with such people certain statements made by Pope Benedict at the beginning of his pontificate; he clearly indicated that all the faithful are under the guardianship of Peter, Vicar of Jesus Christ… not of Buddha or Allah.
In his homily at the beginning of the Petrine Ministry, in Saint Peter Square on Sunday April 24, 2005, Benedict XVI affirmed:
“Here I want to add something: both the image of the shepherd and that of the fisherman issue an explicit call to unity. “I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must lead them too, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd” (Jn 10:16); these are the words of Jesus at the end of his discourse on the Good Shepherd. And the account of the 153 large fish ends with the joyful statement: “although there were so many, the net was not torn” (Jn 21:11). Alas, beloved Lord, with sorrow we must now acknowledge that it has been torn! But no – we must not be sad! Let us rejoice because of your promise, which does not disappoint, and let us do all we can to pursue the path towards the unity you have promised. Let us remember it in our prayer to the Lord, as we plead with him: yes, Lord, remember your promise. Grant that we may be one flock and one shepherd! Do not allow your net to be torn, help us to be servants of unity!’(Benedict XVI. Homily at the beginning of his Pontificate, April 24, 2005)
Francis’ most adamant defenders, finding fewer and fewer ways to support him, are holding out in the last trenches: ‘Now that all the Catholics have abandoned him, we will be faithful until the end’, they say…not with solid arguments, but rather with unconvincing slogans.
The problem is that the very Bishop of Rome seems to progressively destroy his own defences, for by clashing with certain key dogmatic truths head on, he ends up bringing them back to the memory of all. Thanks to him, some of these truths now enjoy full circulation on-line, such as this citation of Pius XI from the Mortalium Animos (no. 2) which seems to hold the winning place at the moment: In this document, the Pope warns:
“For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life.”
For Pius XI, the truth must be defined. Therefore, he continued to make it clear that such initiatives:
“can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule.”
Though some initially thought that the Denzinger-Bergoglio seemed too pessimistic, many are now changing their opinion and agreeing with us, due to the very persistence of Francis himself in ‘un-defining’ that which the Church has already defined.
On the day of the spectacular descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the Apostles were so filled with strength and courage, that Saint Peter went out and converted three thousand people that very day with his preaching. From these conversions we have the first ecclesial testimony: ‘They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life. […] All who believed were together and had all things in common’ (Acts 2: 42–44). Continue Reading
Union among the faithful is based on care for the marginalized was last modified: September 30th, 2016 by EN - Denzinger Bergoglio
In his second epistle, Saint John teaches. “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him in your house or even greet him” (2Jn 10). But Francis dictates other norms of conduct for our times – if not with words, at least with his notorious gestures and, above all, in everyday life.Continue Reading
The First Commandment: Love the Lord your God…or practice ecumenism… above all things? was last modified: September 29th, 2016 by EN - Denzinger Bergoglio
Jesus said: ‘Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give it to you’ (Jn 14:27). This is why the Church has never wished to be considered a philanthropic institution that suits the likes and dislikes of humans of every age, regardless of their moral practices and customs.Continue Reading
What is the Church for Francis? A divine institution or a philanthropic organization to defend human rights? was last modified: August 27th, 2016 by EN - Denzinger Bergoglio