Mundabor’s Inglorious Misfire

Editor’s Note: I republish this for record, to be numbered among the misfires of useless opposition, because when you claim to the public, like Mundabor does in the post above, that the “best” way to oppose an errant or evil pope is to call him “a piece of shit”, you are clearly joking or false opposition, but in any case, useless opposition, because you are confusing your need to out-gass your frustration with proper canonical procedure and have redefined what it means to be a Catholic according to the navel of your own sentiments. — Rather, get your head out of your navel, and start studying Canon Law to find the way to remove him from office. Anything less, and you are not being serious, you are just a clown.

USA: Bishop Dorsonville, appointed 11 months ago, drops dead at 63

Editor’s Note: It could not be the DeathVaxx, could it? — Seriously, if the acceptance of the DeathVaxx by Catholic Bishops leads more and more to bishops not even living a year after being appointed, then there is going to be a shortage of Catholic Bishops the likes of which we have never seen. For when you consent to a lie (that Pope Benedict XVI abdicated) and believe a worse lie (that taking the DeathVaxx is an act of love), you will reap death. To this, Bishop Dorsonville may have eloquently testified with his own life. — His biography, retold in the article above, makes it quite clear that he worked closely with the US Department of Defense and the CIA in Latin America for decades.

USA: Bishop of Springfield, MA, claims no one has complained about ‘Fiducia supplicans’

Editor’s Note: The Bishop is evidently begging or daring any Catholic in his diocese to give him a phone call and unload about ‘Fiducia supplicans’ or, at least, he is claiming that all the Catholics in his diocese are heretics or cowards. — If you are a resident of his diocese, give him a call or drop him a message, through this page. If not, pray for him because he has lost all sense of his Gospel duty to be a shepherd protecting his flock from wolves, and has accepted the downgraded job of a complaint desk manager, or a Church wrecker:

VATICAN: Pope Francis invites Chinese Dragon Dancers to entertain him in Apostolic Palace

https://twitter.com/MountainButorac/status/1753390153337332102

Editor’s Note: The Chinese New Year is celebrated from Feb. 10-15, this year. The Chinese mark the 12 year cycle with years dedicated to diverse things and animals. This year is the year of the Dragon. In China the dragon has been a religious cultic symbol from the dawn of time. They are not the only people who came to worship the serpent after the fall of Adam and Eve.

Indeed, a papal court which has time for Chinese Dragon dancers or acrobats, but not for Cardinal Zen or Roman Catholics who worship according to the ancient liturgical books, is about as clericalist and divorced from the periferies of the Church as you can get. It is also divorced from any sort of evangelical character — evangelical in the sense of, Gospel like.

50+ Scholars, Lawyers ask Bishops to block & Pope to withdraw ‘Fiducia supplicans’

Commentary and Critique on the above by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française

An online letter has no canonical force. It must be sent to each Bishop and/or Cardinals who are ordinaries, and to the Pope himself. If it did not do this, then this ‘Filial appeal’ wins the “misfire of the year award”. — However, if you are going to participate in the Sutri Initiative, it would be powerful to add a copy of this appeal, with all the signatures, and URL to the original, to your correspondence.

However, the authors of this Appeal include in their letter a serious historical error and interpretative mistake, when they say:

Never in the history of the Catholic Church has a document of the Roman Magisterium experienced such a strong rejection.

Because Pope Honorius I’s Letter in 635 to Sergius I, the Monothelite heretic who occupied the the Patriarchate of Constantinople, on the matter of whether there be two or one will in Christ, was condemned by ALL the Bishops of the Third Council of Constantinople on September 16, 681 A. D.. — In that they show grave ignorance of Church History.

But they also show a grave ignorance of the proper understanding of a Church document, when they call ‘Fiducia supplicans’ a “document of the Roman Magisterium”, because Pope Francis did not write the document, he merely added his signature during a meeting with Cardinal Fernandez; in addition, that Cardinal within 2 weeks affirmed that the doctrine in the document did not need to be accepted by all everywhere. So it clearly is not a document of the Roman Magisterium, since that belongs to none one but the Roman Pontiff, a dicastery cannot exercise it.

They also show ignorance of the basics of canon law, because a Dicastery erected by an antipope does not exist canonically, and there is implicit in their Filial Appeal a total ignorance of what Pope Benedict XVI did on Feb. 11, 2013, in not abdicating, only resigning.

These 3 errors are not light ones, and they all are grave for another reason too, because together they support the argument that Pope Francis never was an antipope and without the petrine munus could pass laws and exercise the Papal Magisterium: presuppositions which undermine their own basis for opposing ‘Fiducia supplicans’.

However, the statement quoted above from the letter does observe something true, because never since Honorius I, who was elected not according to the canons (there were none back then) nor by the Cardinals (they did not have an exclusive right back then) but by the Faithful of Rome (clergy electing, laity acclaiming) has a Pope encountered such opposition from the entire Church. On January 30th, last year, like Honorius I, Pope Francis was elected by Apostolic Right, the method which the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostle Saint Peter to arrange for the election of his successors. As I wrote more than a year ago, when this happens, the entire Church is united to Christ through the successor of Saint Peter in a manner which maximizes the influence of the Holy Spirit to promote unity with a holy pastor and oppose an errant or evil one.

For these reasons, I would discourage any true scholar from signing this document which would just serve as a canonical fact that the one signing it is totally ignorant of canon law, Church history, and argumentation. — These filial appeals have achieved nothing in the past, except to get scholars and bishops round the world to carry water for the Bergoglian narrative and turn true opposition into complicit silence. Which is perhaps the reason they recruit signatories by email, so that they can psychologically pound signers into conformity if they dare say anything else in public which diverges from it.

As for the whole concept of filial appeal, that is not what Pope Francis needs right now. To use a metaphor, he rather needs a Saint Nicholas fraternal slap in the face, or a Padre Pio boot in the rear of the pants.

So the next time you hear that FromRome.Info is “unrealiable” or that I am “unqualified”, ask them if they signed this Petition, as a conversation starter.

Bishops of Ecclesiastical Province of Rome are silent on ‘Fiducia supplicans’

Report by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Traduction française

While ‘Fiducia supplicans’ has ignited a fierce and lively reaction round the world, the 15 Bishops/Abbots of the ecclesiastical province Rome are saying nothing about it on their official websites.

While this does not mean that they have NOT spoken personally or official about the matter, it does show a strong sign that they regard the document as too controversial to stain their public present on the Internet with it.

And this is a good sign. Because these 15 Bishops have the authority to remove Pope Francis for heresy or, more precisely, on account of an invalid claim to the Papacy, as is explained here.

This should be a great encouragement to all those who have not yet participated in the Sutri Initiative, to join the effort.

But this is also a strong sign, that those Catholics round the world, who have already participated and written their letters, have had a great spiritual effect on the entire episcopate of the province.

From a Canonical point of view, the Bishops are in a difficult position: because since ‘Fiducia supplicas’ is heretical, as many Bishops round the world have explained or insinuated, then any Bishop of the province who publicly affirms assent to its errors would give canonically valid testimony for his removal from office under canon 1364. Likewise, if any of them spoke against it, he might expect swift and violent retribution from the increasingly impenitent Pope Francis. — Their only way out of this Catch 22 is to declare the Apostolic See impeded, as I have explained here and here, for that is the canonical ‘get-out-of-penalty-free-card’, as it were.

Likewise, since only those Bishops of the province who oppose heresy, can rightfully call and vote in a provincial council, those who do speak in favor of ‘Fiducia supplicans’ shoot themselves in the foot, as it were, by guaranteeing that they will not be heard in a provincial council.

In my opinion, their collective silence is very significant, therefore, of opposition to the document.

Hopefully, they will take encouragement from the recent theological condemnation of ‘Fiducia supplicans’ by their colleague in the Episcopacy at Mostar, Croatia, Bishop Emeritus Ratko Peric, who closed his analysis by expressing firm hope in the charism of Saint Peter to convince Pope Francis to withdraw his support. For in a provincial council, the first goal is to obtain repentance from an erring pontiff, as the Petition of the Sutri Initiative affirmed 4 months ago.


CREDITS: The Basilica of Saint Peter, as seen from the Via della Conciliazioni. © 2022 — All rights reserved. FromRome.Info.

Elon Musk & Agenda 2030 to enslave Humanity with Neural Chips

Critique by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The speaker here is way out of his field. He is ignorant of 70 years of neurological research which shows that the human brain is plastic, that is, by its habits of knowing it acquires habits of focus, and through these it becomes enslaved or enabled to do specific things. Once a machine is linked to the human mind, the mind at first acquires abilities to control the outside world, but soon once the habits become firm, the machine obtains access to control the human mind. — Chipping a human brain is morally equivalent of diabolic possession. It is not licit to even develop. It is gravely immoral to use. No one can be saved who uses this technology.

They will suborn the masses by using handicap people as their ambassadors to create a culture of envy among the masses. Then they will mainstream it commercially. And then when the majority are chipped, they will take control bit by bit, until the memories of individual personality fade away.

And for those who ask the ultimate moral question about neural chips and neural links: Yes, it is morally licit to kill the slaves of an enemy who aims to exterminate you, because they more than all his soldiers are merely the moral extension of his own animosity; they are not innocent, for in being willingly enslaved they have become complicity and culpable of all the moral acts their master will will for them.

So anyone — anyone whomsoever — who puts their hope in AI and neural links, are persons without God, and who do not seek God, nor wait upon Him. They are rather egomaniacs who are obsessed with power and acquiring power, and who dream of a terrestrial immortality with a divinity to tell their subjects what to do and what to think and what to feel.

They are also sociopaths, who have never by reflection recognized the infinite superiority of the human person over all the works of his hands, and who want to manipulate others as if they were things to own and control, and not human persons to know and love.

VATICAN: Pope Francis names Skull & Bones operative as Secretary of Economy

Editor’s Note: The appointment of a MIT graduate who worked for Morgan-Stanley should send shock waves through the Catholic Church. J. P. Morgan was a Skull and Bones man who with capital from Lord Rothschild founded one of the most influential and powerful banks in the USA. Their financial services unit was run by Harold Stanley, another Skull & Bones man, a graduate of Yale like Morgan. — Mr. Benjamin Estevez de Comingues, worked for Morgan Stanley, and has been working at the Vatican for some years. He is a married man, with a family. He presence at the Vatican raises the specter that the Vatican is being bankrolled by the U.S. State Department, the Rothschilds and other Masonic concerns. This may explain Pope Francis’ animosity toward the Catholic Church and his intransigence to undo his damaging decrees. — It also argues that anyone who claims to be Pope Francis’ opponent but attacks those who want Pope Francis removed from office, are in the pay of the CIA.

Why won’t Pope Francis defrock the Belgian Bishop who raped his own nephews?

Editor’s Note: It is a national scandal in Belgium, which is now pouring over to the national discussion on sex abuse in Italy. The entire Bishop’s conference of the formerly Catholic nation of Belgium — now taken over by Islamic invasion — has requested Pope Francis to squelch the national scandal there by defrocking the Bishop in question, who has been protected by friends in the highest places for a long time. The answer to this question pulls the mask off the propaganda of Pope Francis’ pretense to be against child abuse and clericalism.

And why has Pope Francis still not defrocked the serial satanic sadistic sexual abuser of women religious, the Jesuit, Father Rupnick? A scandal of inaction which now has spread round the world! — And no, Franca Giansoldati, it is not a question of confusion in the Vatican; it is a question of the untouchable citadel of pedophile clericalism, a citadel in which Pope Francis sits with pleasure and a system of omerta’ (silence) which has promoted him to the pinnacle of power and abuse.

La Croix pushes Gladio Narrative about ‘Fiducia supplicans’

Editor’s Note: It is shameful to publish propaganda. It is shameful to do so at the request of the intelligence agency of your own country.. But it is most shameful to do so at the request of a foreign intelligence agency. And it is most shameful, when you mix into it the worst kind of masonic, marxist racist ideology, which pretends that sodomy is a cultural advancement and that those who cannot accept it are backwards. — La Croix wins all the “loser of the year” awards with this report.

PANAMA: Cardinal of the Periferies goes missing for 2 days, “Delicate” National Concerns

Editor’s Note: In this bizarre case, which initially appears to be that of someone suffering dementia, who wanders off — usually in an attempt to find their childhood home — the Attorney General of Panama has gotten involved over security concerns. What wonders what the reason is. — It is ironic, however, that Cardinal Lacunza is the first Cardinal ever appointed by Pope Francis, during his antipapacy.

Strange indeed, since it appears he drove 40 KM in some sort of disorientation. — Stranger still, that the Main Search Engines sat on this story for 2 days.

Bishop Ratko Peric of Mostar: Pope Francis should withdraw ‘Fiducia Suppicans’!

By Bishop Ratko Ratko Perić

Bishop Emeritus of Mostar, Croatia

English translation of original written in Croatian, which can be found here

Traduction française

The statement Fiducia supplicans on the pastoral meaning of blessings was issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on December 18, 2023. It is the first statement by the same institution after the declaration Dominus Iesus on the unity and saving universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, on August 6, 2000.

Creator’s blessing

How was it from the beginning?

“God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female created he them. And God blessed them and said to them: Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it!” (Genesis 1:27-28).

This act and intention of God can be discerned from that biblical sentence:

First, in the beginning God created man, i.e. male and female, in his own image, breathing into them a soul with reason and free will.

Second, he blessed them as a complementary married couple with a purpose in life.

Thirdly, this purpose is fruitfulness, the multiplication of people, populating and subjecting the land to their management with the awareness that it is God’s land.

Fourthly, everything that is contrary to that creative plan, is not the image of God, has no purpose and goal of God and therefore does not have God’s blessing either.

What happened over time?

Sodomy

The name comes from Sodom, with which Gomorrah is connected, the neighboring cities where the Dead Sea is today, located between Israel, Palestine and Jordan. These cities are an example of sexual perversion called sodomy. The Bible describes their wickedness and their destruction by fiery sulfur rain with the story of Abraham’s cousin Lot and his family: his wife and two daughters, as he had already “wiped off the face of the earth” with the flood all the people of that time in that part of the world, except the righteous Noah, because every thought in man’s mind was “only wickedness” (Genesis 6:5), and as the Babylonian city cursed the people who wanted to reach the sky with a tower through their arrogance (Genesis 11:8).

In the Old Testament

Sodomy is considered an ungodly shame = nefandum flagitium, as moral theology calls it. Why? Because Sodom allowed every kind of sin against human nature as God created, legislated and blessed it.

According to the oral and written traditions that reached the final redaction of the Pentateuch of Moses, we read in Genesis: “And the inhabitants of Sodom were very wicked, sinners against the Lord” (13:13). It is not described here what exactly the sin of the Sodomites consisted of, but from this wording: “very wicked”, it can obviously be concluded that there are no sins that they did not commit against God’s law and order, that is, against human nature or common sense as works of God. It’s as if it’s enough to say “Sodom” and you immediately know what’s going on.

In the same book of Genesis, God, who appears with two angels in human form, tells Abraham: “There is a great cry against Sodom and Gomorrah that their sin is too great” (18:20). It has not yet been determined precisely what made the sin in Sodom “too heavy”. Abraham dares to intercede with God for the Sodomites starting from the number fifty and downwards. And each time God promises him that he will not destroy Sodom if there are so many inhabitants who are not infected with the Sodom virus. If Abraham had gone lower than 10, it is likely that the Lord would have mercifully responded to Abraham’s request, for the sake of Abraham’s friend. But there weren’t even ten of them, just Lot’s family of four.

The book of Genesis in chapter 19 shows the specific crime and punishment of Sodom. When the two mentioned angels came before Sodom, they found Lot at the entrance to the city. He hosts them in his house.

Tuesday »citizens of Sodom, young and old, all the people down to the last man, surrounded the house. They called Lot and said to him: ‘Where are the people who came to you last night? Bring them out to us so that we can kiss them?'” (Genesis 19:4-5).

Here, the sinful practice of the Sodomites is explicitly spoken of, that men sin against men in a carnal, unnatural way. The people of Sodom would even abuse two angels of God in their Sodomic perversions.

The Levitical Code, from the 13th century BC, strictly prohibits:

»Don’t lie with a man as you lie with a woman. That would be an abomination” (18:22).

This same Old Testament Jewish Law, a little further on, prescribes:

“If a man were to lie with a man as one lies with a woman, both would commit an abomination. Let them be killed, and let their blood fall on them” (Lev 20:13).

And here is the punishment on the citizens of Sodom. After Lot was saved,

The Lord “rained down sulfurous fire from heaven on Sodom and Gomorrah, and destroyed those cities, and all that plain, all the inhabitants of the city and all the vegetation on the earth” (Genesis 19:24-25).

The sin against human nature shown in these four mentioned places consists in this:

  • – that the inhabitants of Sodom are “very wicked”, “themselves sinners against the Lord”, i.e. against his creation, moral order and law;
  • – that their sin is “too heavy”, i.e. unbearable, kills not only the soul, but also the body;
  • – that such a sin is a real “abomination”, i.e. the abomination of desolation in the realm of life; and
  • – that such a sin is such a “heinous act” that deserves the death penalty, moreover, all the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were also destroyed. Like when a man dies, infected with an epidemic, and all his clothes and house are burned!

“The Law of God is perfect, it strengthens the soul; the Lord’s law is reliable – the ignorant learn” (Ps 19:8). And human iniquity weakens the soul and the ignorant freaks out!

It is, therefore, about terrible crimes against human nature as God created it, blessed it and ordered it to be respected and served, not to go against it. God created and determined male and female, endowed them with the natural ability to give birth and raise children as complementary beings, to maintain life on earth. And people over time turned God’s order upside down and decided on their own that man with man, woman with woman sin and annul God’s creative project task and associated blessing. God ordained that a woman give birth and as a mother lovingly raise her children, but some people have turned God’s order upside down and teach that as few births as possible or that they themselves will eugenically determine how many will be born and which one will be the right one.

In the New Testament

In his inaugural sermon in Galilee, the Lord Jesus uttered the first words: “Repent and believe the Gospel!” (Mk 1:15). The basic message of Jesus is: conversion from every evil that destroys, and complete faith in the Gospel that saves! That is the good news of Jesus.

The Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans writes about unnatural passions that have been activated both among men and among women:

“That is why God gave them over to shameful passions: their wives replaced natural intercourse with unnatural ones, and so also men, abandoning natural intercourse with women, became enflamed with lust for one another, and men committed shameful acts with men and received the deserved reward of their deviation.” (Romans 1:26-27).

The apostle, as one inspired, declares that “male worshipers” will not see the kingdom of God:

“Don’t be fooled! Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor soft travelers, nor adulterers, nor thieves, nor gluttons, nor drunkards, nor swearers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10).

In the same list, with regard to the violation of God’s order, Paul includes both “adulterers” and “robbers”! These “masculinists” are not only defilements of boys.

In these two places, the apostle uses the most severe terms for these abuses of both male and female persons: to replace natural communion with unnatural deviation. Neither perverts nor sodomites not only do not have God’s blessing, but they will not inherit the kingdom of God. Is there a bigger penalty?

In the time of the Fathers of the Church

Numerous holy fathers in their commentaries on the mentioned biblical texts refer to the wickedness of Sodom and their punishments. Here are just two examples:

Tertullian says: “[All] other raging passions – ungodly towards bodies and genders – beyond natural law, let’s drive them not only from the threshold, but from every shelter of the Church, because these are not crimes, but monsters”.[1]

Augustine similarly: “Wickedness that is against nature should be condemned and punished everywhere and always, such as the wickedness of the Sodomites, for example.” If all nations started them, according to the divine law, they would all be blamed with equal guilt, because that law did not make people such that they could communicate among themselves in this way”.[2]

Some recent teachings and interpretations

Jesuits in the 17th century. In 1612, the supreme superior of the Society of Jesus, Claudio Acquaviva (1543-1615), elected general of the Order in 1581, served as superior for 34 years, until his death, condemned the moral position that held that some light pleasure in deliberately sought sexual desires it does not involve mortal sin. Not only did he oblige the Jesuits to obey that teaching under the threat of excommunication, but he imposed on them the obligation to reveal the names of those Jesuits who violated even the spirit of the decree.[3] There was sealed the decision that no sin against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments had lightness or smallness of matter – parvitas materiae, especially not in the area of sodomy. It is noticeable that this rigorous view did not apply to any other commandment of God.

The Second Vatican Council does not have the explicit words: homosexuality or homosexuality in any document.

Persona humana, statement on some issues of sexual ethics, 1975.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith signed by the head, Card. Francis Šeper and Archbishop Jérôme Hammer’s secretary, and was previously “approved and confirmed” by Pope Paul VI, says:

»According to the objective moral order, acts in homosexual relationships are deprived of their essential and irreplaceable goal. Holy Scripture condemns them as severe depravity and even portrays them as a fatal consequence of abandoning God”.[4]

When man does not keep God’s law, then he is condemned to keep man’s illegal law.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1992,

With the introductory apostolic constitution Fidei depositum of Pope John Paul II, prepared under the leadership of the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Card. Joseph Ratzinger, states that the “sin of Sodom” is among the five sins that cry out to heaven.[5] The Catechism talks about homosexuality in several places, usually with these qualifications:

that same-sex relationships cannot be approved under any circumstances[6];

that these are grave sins[7];

that homosexual persons, who have an objectively disordered tendency, through their effort, struggle, prayer, self-denial can bring them closer to Christian perfection,[8] and that in this sense the Church should help them to free them from their sinful state.

Veritatis splendor, 1993,

the encyclical of Pope John Paul II, mentions the concept of homosexuality only once:

“On the basis of the naturalistic understanding of the sexual act, contraception, direct sterilization, autoerotism, premarital relations, homosexual relationships and artificial insemination would be morally unacceptable”.[9]

The “naturalistic” concept is that strange theological understanding according to which some changeable human behaviors are attributed an unchanging character. This is what some “Catholic” theologians say that the Catholic Church teaches, says the encyclical! “They say that man, as a rational being, not only can, but actually should freely determine the meaning of his behavior”. You should be your own moral standard! Regardless of God’s law.

In Pope Francis’s Responsum to the 5 Cardinals

To the Question: “Does the Church have the authority to bestow blessings on same-sex unions?” – Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2021, gives the Answer, signed by the head, Card. Luis Ladaria, a Jesuit, and Archbishop Giacomo Morandi’s secretary, informed and authorized to be published by Pope Francis, proclaims this traditional truth:

“The Church does not have, nor can it have, the power to bless same-sex unions”.[10]

The definition is understandable and unquestionable, it does not need new clarifications and responses, unless the terms: “authority”, “blessing” and “same-sex community” mean something completely different.

Belgian bishops have been practicing some “blessings” of homosexual communities for years, reported Antwerp Bishop Johann Bony, a delegate to the 5th General Assembly of the Synod Way, which was held in Frankfurt from March 9 to 11, 2023. The bishop said that the Belgian bishops had previously were on an official visit to the Vatican from November 21 to 26, 2022, and that the Pope, in the audience of November 25, approved the “blessing of homosexual couples” if all the bishops agreed with it. All 11 Belgian bishops agree with this, reports the Antwerp prelate, except that the French-speaking bishops have the same texts in French, not in Flemish.[11]

Fiducia supplicans, 2023

Here we are at the Statement on the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings, which, without consultation with the cardinals and bishops who are members of the Dicastery, was compiled by the new head of the Office for the Doctrine of the Faith, Card. Victor Manuel Fernandez, co-signed by the secretary Msgr. Armando Matteo, returned Ex audientia from Pope Francis on December 18, and announced.

In a strict liturgical sense, the blessing requires that what is being blessed be in accordance with the will of God as expressed in the teaching of the Church.[12] The Lord Jesus, on leaving this world, raised his hands and blessed the disciples. And while he was blessing them, he parted from them and was taken up to heaven. The disciples returned to Jerusalem and blessed God all the time in the Temple (cf. Lk 24:50-53). Here Jesus gives his divine blessing to the apostles in a descending sense and the apostles in an ascending sense bless God, i.e. praise him, thank him for all the work of redemption.[13]

Under III. point Statement from numbers 31 to 41 talks about “blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples”. The statement tries in every way to notice the difference between the sacramental blessing of a married couple that follows the church formula and ceremony, from the “blessing” of an irregular or same-sex “couple” that does not follow any formula or ceremony. In other words, a “pastoral”, informal, unformulated, non-ritual, spontaneous, random, incidental, momentary “blessing” differs from a “liturgical” sacramental, ritual, formulated, prescribed blessing. The key to the theme is ambiguous in that such irregular “couples” and same-sex “couples” are given a “blessing” in a “church” context and by a “church” ordained minister. The term “couple” is mentioned as if it were a legal “couple”, even if two signs of the cross were made on two people. The same words “blessing”, “ordained minister” are attached to two different realities and with different meanings.

We all know that in no area of life can there be more ambiguity, various allusions, ambiguous jumps, deliberate intrusions, double standards, multi-layered concepts, double messages than in the area of sexuality, that is, the Sixth and Ninth Commandments of God. And that in conversations, in the media, on film, in cartoons. The serious evangelists did not record any ambiguous jokes about Jesus, and it can be assumed that there were some from the corrupt Pharisees and Sadducees. What is the need for us to introduce confusion and at the same time say: there is confusion here, watch out for confusion. We emphasize only the thought from the Statement:

“It should neither ensure nor promote the rite of blessing of couples in an irregular situation. At the same time, the proximity of the Church to people should not be prevented or prohibited in every situation where they could seek God’s help with a simple blessing. In a short prayer that precedes this spontaneous blessing, the ordained minister might pray for individuals to have peace, health, the spirit of patience, dialogue and mutual help – but also God’s light and strength so that I can fully fulfill his will”.[14]

Let’s try to break down the given point:

First, everything is put in a conditional form, in no way obligatory.

Second, it should neither provide nor promote a “couple blessing ceremony” on irregular occasions. Here, an even greater optionality and at the same time contradiction in the phrase “rite of blessing of couples” is highlighted. This contradiction is expanding.

Thirdly, it should not be prevented or forbidden for the Church to approach them with an ordained minister to pray for peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, “mutual help”.

Fourth, to also pray for God’s light and strength so that these “couples” can completely fulfill the will of God and that he accompanies them as individuals with a “spontaneous blessing” of a few seconds, and that they remain unrepentant and unconverted in adulterous or Sodomic “couples” and lawlessness.

A reasonable believer wonders: if everything is in this conditional form, and if the Church should neither promote nor not promote, the “rite” of “blessing” such “couples”, the Church should neither prohibit nor forbid proximity, and that by ” “ordained” minister, how can we hope that these “couples” in irregular situations of persistent adultery or persistent same-sex relationships will completely fulfill the will of God without any conditions and signs of their repentance and exit from unnatural lawlessness and sin?

In no. 41. The statement says that apart from the indications presented, no other answers should be expected from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in possible ways to standardize details or practical aspects with regard to blessings of this kind.

However, as soon as two weeks passed and the rain of declarations from individual Bishops’ Conferences and other church organizations and persons appeared, the need to issue a special press release became apparent.

Announcement on the acceptance of the statement Fiducia supplicans, 2024. The Dicastery here introduces the practice of interpreting its Statement with a new document, the Announcement, from January 4, 2024, i.e. 16 days after the Statement, it develops a catechesis on the pastoral blessing of irregular and same-sex couples.

Why? Because it is

  • – a certain number of Bishops’ Conferences of the world, each in its own way, refused to accept the pastoral “blessing” of adulterous and homosexual “couples”;
  • – an even greater number of individual cardinals and bishops, each in their own way, rationally and morally criticized individual points of the Declaration;
  • – a considerable number of individual priests, monks, and lay persons, each in their own way, distanced themselves from the Declaration, and
  • – several Catholic associations declared that they are not in favor of such a Declaration.[15] From all the above-mentioned criticisms, an indelible question arises: Who cares that this kind of confusion is allowed in the Church of God with its already existing two-millennium doctrinal clarity? To mix schism with the unity of the Church? With orthodox heresy? With healthy biblical and traditional food she unnecessary?

From the Announcement of the Dicastery, a thought about the content and time of the “blessing” should be highlighted:

“In that case, the priest can pray a simple prayer: “Lord, look at these children of yours, give them health, work, peace and that they can help each other. Free them from everything that is contrary to your Gospel and allow them to live according to your will. Amen”. He then ends with the sign of the cross on each of the two persons. – We are talking about something that lasts about 10 or 15 seconds. Does it make sense to deny this kind of blessing to these people who asked for it?” [16] asked the Cardinal Head together with the Secretary, this time without Ex audientia.

What does that mean:

First, when a stable “Sodom couple” comes to the priest and confidently asks him (fiducia supplicans) for a “blessing”, and the priest prays the above-formulated prayer individually over one and the other homosexual to help each other, for Jesus to free them from everything what contradicts the Gospel and that they live according to God’s will, and they persistently continue to live in a “Sodom couple”?

Second, if a priest makes the sign of the cross or “blessing” over homosexuals individually, who do not recognize an unnatural sin as a sin and thus sin against the Holy Spirit, without repentance and without conversion, is it exposed to the general opinion that he is “blessing” the sinful union of same-sex persons?

Thirdly, if the priest finishes it all quickly, in 10-15 seconds according to the above prayer formula, can such a spontaneous “blessing” which is not a blessing, but is a blessing, be denied to individuals who live in an unnatural state of sin? All the recommendations of the Communication are based on the principle of contradiction, because always, from creation through redemption to the present state, such a simple and spontaneous “blessing” of an irregular adulterous “couple” and a same-sex “couple” was considered a sacrilegious, sinful counterattack to God’s blessing of the created married couple, male and women (Genesis 1:28) for the sake of bearing children and helping each other in life.

Conclusion

Pastor aeternus, the dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ of the First Vatican Council, in 1870, precisely determines the ministry of Peter’s successors:

“And Peter’s heirs were not promised the Holy Spirit so that in with his revelation they announced a new doctrine, but with his help they guard the sacred and faithfully present the revelation, or deposit of faith [depositum fidei], received from the apostles”.[17]

Therefore, we believe that the Bishop of Rome, the High Priest, is keeping before his eyes the thought that the Lord Jesus said to Peter at the Last Supper – and in Peter to his successors – Peter, I have prayed for you that your faith may not weaken. So when you come to your senses, strengthen your brothers! (Luke 22:32). In faith, truth and love.

We believe that the Holy Father loves Jesus more than others, as the Lord asks and expects from Peter (John 21:15-17), and from his successors. And at the same time, the resurrected Jesus commands Peter every time to graze his lambs and sheep, i.e. to be the shepherd of Jesus’ flock.

We believe that the Holy Father can disprove the Statement of December 18, 2023 and the Announcement of January 4, 2024, documents that have been convincingly demonstrated in these last three weeks – both legally and liturgically, and morally and dogmatically – at the world church level that they are imbued with ambiguity, ambiguity and contradiction, which has never been a teaching characteristic of the Catholic Church.

We believe that the Holy Father, through the action of the Holy Spirit, will find a way to “preserve the sacred and faithfully present the revelation, or treasure of faith, received from the apostles”, and resolutely devalue the mentioned documents, because “it was not so from the beginning” (Mt 19:8). nor throughout the entire history of the Catholic Church until the 21st century, ambiguous documents, imbued with the play between natural legal marriage and irregular “couples” and unnatural same-sex unions. The word of the apostle is: “God is not to be trifled with” (Gal 6:7).


FOOTNOTES

[1] Tertullian (d. 155 – d. 220), Christian writer, De Pudicitia – On chastity, 4: Reliquas autem libidinum furias impias et in corpora et in sexus ultra iura naturae non modo limine, verum omni ecclesiae tecto submovemus , quia non sunt delicta, sed monstra.

[2] St. Augustine (354-430), church teacher, Confessiones, III.,8,15: Itaque flagitia quae sunt contra naturam, ubique ac semper detestanda atque punienda sunt, qualia Sodomitarum fuerunt. Quae si omnes gentes facerent, eodem criminis reatu divina lege tenerentur, quae non sic fecit homines ut se illo uterentur modo.

[3] Patrick Boyle (1932-2022), American Jesuit, Parvitas Materiae in Sexto in Contemporary Catholic Thought (Lanham, University Press of America, 1987), p. 14-16. The general’s decree referred to the Jesuit Order, but it had an impact, through the Jesuit professors, on a wider circle of believers.

[4] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Persona humana, statement, December 29, 1975, no. 8, Zagreb, 1976, KS Dokumenti, no. 47. The entire number 8 is dedicated to the issue of homosexuality, which is mentioned 7 times:
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_it.html

[5] Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1867. Other sins that cry out to heaven: the blood of Abel; the wail of the oppressed people in Egypt; the wailing of the stranger, the widow and the fatherless; injustice to the employed worker.

[6] KCC, no. 2357.

[7] KCC, no. 2396.

[8] KCC, no. 2358-2359.

[9] John Paul II, Veritatis splendor – Splendor of truth, encyclical addressed only to brothers in the bishopric, August 6, 1993, no. 47. Zagreb, 1998, Documents KS 107.

[10] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Responsum, February 22, 2021. Published March 15, 2021.
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2021/03/15/0157/00330.html#ita

[11] See the link with further links: https://lanuovabq.it/it/benedizioni-gay-i-vescovi-si-ribellano-e-guerra-delle-pastorali

[12] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Fiducia supplicans [FS] – Trust that prays, statement, December 18, 2023, no. 9. The statement has 5,620 words, 45 numbers, 31 notes, 20 of which refer to the teachings of Pope Francis.
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2023/12/18/231218b.html

[13] FS, no. 18.

[14] FS, no. 38.

[15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_opponents_of_Fiducia_supplicans – (January 8, 2024)

[16] Announcement on the acceptance of the statement of Fiducia supplicans, no. 5 – https://www.vaticannews.va/hr/vatikan/news/2024-01/dikasterij-nauk-vjere-fiducia-supplicans-kardinal-fernandez.html

[17] DS, no. 3070. Neque enim Petri successoribus Spiritus Sanctus promissus est, ut eo revelante novam doctrinam patefacerent, sed ut, eo assistente, traditam per Apostolos revelationem seu fidei depositum sancte custodirent et fideliter exponerent.