A reader on Substack sent me a link to an interesting article from Integrity Magazine.
Sad thought, but in view of the pope's refusal to meet with Fr. Pagliarani or even reply to his letters.... Draw your own conclusions. Does Pope Leo act like a father to a flock he loves with a father's heart? Did Francis?
When I was young and naive I believed every man in a Roman collar and nun in a habit was a saint who would always tell you the truth. I believed every doctor was Albert Schweitzer who would never do anything to hurt a patient.
Fortunately I grew up, smelled (and drank) the coffee, and became active in the pro-life movement. What an eye opening experience! There are people in the world who do evil, and even demonic, things. We're all sinners, but some actually delight in doing the devil's work and take every opportunity to advance it. Some have evil agendas that infect everything they touch. Think of feminism, communism, freemasonry, etc. and that doesn't even consider satanic activity by cardinals. Malachi Martin was only writing partial fiction in Windswept House. The satanic sacrifice in the book was based on real events. If you have the stomach for it, see the facts about Cardinal Joseph Bernardin here and here.
Obviously abortionists are a far cry from Albert Schweitzer. And Cardinal Bernardin, Cardinal McCarrick, Fr. James Martin, the nuns on the bus, etc. are no saints as they advance intrinsic evil and attribute it to the faith of the Church. As Scripture says, the devil can appear as an angel of light. Pharisees and other hypocrites can wear long tassles, miters, clerical garb, and carry a shepherd's staff while they lie and undermine the faith.
These days I'm more realistic, hopefully not cynical, but committed to discernment. Is that angelic looking person really doing the work of a demon appearing as an angel of light? Is the latest document from Rome telling the truth or advancing an error?
At any rate, here's a bit from the article that proposes that Leo wanted to bring the mailed fist down on the Society and hence wrote the threatening letter raising the offense to the level of schism:
If every episcopal consecration sine mandato automatically constituted schism, there would have been little reason for the legislator [of canon law] to create a separate offense under canon 1387. The existence of two distinct canons suggests that they address different kinds of wrongdoing. One concerns an unlawful episcopal consecration, while the other concerns the rejection of papal authority itself.
The real reason for Leo’s warning?
This is where Leo’s letter assumes such importance. According to the InfoVaticana report, after receiving Leo’s appeal, the Society was no longer simply preparing to consecrate bishops sine mandato, or without a pontifical mandate. Once Leo personally ordered them not to proceed, the act became one committed contra mandatum, or against an explicit papal command. That distinction is what allowed the consecrations to be presented not merely as an illicit episcopal act but as evidence of a schismatic intention.
Remember when Francis said he wasn't afraid of schism? Is Leo walking in his footsteps? It seems to me that the Vatican actually welcomes schism. [Of course, this presumes that the Society is actually in schism, which I seriously doubt.] It all reminds me of the battle between St. Thomas Becket and Henry II. Did Leo ask himself, "Who will rid me of this troublesome Society?" and then decide to do it himself? Is he really concerned with the unity of the Church as he coddles the German synodal heretics and the Communist Chinese? How do those actions advance unity?
Not only that, but the actions of Rome undermine the faithful's trust in the papacy. I will never leave the Church of Eternal Rome. Neither will I accept things that I know to be untrue and that conflict with the faith no matter how many cardinals, bishops, and even popes proclaim them. Keep the faith, friends and stay with the battered Bride of Christ. She needs all the defenders she can get.
No comments:
Post a Comment