We enter the neo-modernist wasteland: “There are no other interpretations.” - Hilary White

[Michael]

We enter the neo-modernist wasteland: “There are no other interpretations.”

Some time before the Synod a piece was published at the Remnant explaining in detail exactly what was meant by Fr. Brian Harrison who warned that the “Kasper Proposal” – which is now called “Amoris Laetitia” – would “rend in twain Peter’s barque”… that is, send the Catholic Church into a massive schism if it were adopted.

Simply put, the change would be made forcing priests to desecrate the Holy Eucharist, or else. It’s the line in the sand drawn by the neo-modernists to bring to an end any hope of restoring the Church after Vatican II. It’s a Stalinist purge.

Make it a requirement that the Faithful, from bishops to priests to laity, may not refuse the systematic desecration of the Holy Eucharist

– make it very, very difficult for even the bravest and most orthodox bishops to dissent from the programme
– make it impossible for priests to act individually to defend the Eucharist
– make it impossible for seminarians to maintain the doctrines of the Faith while in the seminary
– make it impossible for seminarians to be ordained who are unwilling to desecrate the Eucharist
– make it impossible for lay faithful who refuse to participate in the desecration of the Eucharist to remain in their parishes.

Well, we’ve got it now. It’s here.

“Amoris Laetitia,” also known by its many bloggie nicknames, the “Exhortation of Desolation,” the “Asteroid 2.5,” does indeed do precisely what it says on the label. We have it from the man in white himself.

The following is a translation from Spanish of a letter written by Francis to the Bishops of Buenos Aires in response to a confidential document instructing priests on the application of AL.

The Vatican, September 5, 2016
Mons. Sergío Alfredo Fenoy
Delegate of the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region

Beloved brother:
I received the document from the Buenos AiresPastoral Region, “Basic Criteria for the Application
of Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia.” Thank you very much for sending it to me. I thank you for the
work they have done on this: a true example of accompaniment for the priests… and we all know
how necessary is this closeness of the bishop with his clergy and the clergy with the bishop. The
neighbor “closest” to the bishop is the priest, and the commandment to love one’s neighbor as one’s
self begins for us, the bishops, precisely with our priests.

The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations. And I am certain that it will do much good. May the Lord reward this effort of pastoral charity.

And it is precisely pastoral charity that moves us to go out to encounter those who are at a distance, and, once found, to start down the road of welcome, accompaniment, discernment, and integration into the ecclesial community. We know that this is tiresome, that it entails a pastoral approach “person to person” that isn’t satisfied with programmatic, organizational, or legal interventions, however necessary they may be.

Simply to welcome, accompany, discern, integrate.

Of these four pastoral attitudes, the least cultivated and practiced is discernment; and I consider formation in discernment, both personal and communal, in our seminaries and presbyteries, to be an urgent matter.

Finally, I would like to recall that Amoris Laetitia was the fruit of the labor and prayer of the whole Church with the mediation of two synods and of the Pope. For that reason I recommend a complete catechesis of the Exhortation that will certainly aid in the growth, consolidation, and sanctity of the family.

Again, I thank you for the work that has been done and encourage you to continue moving forward, in the various communities of the diocese, with the study and catechesis of Amoris Laetitia.

Please do not forget to pray and have others pray for me.

May Jesus bless you and the Holy Virgin care for you.

Fraternally,
Francis

 

There are no other interpretations.

 

That document instructing priests in Bergoglio’s former archdiocese can be found in full, translated by LSN here.

Highlights:

1) In the first place we recall that it is not convenient to speak of “permission” to receive the sacraments, but rather a process of discernment accompanied by a pastor. It is a “personal and pastoral” (300) discernment.

…

4) This journey does not end necessarily in the sacraments, but rather can be oriented to other ways of being better integrated into the life of the Church: a greater presence in the community, participation in groups of prayer or reflection, commitment to various ecclesial services, etc. (cf.299).

5) When the concrete circumstances of a couple make it feasible, especially when both are Christians with a journey of faith, it is possible to propose that they make the effort of living in continence.

Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the difficulties of this option (cf. note 329) and leaves open the possibility of receiving the sacrament of Reconciliation when one fails in this intention …

6) In other, more complex circumstances, and when it is not possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, the aforementioned option may not, in fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, it is equally possible to undertake a journey of discernment. If one arrives at the recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351). These in turn dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the aid of grace.

…

9) It might be convenient that an eventual access to the sacraments be brought about in a reserved way, above all when conflictive situations are foreseen. But at the same time one must not cease to accompany the community, so that it might grow in a spirit of understanding and welcoming, without creating confusion regarding the teaching of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage. The community is an instrument of mercy that its “undeserved, unconditional, and free” (297).

*

Let’s talk about each of these bolded points one at a time and use the above bit of apocalyptic horror as a teaching moment. Put together, this little passage is not only a demonstration of the destruction that Francis and his cronies want to visit upon the Church, but give us a textbook illustration of favourite neo-modernist techniques for undermining the Faith.

– Let’s not talk about “permission” to receive the Sacraments, but of a “process of discernment.” It reminds me of nothing so much as the advice of Screwtape to his nephew, Wormwood. Whatever you do,  my dear Wormwood, don’t make anything definite. Don’t require the patient to make a firm choice at any one point either for or against the Enemy. Just make sure he is cozied along, comfortable at all times, and that you don’t do anything that might alert him to his danger.

The reception of the Blessed Sacrament is a reality in time. That is, one does or does not receive the Host at a particular Mass that is happening in real life. It is not a “process;” it’s not theoretical. It’s a thing you do or do not do in a particular time and place.

But in speaking this way, we take away the fearsomeness of making a decision by blurring the line between yes and no, doing it and not doing it. We back away from the yes or no question: will you or will you not give up your mortal sins from this moment forward? It is the typical neo-modernist approach to soften, to blur the line, and most important to imply that to require a yes or no, a decision on the part of the person to turn away from sin definitively, is “unmerciful,” and anyway, likely impossible.

– “But it’s OK, because this whole ‘process’ business doesn’t ‘necessarily’ mean that the end result will be a sacrilege. Sometimes it might not. Sometimes it might result in the person repenting, just spontaneously deciding to ‘regularize’ his life.

Moreover, sometimes it might result in the person ‘moving past’ Catholic sacramentality altogether. Maybe part of the ‘process’ will be that he decides that Catholicism just isn’t for him. Maybe he will say, ‘You know, this whole experience really is leading me to enter the Anglican or Unitarian church,’ and of course, our duty is to accompany him. Either way, whatever he decides is his own path… we’ll support you whatever decision you make… right? After all, there’s no “Catholic God,” right?

– On yet another hand, your accompaniment might result in him joining a prayer group, or becoming involved in “various ecclesial services” – maybe the unrepentant adulterer will end up being an extraordinary minister of Communion to the sick in hospital or to an old folks home… Won’t that be nice?

– “ it is possible to propose that they make the effort of living in continence. ” Here’s neo-modernism at its very core. The whole game is to make clear that we do not “exclude the possibility,” the option, one might call it, of doing things the Catholic way. It’s in there, right? What’s the problem? The document clearly states that this whole brother and sister thing isn’t definitively excluded, right?

I had a conversation the other day on FB about Bishop Robert Barron’s habit of suggesting the “possibility” that hell is empty. Defending his “orthodoxy,” someone said, “Bishop Baron clearly teaches we have to hold at the very least the possibility of hell. Why, he asks? Because of free will to reject God’s mercy. Nobody seems to notice his orthodox balance teaching of the subject. Baron never teaches hell is empty.”

I respond: “It’s the textbook neo-modernist ploy: keep insisting that we ‘have to hold at the very least the possibility’… of whatever the Church teaches. Thus planting the doubt and maintaining plausible deniability. We don’t have to hold ‘at the very least the possibility of hell’. Catholics are obliged to believe with full intellectual and moral assent that hell is real and has people in it who will stay in it for all eternity. That’s Catholic orthodoxy. Not the slimy shimmy of a neo-modernist in a frock.”

It’s the same here with the bishops of Buenos Aires “not excluding” the possibility that the person’s path of discernment may lead him to accept the idea of living in continence… and that’s perfectly OK.

Well, thanks so much for that. I’m so very glad that the faithful practice of the Catholic religion isn’t entirely excluded… Understanding, of course that this is only to be considered if “the concrete circumstances of the couple make it feasible.”

And it’s nice to know too, that Amoris Laetitia “leaves open the possibility” of going to confession and receiving absolution when you’ve fallen. Good to know that it doesn’t actually abolish the Sacrament of Penance for those who are repentant and have the right intention… very comforting.

Yep. This is “orthodoxy” in FrancisChurch.

Now, about those “concrete circumstances”…

Frankly, who isn’t going to take that back door? Who isn’t going to say, “Well, my concrete circumstances utterly preclude a life of total sexual continence forever. So, what else have you got?”

What’s behind door number three? SO glad you asked!

– Having got that little sop to Catholicism out of the way, the good bishops get down to the nitty gritty. If the discernment of the “penitential path” doesn’t happen to “gradually” lead to repentance and continence, if the “concrete circumstances” are more “complex” what then? Well… clearly “the aforementioned option may not, in fact, be feasible.”

The “aforementioned option” that is, in fact, not “feasible,” is, in simple terms, repentance and a life of faithful chastity, supported by the grace of the sacraments.

It doesn’t work, you see. The Catholic religion. It’s impossible. We had Cardinal Kasper saying it outright some time ago and this clearly is the common opinion among our prelates today, including the pope who has, as we have seen above, given his full approval of this “interpretation”.

This “option” of a life of virtue is only for “the heroic” … which isn’t for ordinary shleps like us. It’s great, right? For saints. But that’s not you and me.

No no! For regular folks, it’s best if we just stay in our sins. Because “complex circumstances” make mortal sin pretty much impossible to stop, right? I mean, right?

– So here we have it in plain black and white, with a formal stamp of approval from the pope, no less: “ Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist ” without all that difficult and bothersome rubbish about annulments, or repenting this and abstinence that and lifelong continence the other thing.

OK, so my question now is, what if you’re a priest who thinks that it’s more important to save people’s souls than make them feel better in this life? What if you’re a priest who won’t knowingly desecrate the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar? Who would, in point of fact, rather shed his blood than do so?

Do you imagine that the bishops of Buenos Aires are going to take into account those “concrete circumstances”?

Offer a “penitential path” for “discernment” perhaps?

We enter the neo-modernist wasteland: “There are no other interpret...