Browse By

Winnowing time

So, in case there was still anyone in the Catholic world who thought that the pope didn’t want to institute a regime of universal sacrilege, we have this announcement from the Vicariate of Rome. The pope is the bishop of Rome, but he mostly acts through his “vicar,” who at this time is Cardinal Agostino Vallini. This gentleman has just issued “guidelines” to order that priests be willing to desecrate the Holy Eucharist.

Holy Communion will now be offered on a “limited” basis to those in the manifest state of the grave sin of adultery and/or fornication.

This is the pope’s diocese and, through his Cardinal vicar, he has authorized the systematic desecration of the Holy Eucharist.

Here is the link to the official Pdf version in Italian.

The moment has finally come.

So, what now?

Someone asked today in a comment under the last piece I did for the Remnant on the schism Bergoglio is fomenting, “How are we in communion with the Vatican?”

I respond:

Unfortunately, the term “the Vatican” is vague and has little relevance. No Catholic has ever been required to be “in communion with the Vatican.”

The question should be, how can we be in communion with a pope who is, as we speak, ordering his priests to desecrate the Holy Eucharist.

Since I wrote the above piece, it has come out officially. The Vicariate of Rome announced this week that the diocese of Rome would be offering Holy Communion in some “limited” cases to those who persist in the manifest grave sin of adultery and/or fornication. This is the pope’s diocese. We have yet to hear from priests in the diocese of Rome who will not participate in the pope’s plan of systematic desecration of the Holy Eucharist. I expect there will be a few, and that news of what will happen to them will leak out through the blogs in the Italian language soon.

What it means for the rest of Christendom that the mother See is leading the Church out of communion with our Lord Jesus Christ, has yet to be definitively determined by the lawful authority. Who that lawful authority may be, since it is the pope who is leading the way to universal sacrilege, is difficult to say. I expect that the only way forward now is one of two routes (or a combination of both):

1. for a bishop or cardinal to publicly challenge the pope on this and to call for him to repent or resign and if he does neither to denounce him as a heretic and schismatic and declare that no faithful Catholic may follow him or

2. for priests who refuse to desecrate the Holy Eucharist to refuse, be expelled from their dioceses and carry on their ministry as “vagus” priests – priests who have no home but who offer the sacraments to the faithful outside the normal structures of the Church.

We’re entering unknown territory. But we have known all along that this is where Bergoglio was leading us. Those priests and bishops who have closed their eyes to this logical result have only themselves to blame if they have failed to make contingency plans.

I would further suggest that the time has come to start contacting our bishops under the provisions of Canon 212, and demanding that they do their duty.

TITLE I.

THE OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS OF ALL THE CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL (Cann. 208 – 223)

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

Since the pope has ignored all pleas, the next layer of lawful authority is the bishops. The question is upon us; is your own bishop in your own diocese going to “jure,” that is, throw in his lot with this pope’s demands to desecrate the Holy Eucharist and separate himself and his diocese from communion with Christ?

If he does, I would suggest that the next recourse is to the local clergy.

Those wishing to contact their bishops can find the contact information for their diocese at the excellent website Catholic Hierarchy.

We are out of time, and the obligation to act has fallen to those who still have the Faith. The warnings have been given, the letters, public statements and petitions have failed, and this is the result. Those letters and petitions have been addressed to the pope and have assumed his good faith. And he has given his answer: he has called for his priests to be willing to desecrate the holy Eucharist.

The question has to be: “Dear Bishop ____, are you going to follow the example of the pope in his own diocese and order the priests of your diocese to desecrate the Holy Eucharist, or to demand that they be willing to do so should the situation present itself?”

None of them is going to say yes.

But the ones who equivocate, the ones that launch into convoluted, equivocating defences of Francis’ actions and decisions, the ones who try to pretend there isn’t a problem, are giving us a clear answer: they will not defend Christ or His Holy Church.

 

~

28 thoughts on “Winnowing time”

  1. Stacey says:

    Divorced and remarried couples do not receive communion in my local church. Neither do co-habitating couples. I live in the most secularized part of Europe: Scandinavia. But our priests are faithful and Catholics are a minority here, consisting of mostly of foreigners, around 70 different nationalities.

  2. Rory Donnellan says:

    Pope Francis is only formalising in the Diocese of Rome the very same Communion to adulterers that has been commonplace “pastoral practice” in nearly every other diocese around the world for decades! Can anyone name even one archdiocese where divorced adulterers are forbidden from receiving Holy Communion?

  3. susan says:

    Evangeline, Bp. Fellay HAS spoken out (one of the very VERY few bishops who have said anything). The very existence of the SSPX is a direct rebuke to the continuing and increasing errors. The ones who should (and are in fact tasked) with yelling from the rooftops against francis errors are the bishops and cardinals still in full and regular communion with it. The SSPX is going about its (God’s) business; upholding the Faith, building new seminaries for it’s burgeoning seminarians, and preaching the Gospel (the REAL one, not the false prophet’s one). The Truth will out….it always does, and when it does, we will have this magnificent little island of preservation prepared for us by the Hand of Providence.

    Don’t be PO’d at the good guys in this…save your ammo for the cowards, quislings, and fops of francischurch.

  4. Linda says:

    ^ That has always struck me.
    She didn’t say it will be preserved in parishes, oratories or chapels. She didn’t say monasteries or convents.
    She said cottages and families. The domestic Church. Ground Zero for the Church on the earth.
    Anyone else?

  5. John says:

    Sadly, giving communion to the divorced and remarried has been common practice in my Diocese (Yakima, Washington) for years.

  6. Hilary White says:

    “In those days, Faith will fall very low, and it will be preserved in some places only, in a few cottages and in a few families which God has protected from disasters and wars…”

  7. Wretched Sinner says:

    “In Portugal the Dogma of the Faith will always be preserved.” – Our Lady of Fatima

    The implication of this is so simple.

    Google and Canon Law: Where one can prove 100% that this “pope” is an usurper.

    Where is the True Church? Where does one find the 4 marks of the visible Church? NOT in Rome, NOT in our Dioceses, NOT in the new “Mass” or Sacraments., and most definitely NOT in the “official” Church, which is being led by the nose into the One World Religion as we speak.

    The True Church does NOT compromise. The True Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. It is found where those are responding just as St. Athanasius directed the FAITHFUL to in even (gasp) less dire circumstances. We can not be in “Communion” with heretics. Period. It’s in the Scriptures, folks.

    Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich saw “the two Popes” and that “people were no longer seeking the True Church.” The visionaries of LaSalette stated that people would not know which is the true Pope. We have arrived, and our salvation depends on how much we are willing to sacrifice in order to NOT compromise, betray the Faith and the Truth, and ultimately Christ Himself – not ONE IOTA. There has been an “underground” Church for many decades now….for this very reason. People need to seek that out and quick. Be one of the FEW.

  8. Janet says:

    Cut and paste, Evangeline! Cut, paste, print, send!

  9. Evangeline says:

    It’s too bad this article is not print-friendly. I would have printed it out and sent it to our bishop.

  10. Evangeline says:

    I agree Susan, but frankly, at this point even the SSPX is losing my appreciation. Where are they!! Why do these champions of orthodoxy not publicly call out this imposter on the Chair of Peter and all his diabolical plans, not to mention his able minions.
    Sorry but, the time is certainly now. There is no further reason to wait and see or delay. Anybody, Cardinal, Bishop, SSPX, who does not make themselves heard on this apostasy NOW, is in league with the devil, as far as I’m concerned, and I feel under no obligation to have anything further to do with them, or listen to them.
    Being faithful to Jesus Christ has, at this moment in time, a potential real and actual cost! Are these puppets? Or are they true Servants of God, faithful sons of the church. Now we will know.

  11. Janet Wilkie says:

    “The abuse of a thing does not invalidate the proper use of that same thing.” A traditional Catholic theological maxim.

    Canon 844.4 had not yet been written when an orthodox Irish missionary Catholic priest allowed me to take Holy Communion while I was still an Evangelical Protestant, but held to the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Eucharist (which is why I was there), and was receiving instruction on becoming a Catholic (I was supposed to be reading Christ Among Us, but was reading Chesterton instead).

    For which I thank God. It has been the Eucharist which kept me in the Church through all the mess of the last forty odd years.

    Having said that, I think it is about to be massively abused.

    I too am waiting. And praying more than usual.

    Also, people who have extra living spaces might want to let their parish priest know that he has a place to live if he has to leave the rectory.

  12. Michael says:

    John you’re actually incorrect. The 1917 Code said a Protestant could not receive even if mistaken in good faith. Formerly if the Protestant knew the Church was right they would simply ask for a priest who would do conditional baptism and hear their confession and give Viaticum to a now Catholic. Even if you eliminate conditional baptism since Vatican II (which I think is a mistake in itself) the act of professing the faith, abjuring your error in confession, etc. made you Catholic. It’s actually quite easy to become Catholic.

    It’s not consistent to have Holy Communion be the source and summit of unity be given to those of other faiths. If one believes in the Catholic faith no priest will deny them entry into the faith. If they hold Catholic beliefs 100% and abjure they are Catholic and the priest can enroll them instantly. If they still cling to errors against the faith they cannot.

    Lastly, it cannot be given an orthodox interpretation. We know the interpretation through the lawgiver, in this case the pope. The pope gave Communion to Tony Blair & Br. Roger. Blair believes in abortion. You can use the “ambiguity” line to comfort yourself, but it’s clear what the pope meant by example and law. It’s completely heterodox and 100% contradictory to the previous Canon of 1917.

  13. Lynne says:

    Susan, yes to everything that you said. Please consider participating in the SSPX Rosary Crusade that began on August 15, 2016 if you aren’t already. It’s not too late to start.

  14. susan says:

    The SSPX has been UTTERLY right all along. This pig’s breakfast we’re in the middle of is just the logical outcome to what they’ve been warning about for the past 40 years…..they were just far ahead of the curve, and calumniated for being the accurate Cassandras.

  15. Martha says:

    Yeah, I’m going to use your letter to a bishop as a form letter, if ya don’t miiiind, and perhaps photocopy it out for distribution. Of course, even if provided with an addressed, stamped envelope, 99.99% of the people I give it to will be too candy-a$$ed to mail it. Wouldn’t want the bishop to think you’re one o them crazy traddy nutters!

    I’m already on his list, so I don’t mind. 🙂

  16. John says:

    Michael, like many other things, that Canon is somewhat ambiguous and can be given an orthodox reading, e.g. if a Protestant who is about to die has a sudden change of heart and realises that the Catholic Church is the Ark of Salvation, then it would be licit for him to receive the sacraments, without going through the process of being formally received into the Church, because of dire necessity.

  17. Michael says:

    Since I was the person that pose that question I did ask a follow-up statement more to the point…

    I of course meant the See of Rome not merely the Vatican. The question could be asked how I’m I in communion with any of the major Sees of the church: Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Etc.. All of them have become schismatic close to 1000 years ago, and I’ve always wondered how I would also be in communion with my diocese with their constant preaching of heresy. I’ve asked this question about Rome for close to 20 years now with no answers.

    You call this” unknown territory” but I call this a logical extension of Cannon 844 in the 1983 code of Canon law which permits Holy Communion to Protestants and Schismatics, which is further shown by giving communion to people like Tony Blair by “St” John Paul II. If one can permit communion to non-Catholics and people that deny the teaching on abortion why is the extension to divorce and remarried so different and novel? In principle it’s exactly the same. Once you deny the principle that holy Communion can only be given to people in the state of grace that everything is possible.

    If Holy Communion is not required to be received in the state of grace (as understood through the centuries) and in the Catholic Church under a code of the universal Church then how can anyone really be alarmed by this newest change? I think it’s the novelty of a visceral sentiment instead of a code of canon law which is 33 years old and is not currently relevant in our minds.

    Also, I don’t think that you properly address what would a cardinal or a bishop repudiating a Pope do when the majority of bishops and Cardinals are certainly in the camp of the Pope or will give tacit approval through silence? How many of them believe in Cannon 844? If they do then how are they substantially different in principle?

    Here’s the pertinent Canon:

    §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-
    Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

    §3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

    §4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

    Tony Blair, Br. Roger, et. al?
    http://www.cfnews.org/B011_RatzingerSchutz.jpg

  18. John says:

    Hilary, there is a, “Declaration of Fidelity to the Church’s Unchangeable Teaching on Marriage”, but it does not seem to contain a direct and public accusation of the pope.

  19. John says:

    Hilary, in your article you wrote: “But we are on the edge of that ultimate, unthinkable form of schism right now, with bishops and cardinals, as I write this, signing public letters accusing the pope of having departed radically from Christ and His holy Church.”

    Can you tell us more about this?

  20. Hilary White says:

    “You are widely read (but not necessarily highly regarded) where I live”

    Heh heh heh… eeeeeeehxcellennnnt!!!

  21. Hilary White says:

    OH NOES!!! someone might call me something nasty on the innernets!

  22. DJR says:

    But the ones who equivocate, the ones that launch into convoluted, equivocating defenses of Francis’ actions and decisions, the ones who try to pretend there isn’t a problem…

    … constitute the overwhelming majority of bishops and priests.

    When most Catholics themselves (let alone the rest of the world) reject Catholic teaching, even including a huge number among the clergy, the idea of publicly raising one’s voice against such a popular pope is daunting, to say the least.

    Any priest or bishop who does so will look like an idiot and will probably be labeled one by the majority of people. The pope’s sermons against “Pharisees” and “those who obstruct the Spirit,” et cetera, plant the seed, and the ground is fertile.

    Many saints and mystics have prophesied, for centuries now, that the day would come when it seems as though the Catholic Church has disappeared. We appear to be on the threshold of that.

  23. SAF says:

    In light of this and Bishop Bonny’s call to inaugurate a Church rite blessing the union of same-sex and cohabiting couples, I dont know what I’m going to do.
    I really don’t know. Being in communion with these people means something. But what? And what does it mean to remove oneself from communion with them? I am not satisfied, encouraged, or heartened by any of the answers suggested- anywhere- so far. I am waiting.

  24. Magdalene says:

    I thought the Holy Spirit was to protect the Church against error???? What has happened??? And how long will this go on??? Is Bergoglio a true pope???

  25. Fuquay Steve says:

    When is the last time you wrote or used verbally the word winnowing? I know have not perhaps ever used that word. These are evil times when winnowing is mentioned prominently.

  26. Marcus20 says:

    “I don’t know the man.”

    Suppose Peter hadn’t repented his denial.

    Suppose after the resurrection, he continued to say, “I don’t know the man.”

    Suppose that despite this denial, he remained as the leader of the Twelve.

    There were many benefits to being the new leader.

    He had crowds following him.

    The crowds believed in Jesus, but Peter continued gently to admonish them: “I don’t know the man. This movement is really about saving the Earth.”

    But the crowds continued to follow Peter because he was the leader.

    And the Twelve said nothing. They followed Peter, too.

    It was the Twelve, not the Eleven, because Judas went along, too.

  27. Jean says:

    I don’t need to write to my bishop to ask where he will stand. It gives me no joy to admit that eventually we will be a diocese in schism with the Lord. I thank God that I do know holy priests who *will* stand for the Church, but they will be in a difficult situation in the near future.

    Please I will use another name than the one I am known by. You are widely read (but not necessarily highly regarded) where I live and things are already getting difficult.

Comments are closed.