Open Letter to the Bishops of Malta

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017, Veri Catholici, the International Association of Catholics for the Defense of the Faith against the Errors of Cardinal Kasper, published in the Times of Malta Newspaper, on p. 29, an Open Letter to the Bishops of Malta and Gozo regarding their recent pastoral document, in which they have openly approved of communion for those living in public sin.

The Republic of Malta, one of the smallest Nation States of the European Union, is a Republic consisting of numerous islands, the largest two of which are Malta and Gozo. The Archbishop of Malta is Msgr. Charles Jude Scicluna, a native of Canada; the Bishop of Gozo is Msgr. Mario Grech, a native Maltese.  The Archbishop, like all the principal members of “Team Bergoglio”, traces his episcopal lineage back to the notorious Mariano Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro, rival of Pope St. Pius X in the Conclave of 1903.

The actual text of the Open Letter is as follows, in jpg format, for proof the advertisement was published in the Times of Malta, click on the image to see the full page:

Layout 1

Those wishing to sign the open Letter may do so by leaving a comment below this post, indicating their name, and the town in the Republic of Malta, where they reside. If you reside outside of Malta, please mention also your nation.

If you wish to help with the costs of running the Advertisement in the Maltese Paper, please use our PayPal Button in the Right column of this page. Thank you! — Note: now that the Advertisement has been published, on page 29 of the Wednesday, Jan. 25th edition of the Times of Malta, we encourage all to  purchase a copy.


Filed under English

Bishop Schneider speaks in favor of the 5 Dubia by the 4 Cardinals


“We cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth” (2 Cor. 13: 8)

A Prophetic Voice of Four Cardinals of the Holy Roman Catholic Church

(Reprinted from Rorate Caeli )

Out of “deep pastoral concern,” four Cardinals of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, His Eminence Joachim Meisner, Archbishop emeritus of Cologne (Germany), His Eminence Carlo Caffarra, Archbishop emeritus of  Bologna (Italy), His Eminence Raymond Leo Burke, Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and His Eminence Walter Brandmüller, President emeritus of the Pontifical Commission of Historical Sciences, have published on November 14, 2016, the text of five questions, called dubia (Latin for “doubts”), which previously on September 19, 2016, they sent to the Holy Father and to Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, along with an accompanying letter. The Cardinals ask Pope Francis to clear up “grave disorientation and great confusion” concerning the interpretation and practical application, particularly of chapter VIII, of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia and its passages relating to admission of remarried divorcees to the sacraments and the Church’s moral teaching.

In their statement entitled “Seeking Clarity: A Plea to Untie the Knots in Amoris Laetitia,” the Cardinals say that to “many — bishops, priests, faithful — these paragraphs allude to or even explicitly teach a change in the discipline of the Church with respect to the divorced who are living in a new union.” Speaking so, the Cardinals have merely stated real facts in the life of the Church. These facts are demonstrated by pastoral orientations on behalf of several dioceses and by public statements of some bishops and cardinals, who affirm that in some cases divorced and remarried Catholics can be admitted to Holy Communion even though they continue to use the rights reserved by Divine law to validly married spouses.

In publishing a plea for clarity in a matter that touches the truth and the sanctity simultaneously of the three sacraments of Marriage, Penance, and the Eucharist, the Four Cardinals only did their basic duty as bishops and cardinals, which consists in actively contributing so that the revelation transmitted through the Apostles might be guarded sacredly and might be faithfully interpreted. It was especially the Second Vatican Council that reminded all the members of the college of bishops as legitimate successors of the Apostles of their obligation, according to which “by Christ’s institution and command they have to be solicitous for the whole Church, and that this solicitude, though it is not exercised by an act of jurisdiction, contributes greatly to the advantage of the universal Church. For it is the duty of all bishops to promote and to safeguard the unity of faith and the discipline common to the whole Church” (Lumen gentium, 23; cf. also Christus Dominus, 5-6).

In making a public appeal to the Pope, bishops and cardinals should be moved by genuine collegial affection for the Successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ on earth, following the teaching of Vatican Council II (cf. Lumen gentium, 22); in so doing they render “service to the primatial ministry” of the Pope (cf. Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops, 13).

The entire Church in our days has to reflect upon the fact that the Holy Spirit has not in vain inspired Saint Paul to write in the Letter to the Galatians about the incident of his public correction of Peter. One has to trust that Pope Francis will accept this public appeal of the Four Cardinals in the spirit of the Apostle Peter, when St Paul offered him a fraternal correction for the good of the whole Church. May the words of that great Doctor of the Church, St Thomas Aquinas, illuminate and comfort us all: “When there is a danger for the faith, subjects are required to reprove their prelates, even publicly. Since Paul, who was subject to Peter, out of the danger of scandal, publicly reproved him. And Augustine comments: “Peter himself gave an example to superiors by not disdaining to be corrected by his subjects when it occurred to them that he had departed from the right path” (Summa theol., II-II, 33, 4c).

Pope Francis often calls for an outspoken and fearless dialogue between all members of the Church in matters concerning the spiritual good of souls. In the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, the Pope speaks of a need for “open discussion of a number of doctrinal, moral, spiritual, and pastoral questions. The thinking of pastors and theologians, if faithful to the Church, honest, realistic and creative, will help us to achieve greater clarity” (n. 2). Furthermore, relationships at all levels within the Church must be free from a climate of fear and intimidation, as Pope Francis has requested in his various pronouncements.

In light of these pronouncements of Pope Francis and the principle of dialogue and acceptance of legitimate plurality of opinions, which was fostered by the documents of the Second Vatican Council, the unusually violent and intolerant reactions on behalf of some bishops and cardinals against the calm and circumspect plea of the Four Cardinals cause great astonishment. Among such intolerant reactions one could read affirmations such as, for instance: the four Cardinals are witless, naive, schismatic, heretical, and even comparable to the Arian heretics.

Such apodictic merciless judgments reveal not only intolerance, refusal of dialogue, and irrational rage, but demonstrate also a surrender to the impossibility of speaking the truth, a surrender to relativism in doctrine and practice, in faith and life. The above-mentioned clerical reaction against the prophetic voice of the Four Cardinals parades ultimately powerlessness before the eyes of the truth. Such a violent reaction has only one aim: to silence the voice of the truth, which is disturbing and annoying the apparently peaceful nebulous ambiguity of these clerical critics.

The negative reactions to the public statement of the Four Cardinals resemble the general doctrinal confusion of the Arian crisis in the fourth century. It is helpful to all to quote in the situation of the doctrinal confusion in our days some affirmations of Saint Hilary of Poitiers, the “Athanasius of the West”.

“You [the bishops of Gaul] who still remain with me faithful in Christ did not give way when threatened with the onset of heresy, and now by meeting that onset you have broken all its violence. Yes, brethren, you have conquered, to the abundant joy of those who share your faith: and your unimpaired constancy gained the double glory of keeping a pure conscience and giving an authoritative example” (Hil. De Syn., 3).

“Your [the bishops of Gaul] invincible faith keeps the honourable distinction of conscious worth and, content with repudiating crafty, vague, or hesitating action, safely abides in Christ, preserving the profession of its liberty. For since we all suffered deep and grievous pain at the actions of the wicked against God, within our boundaries alone is communion in Christ to be found from the time that the Church began to be harried by disturbances such as the expatriation of bishops, the deposition of priests, the intimidation of the people, the threatening of the faith, and the determination of the meaning of Christ’s doctrine by human will and power. Your resolute faith does not pretend to be ignorant of these facts or profess that it can tolerate them, perceiving that by the act of hypocritical assent it would bring itself before the bar of conscience” (Hil. De Syn., 4).

“I have spoken what I myself believed, conscious that I owed it as my soldier’s service to the Church to send to you in accordance with the teaching of the Gospel by these letters the voice of the office which I hold in Christ. It is yours to discuss, to provide and to act, that the inviolable fidelity in which you stand you may still keep with conscientious hearts, and that you may continue to hold what you hold now” (Hil. De Syn., 92).

The following words of Saint Basil the Great, addressed to the Latin Bishops, can be in some aspects applied to the situation of those who in our days ask for doctrinal clarity, including our Four Cardinals: “The one charge which is now sure to secure severe punishment is the careful keeping of the traditions of the Fathers. We are not being attacked for the sake of riches, or glory, or any temporal advantages. We stand in the arena to fight for our common heritage, for the treasure of the sound faith, derived from our Fathers. Grieve with us, all you who love the brethren, at the shutting of the mouths of our men of true religion, and at the opening of the bold and blasphemous lips of all that utter unrighteousness against God. The pillars and foundation of the truth are scattered abroad. We, whose insignificance has allowed of our being overlooked, are deprived of our right of free speech” (Ep. 243, 2.4).

Today those bishops and cardinals, who ask for clarity and who try to fulfill their duty in guarding sacredly and faithfully interpreting the transmitted Divine Revelation concerning the Sacraments of Marriage and the Eucharist, are no longer exiled as it was with the Nicene bishops during the Arian crisis. Contrary to the time of the Arian crisis, today, as wrote Rudolf Graber, the bishop of Ratisbone, in 1973, exile of the bishops is replaced by hush-up strategies and by slander campaigns (cf. Athanasius und die Kirche unserer Zeit, Abensberg 1973, p. 23).

Another champion of the Catholic faith during the Arian crisis was Saint Gregory Nazianzen. He wrote the following striking characterization of the behavior of the majority of the shepherds of the Church in those times. This voice of the great Doctor of the Church should be a salutary warning for the bishops of all times: “Surely the pastors have done foolishly; for, excepting a very few, who either on account of their insignificance were passed over, or who by reason of their virtue resisted, and who were to be left as a seed and root for the springing up again and revival of Israel by the influences of the Spirit, all temporized, only differing from each other in this, that some succumbed earlier, and others later; some were foremost champions and leaders in the impiety, and others joined the second rank of the battle, being overcome by fear, or by interest, or by flattery, or, what was the most excusable, by their own ignorance” (Orat. 21, 24).

When Pope Liberius in 357 signed one of the so called formulas of Sirmium, in which he deliberately discarded the dogmatically defined expression “homo-ousios” and excommunicated Saint Athanasius in order to have peace and harmony with the Arian and Semi-Arian bishops of the East, faithful Catholics and some few bishops, especially Saint Hilary of Poitiers, were deeply shocked. Saint Hilary transmitted the letter that Pope Liberius wrote to the Oriental bishops, announcing the acceptance of the formula of Sirmium and the excommunication of Saint Athanasius. In his deep pain and dismay, Saint Hilary added to the letter in a kind of desperation the phrase: “Anathema tibi a me dictum, praevaricator Liberi” (I say to you anathema, prevaricator Liberius), cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, n. 141. Pope Liberius wanted to have peace and harmony at any price, even at the expense of the Divine truth. In his letter to the heterodox Latin bishops Ursace, Valence, and Germinius announcing to them the above-mentioned decisions, he wrote that he preferred peace and harmony to martyrdom (cf. cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, n. 142).

“In what a dramatic contrast stood the behavior of Pope Liberius to the following conviction of Saint Hilary of Poitiers: “We don’t make peace at the expense of the truth by making concessions in order to acquire the reputation of tolerance. We make peace by fighting legitimately according to the rules of the Holy Spirit. There is a danger to ally surreptitiously with unbelief under the beautiful name of peace.” (Hil. Ad Const., 2, 6, 2).

Blessed John Henry Newman commented on these unusual sad facts with the following wise and equilibrated affirmation: “While it is historically true, it is in no sense doctrinally false, that a Pope, as a private doctor, and much more Bishops, when not teaching formally, may err, as we find they did err in the fourth century. Pope Liberius might sign a Eusebian formula at Sirmium, and the mass of Bishops at Ariminum or elsewhere, and yet they might, in spite of this error, be infallible in their ex cathedra decisions” (The Arians of the Fourth Century, London, 1876, p. 465).

The Four Cardinals with their prophetic voice demanding doctrinal and pastoral clarity have a great merit before their own conscience, before history, and before the innumerable simple faithful Catholics of our days, who are driven to the ecclesiastical periphery, because of their fidelity to Christ’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage. But above all, the Four Cardinals have a great merit in the eyes of Christ. Because of their courageous voice, their names will shine brightly at the Last Judgment. For they obeyed the voice of their conscience remembering the words of Saint Paul: “We cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth” (2 Cor 13: 8). Surely, at the Last Judgment the above-mentioned mostly clerical critics of the Four Cardinals will not have an easy answer for their violent attack on such a just, worthy, and meritorious act of these Four Members of the Sacred College of Cardinals.

The following words inspired by the Holy Spirit retain their prophetic value especially in view of the spreading doctrinal and practical confusion regarding the Sacrament of Marriage in our days: “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry” (2 Tim. 4: 3-5).

May all, who in our days still take seriously their baptismal vows and their priestly and episcopal promises, receive the strength and the grace of God so that they may reiterate together with Saint Hilary the words: “May I always be in exile, if only the truth begins to be preached again!” (De Syn., 78). This strength and grace we wish wholeheartedly to our Four Cardinals and as well as to those who criticize them.

+ Athanasius Schneider,
Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana


Filed under English

#ALConf — What, when, where?

Immagine 053

On Saturday June 25, 2016, the members of the International Association, Veri Catholici, met at Rome at the Tiempo Business Center from 9 am to 6:30 pm, on via Leone XIII, to speak of the tremendous threat to the Catholic Faith and Ecclesial Unity possed by the recent so-called, Apostolic Exhortation, ‘Amoris Laetitia’, and to condemn its  errors, and petition the Pope and Bishops that it be withdrawn and its authors repent.

This conference had been announced nearly 2 months before (see our left side bar for announcements, e.g. English version).

Introductory Remarks

Talks published on web, as of today:

Libellus of Condemnation of errors in Amoris Laetitia, or implicit in it:

English original:

Italian translation:

Spanish translation:

Petition to the Pope

Petition to the Bishops

Copy of documents sent to the Secretary of State on June 27th:

Cover Letter sent by courier to Cardinal Secretary of State, June 27, 2016, asking that our Petition be given personally to the Pope.

Cover Letter sent by courier to Cardinal Secretary of State, June 27, 2016, asking that our Petition be given personally to the Pope.

Petition to the Pope, as presented by courier to offices of Cardinal Secretary of State on June 27, 2016

Petition to the Pope, as presented by courier to offices of Cardinal Secretary of State on June 27, 2016

Proof of Service for delivery and reception of documents.

Proof of Service for delivery and reception of documents.

1 Comment

Filed under English

#ALConf — Opening Salutation and Introduction


We receive and republish, the opening talks from the “International Conference on Amoris Laetitia”, held in Rome over the weekend: + + + #AL Conference 9:00 AM — Salutation by Frà Regin…

Source: #ALConf — Opening Salutation and Introduction

Leave a comment

Filed under English

Sign the Petitions to the Pope and Bishops

Click the Links below to sign the petitions, read during our #ALConf Conference

Petition to Pope Francis

Petition to the Bishops


Filed under English

Libellus de condena de los errores

 Christ the King

Libellus de condena de los errores contenidos en , presupuestos o subyacentes del documento ‘ Amoris Laetitia ‘

Conscientes de la enseñanza de Nuestro Altísimo Señor, Jesucristo, que nuestro “Sí”, sea un “sí” y nuestro “No”, un “no”, y del mismo modo, conscientes de la enseñanza de su Vicario en la tierra, el Papa Pío VI, en buena memoria, quien enseñó:

Cuando se hace necesario exponer algunas declaraciones, que disimulan cierto error o daño sospechado, bajo el velo de la ambigüedad, uno debe denunciar el significado perverso bajo el cual el error que se opone a la Verdad Católica es camuflado.

Nosotros, los miembros de Veri Catholici, deseamos expresar nuestra lealtad a la Fe que hemos recibido de los labios de Cristo, a través de la predicación de los Apóstoles, y como dicta la Iglesia Católica y fortalecida por el infalible Magisterio de la Iglesia, al condenar la llamada Exhortación Apostólica “Amoris Laetitita”, como un trabajo de engaño y falsedad, error y herejía, y que entre los errores nosotros condenamos los siguientes:

Contra el Modernismo

Condenamos junto a Santo Pio X, la noción de que los dogmas de fe evolucionan o de que la Iglesia llega a un entendimiento más claro de la verdad, mediante el esfuerzo de los hombres, que luchan para acomodar las enseñanzas de Cristo y de los Apóstoles, a los deseos, costumbres, modales o cultura de la época en la que viven.

Contra el Falso Pastoralismo

Condenamos la noción de que la verdad de la Fe Católica respecto al Matrimonio puede ser correctamente enseñada y aplicada pastoralmente, mediante la omisión de la palabra adulterio, palabra que está completamente AUSENTE en el documento, como indica la Dra. Anna M. Silva.

Condenamos la noción de que la moral Católica, la ley moral o los preceptos morales del Antiguo y Nuevo Testamento, sean sólo un ideal al cual aspirar, y no sean considerados obligaciones que deben ser cumplidas como la exigencia mínima de la vida Cristiana, ya que Nuestro Señor y Salvado nos ordenó: “Si me Aman, guarden Mis mandatos”, y no dijo: “Si me Amas, presta atención a Mis Consejos”.

Condenamos la noción de que ya no se puede decir categóricamente, que los pecadores públicos, están en estado de pecado mortal, o que son pecadores, o referirse al estilo de vida pecaminoso de vida que tienen, o que son adictos al pecado.

Condenamos el uso de un lenguaje difuso para ocultar, o para lograr que uno olvide las verdades inmutables de la Fe, como fueron enseñadas por Cristo y Sus Apóstoles, y entregadas desde tiempos inmemorables a la Iglesia.

Condenamos el uso de las afirmaciones de la Verdad Católica, para confundir a los fieles, en esas partes del documento, que están plagadas de errores, blasfemia y herejía.

Condenamos como falsa ética pastoral, que el Clero no predique ni enseñe a todos los fieles o a cualquier creyente, que el adulterio es moralmente pecaminoso.

Condenamos como una falsa ética pastoral, que el Clero permanezca en silencio o que no desapruebe públicamente y como es costumbre, el adulterio o el divorcio.

Condenamos como cruel y despiadada, la noción de que es moralmente lícito satisfacer a los pecadores públicos habituales, con la integración a la vida de la parroquia, cuando se han rehusado a arrepentirse y dejar su vida pública de pecado, y que por ello no se los debe incomodar habitualmente, siempre y cuando permanezcan en ese estado, con la práctica atemporal Apostólica de negarles el Sacramento y la sociedad humana.

Condenamos como falsa y perjudicial a la buena moral y correcta formación de conciencia, la noción de que los pecadores mortales habituales, no deberían sentirse excomulgados, cuando ellos han rechazado constantemente el arrepentirse.

Condenamos la hipocresía del pastor que escribe: “Naturalmente, si alguien hace alarde de un pecado real, como si fuera parte del ideal Cristiano, o quiere imponer algo distinto de lo que enseña la Iglesia, el o ella, no pueden pretender enseñar o predicar a los demás”; mientras que luego elabora un documento que exonera a los pecadores y culpa a los pastores de almas, que aplican la disciplina apostólica y tradicional de la Iglesia sobre ellos.

Condenamos como falsa la práctica ética pastoral, sobre la preferencia de la disciplina sacramental, que causa confusión en uno sobre lo que es claro y lo que es blanco y negro.

Condenamos como tramposa la promulgación de una Exhortación, que explícitamente afirma, que no se debe imponer nuevas reglas con órdenes desde la Sede Apostólica, a las Conferencias Episcopales sobre los informes de cómo será implementado el documento.

Condenamos como fraudulenta y errónea la práctica pastoral, que propone todas las consideraciones para la auto-reflexión de los pecadores públicos habituales, pero excluye aquellas respecto a la necesidad absoluta de cumplir los preceptos divinos y morales como una condición para la salvación eterna y el peligro inmediato de la eterna condenación como consecuencia de su rechazo y no conformidad con las mismas.

En Contra de la Falsa Moral

Condenamos junto al concilio de Trento, la noción de que lo que Dios a ordenando es muy difícil de cumplir, o de que El no ha dado, no da o no dará la suficiente gracia para cumplir con cada uno de Sus preceptos.

Condenamos la idea de que la catequesis, que merece el nombre de ‘correcta y Católica’, pueda ser impartida de una manera en la que no se menciona la necesidad absoluta de observar y cumplir los mandamientos de Dios, como un requisito previo para el regalo de la eterna salvación.

Condenamos la afirmación falsa y herética que indica: “ya no puede ser dicho que todos aquellos en situaciones ‘irregulares’, estén viviendo en un estado de pecado mortal o que estén privados de la gracia santificante”, ya que verdad de fe, que el pecado mortal priva al alma de la gracia santificante, como el Apóstol San Juan enseña.

Condenamos como falsa la afirmación de que a pesar de “que un sujeto  a pesar de saber  a cabalidad la regla, pero aún así tiene gran dificultad en entender su valor intrínseco”, se le pueda por lo tanto, permitir transgredir la regla, o se le permita o aconseje hacerlo.

Condenamos como falsa la idea de que uno puede evitar todo el pecado al no tomar una decisión, cuando la práctica real moral no está en conformidad con los estándares objetivos de la ley divina, moral o natural, ya que deliberadamente un pecado de omisión en observancia de estas leyes sobre asuntos graves es mortal.

Condenamos como engaño y trampa el uso de la cita del Doctor Angélico, cuando se habla de aquellos con gracia habitual, a los que están en estado de pecado mortal.

Condenamos la falsa y blasfema noción de que Dios Mismo pueda inspirar a un alma para tomar un paso hacia estar mejor dispuesto al arrepentimiento y bajo esa premisa, los absuelva de la obligación moral de la misma en ese momento de arrepentimiento, o tomando en cuenta que una obra muerta tiene un mérito de justificación.

Condenamos como un engaño la cita del Doctor Angélico sobre la dificultad de entender la aplicación de los principios morales en casos específicos, como si se hiciera referencia a la falla de los principios mismos o su no aplicabilidad en esos casos.

Condenamos la idea de que la ley natural, marcada por Dios en todas las cosas, no es un conjunto a priori de las obligaciones morales universalmente vinculantes a todos los seres humanos.

Condenamos la falsa y blasfema afirmación de que el proceso de una mejor disposición personal a la gracia y conversión es un proceso de santificación, como si tal error reviviera el error de los Fariseos, que consideraban los trabajos de la Ley como meritorios o efectivos por si mismos de la gracia de la justificación o santificación.

Condenamos como engañosa, la contradicción de términos y de herética la noción de que el alma en estado de pecado mortal, pueda crecer en gracia, por cualquier medio, mientras permanece en ese estado.

Nosotros condenamos como falsa y herética la afirmación de que el término “pecado mortal”, ya no sea usado al referirse a pecadores públicos que violan un importante precepto de Dios, revelado por Dios.

Condenamos como falsa la cita de los escritos de Juan Pablo II, con el propósito de refutar su condenación de la ley de la gradualidad sobre la moral.

Condenamos como falsa la noción de que las obligaciones de una conciencia subjetiva falsa, tienen prioridad sobre las obligaciones objetivas de la moral o la ley sacramental.

En Contra de los Errores que se Oponen a la Eclesiología Católica

Condenamos la idea de que uno puede compartir espiritualidad en la vida de la Iglesia, pero de manera incompleta, ya que todas las cosas espirituales son simples e imposibles de dividir.

De igual manera, condenamos, la noción de que aquellos que están en pecado mortal, comparten la vida espiritual de la Iglesia.

Condenamos el pensamiento de que aquellos en pecado mortal tienen una manera de  participar en la vida de la Iglesia, que es apropiada para aquellos que permanecen en pecado mortal, en vez de arrepentirse de su pecado y retornar a la vida de gracia y los Sacramentos.

Nosotros Condenamos como falsa y herética la idea que aquellos en pecado mortal habitual, público o privado, deban ser integrados a la vida de la Iglesia de alguna forma que no sea mediante el arrepentimiento y la Confesión.

Condenamos como blasfema y herética la noción de que la Novia Inmaculada de Cristo, la Santa Madre Iglesia, deba ensuciarse a Si Misma con los pecados de Sus hijos, o Acomodarse, o cambiar Sus hábitos de practicar la caridad pastoral con los de los valores mundanos y corruptos, y los hábitos del mundo.

Condenamos como falsa y errónea, la noción de que en el ministerio pastoral, la caridad deba ser predicada ANTES que la fe y el arrepentimiento, ya que para el hombre de pecado, es sólo el santo temor de Dios que hará que el amor a Dios surja.

Contra la Promoción de los Abusos a los Sacramentos

 Condenamos la idea que bajo cualquier pretexto o circunstancia, o conciencia, un individuo puede eximirse o ser exento por su confesor, de las obligaciones de recibir los Sacramentos con fe y arrepentimiento, o en estado de pecado público.

Condenamos la noción de que es lícito moralmente, y no meritorio de eterna y perpetua condenación, que un individuo reciba el Sacramento en estado de pecado mortal, o que un Confesor permita al pecador el recibir los Sacramentos en tal estado.

Nosotros condenamos la idea de que un individuo que ha admitido haber cometido un acto, que es gravemente inmoral in se, y que no se arrepiente, se le puede permitir bajo cualquier pretexto, por alguien que sepa de esto en el fuero externo, a partir de la recepción de una Sacramento.

Condenamos la noción de que un pecador mortal regular, puede por su mal hábito de pecado, llegar a ser inocente de sus actos individuales de pecado y de que pueda acercarse a los Sacramentos, sin el total arrepentimiento, contrición perfecta y fe Católica, o ser admitido lícitamente de hacerlo por cualquier autoridad en la Tierra.

Condenamos de blasfema y herética la afirmación de que la Confesión es o puede ser una “cámara de tortura”, debido a que tal afirmación no es apropiada de la boca de un Cristiano, pero de la boca de un demonio.

Condenamos la afirmación de que la perenne recepción de disciplina sacramental, de negar el acceso a los sacramentos, a los pecadores habituales o pecadores públicos es cruel haciendo caso a la sensibilidad moderna, o en la necesidad en una reformulación.

Condenamos como blasfemo, herético y depravado el juicio que afirma que aquellos que se adscriben a la disciplina sacramental tradicional son Fariseos y rigoristas.

Condenamos cualquier insinuación o esfuerzo “para superar” las actuales “formas de exclusión” que han sido parte de la disciplina sacramental tradicional en la Iglesia desde tiempos inmemorables.

Contra los Errores que se Oponen a la Fe Católica sobre los Tiempos Finales

 Nosotros condenamos la noción de que “nadie puede ser condenado para siempre”, o de que la afirmación de la eterna o perpetua condenación de individuos en general, es contraria a la “lógica del Evangelio”, porque el Mismo Señor Jesucristo , en cumplimiento con la voluntad de Su Padre Eterno, denunció a los Fariseos de la Ley Antigua, diciendo enfáticamente: “Ustedes morirán en sus pecados”, y predijo que Él le diría a los malvados en el Último Juicio: “Apartaos de mi en el fuego eterno preparado por Satanás y sus ángeles”.

Condenamos la afirmación de que los sagrados ministros de Cristo, en cumplimiento con su tarea Apostólica, no puedan amenazar con la condena eterna a los individuos que cometen, persisten, aprueban o condonan actos morales de cualquier tipo, que sean formalmente contrarios a la ley de Dios, de acuerdo al género, especie, intención o circunstancia.

Condenamos que la idea de que los sagrados ministros de Cristo y todos los fieles, en fidelidad con su Bautismo, no puedan o no deban condenar tales actos morales, como meritorios de la condena perdurable y eterna en los fuegos del Infierno, o que al hacerlo transgreden la obligación de la caridad divina.

Condenamos la afirmación herética o aseveración de que no hay o pueden non haber almas condenadas en el Infierno, o que la salvación de todos o de alguien en particular se pueda presumir a priori.

Condenamos la aseveración herética de que, el Infierno no es un espacio físico, en vista de que Cristo mismo afirmó que en el Gehena, las almas y cuerpos serán castigados con sufrimientos espirituales y físicos.

Condenamos la afirmación herética de que luego de la muerte el alma humana deja de existir.

Nosotros condenamos la noción de que en la muerte, no hay un juicio particular del individuo.

Condenamos la idea de que al morir, un individuo es juzgado sólo de acuerdo a su opinión fundamental a favor o en contra de Dios, y no en particular por el cumplimiento de los preceptos divinos.

Contra los Errores que se Oponen al Sacramento del Matrimonio

 Condenamos junto al concilio de Trento, como falsa o herética la idea de que el estado de virginidad escogido por amor a Dios, y la búsqueda y práctica de la perfección evangélica, no sea en si misma un estado superior al estado del santo Matrimonio, realizado con el debido ritual de la Iglesia.

Condenamos la noción que el matrimonio natural o sacramento del matrimonio es un ideal que requiere esfuerzo y/o no es una institución divina de obligaciones que une a hombres y mujeres que desean formar una familia o unirse como pareja.

Nosotros condenamos el concepto de que la recepción del Sacramento del Matrimonio no es una obligación moral grave para todos los Católicos que desean tener hijos o utilizar el poder de procreación, que Dios les ha dado, y que sea simplemente una opción enriquecedora para su superación personal.

Condenamos la noción que los dos fines del matrimonio, el procreativo y el unitivo son iguales, o que el último no esté subordinado al primero.

Condenamos la idea de que los Católicos que se casan por lo civil y no por la Iglesia, “no están usualmente motivados por el prejuicio o la resistencia a una unión sacramental, pero por la cultura o situaciones contingentes”, como si la preferencia de los valores del mundo no constituyera prejuicio y resistencia hacia la aceptación de la enseñanza de la Iglesia sobre el Sacramento.

Condenamos la noción de que cualquier uso deliberado del poder procreador del cuerpo humano, fuera del matrimonio, es moralmente lícito en cualquier momento para cualquier persona.

Nosotros rechazamos como herética y blasfema la idea de las uniones adúlteras o impuras puedan de alguna manera reflejar el amor de Dios, Quien es infinitamente puro y debe ser adorado en espíritu de verdad.

Nosotros rechazamos como falsa y sacrílega la sugerencia de que en la Escritura, donde Jesús habla a la mujer Samaritana, se sugiera que este diálogo tenía el propósito de santificar la unión adúltera en la cual El la encontró.

Condenamos la idea de que un individuo viviendo en adulterio, tiene mayor obligación moral para mantenerse en su unión adúltera, tomando en cuenta los hijos de esa unión, y no considerando debe terminar esa relación adultera considerando el precepto de Cristo en contra del adulterio.

Condenamos la noción de que la familia o el matrimonio puede constituirse en verdad por cualquier factor que no sea la unión de 1 hombre con 1 mujer.

Condenamos como malicioso y engañoso el uso de citas de los documentos Magisteriales, que hacen referencia al Sacramento del Matrimonio, para la defensa de las uniones adúlteras o ilícitas.

Condenamos la falsa idea de que el individuo puede juzgar como lícito la validez de un matrimonio, sin buscar ayuda de la autoridad eclesial, como si la jurisdicción de un tribunal se debiera a un derecho de juicio propio, adecuado o falsamente formado

Nosotros condenamos como blasfema y herética la noción de que el Evangelio de la Fe y el Arrepentimiento, que predicó Cristo desde su primer día en Su ministerio público, no sea una solución fácil a la dificultad moral en la que habitualmente se encuentran los pecadores públicos.

Contra el Abuso del Oficio Pastoral

Condenamos como una injuria a la disciplina eclesial, y grave falta al oficio pastoral, exhortar al Clero, a no continuar en adhesión fiel a la disciplina sacramental  tradicional, así como llamarlos a acomodarse a la moral corrupta y mentalidad del tiempo presente.

Condenamos como una grave traición, el uso del Oficio Petrino, para alentar, promover o disponer de las almas para que acepten distanciarse de la fidelidad a Cristo, de la fidelidad a los Apóstoles, de la fidelidad a las enseñanzas contenidas en la Sagrada Escritura y /o transmitidas por la Sagrada Tradición, bajo cualquier pretexto de amor, misericordia o compasión.

Nosotros condenamos como una grave traición al ataque a la unidad de la Iglesia, al usar el Oficio Petrino, para alentar a las iglesias locales de distanciarse de la fidelidad a Cristo, la fidelidad a los Apóstoles, de la fidelidad a las a las enseñanzas contenidas en la Sagrada Escritura y /o transmitidas por la Sagrada Tradición, bajo cualquier pretexto de amor, misericordia o compasión.



Leave a comment

Filed under Español

Libellus of Condemned Errors regarding ‘Amoris Laetitia’

Christ the King

Libellus of Condemnation of the Errors Contained in, presupposed by, or underlying the document ‘Amoris Laetitia’

Mindful of the teaching of Our Most High Lord, Jesus Christ, that our “Yes”, be a “yes” and our “No”, a “no”, and, similarly mindful of the teaching of His Vicar on Earth, Pope Pius VI, of good memory, who taught:

“Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger, under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic Truth is camouflaged”

We the members of Veri Catholici wish to express our loyalty to the faith which we have received from the lips of Christ through the preaching of the Apostles, as handed down in the Catholic Church and fortified by the infallible Magisterium of the Church, in condemning the so called Apostolic Exhortation, “Amoris Laetitia” as a work of deceit and trickery, error and heresy, among which errors we condemn the following:

Against Modernism

We condemn with St. Pius X, the notion that the dogmas of the faith evolve or that the Church comes to a more clear understanding of the truth by means of the exertions of men who strive to accommodate the teachings of Christ and the Apostles to the desires, customs, manners or culture of the age in which they live.

Against False Pastoralism

We condemn the notion that the truth of the Catholic Faith regarding Marriage can be rightly taught and pastorally applied by the omission of the word, “adultery”, entirely absent from the document, as Dr. Anna M. Silva observes.

We condemn the notion that for a Catholic the moral law or moral precepts of the Old and New Testaments are an ideal to aimed for and not obligations which must be observed as the bare minimum of Christian life, since Our Lord and Savior commanded all of us, “If you love Me, keep My commandments”, not “If you love Me, heed My counsels”.

We condemn the notion that public sinners can no longer be said categorically to be in the state of mortal sin, or sinners, or sinful, or living lives of sin, or addicted to sin.

We condemn the use of prolix language to hide or cause one to forget the immutable truths of the Faith as taught by Christ and His Apostles and handed down from time immemorial in the Church.

We condemn the use of the assertion of Catholic Truth to disarm the faithful from those portions of the document which are rife with error, blasphemy and heresy.

We condemn as a false pastoral ethic, that the Clergy not preach and teach to the entire faithful or to any individual believer, that adultery is mortally sinful.

We condemn as a false pastoral ethic, that the Clergy remain silent or not publicly and habitually disapprove of adultery or divorce.

We condemn as cruel and heartless the notion that it is morally licit to content habitual public sinners with integration into the life of the parish, when they have refused to repent and leave their sinful life, and not to discomfort them habitually so long as they remain such with the timeless Apostolic practice of refusing them sacrament and human society.

We condemn as false and injurious to good morals and a right formation of conscience the notion that habitual mortal sinners should not be made to feel excommunicated when they have habitually refused repentance.

We condemn the hypocrisy of a pastor who would write, “Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others” (AL 297) all the while crafting a document to exculpate sinners and fault the pastors of souls who apply the apostolic and traditional discipline of the Church for them.

We condemn as a false pastoral ethic, the preference for a sacramental discipline which causes confusion over one which is clear and black-and-white.

We condemn as deceitful the promulgation of an Exhoration which explicitly asserts not to impose new rules with orders from the Apostolic See to Episcopal conferences regarding the reporting of how the document is to be implemented.

We condemn as false and erroneous the pastoral pratice which proposes all questions for self reflection for habitual public sinners but those which regard the absolute necessity of observance of the divine and moral precepts as a condition of eternal salvation and the immediate necessary danger of eternal damnation on account of their objective non conformity with these.

Against False Morality

We condemn with Trent the notion that what God has commanded is too difficult to observe, or that He has not, does not or will not give sufficient grace to observe each and all of His precepts.

We condemn the notion that a catechesis which merits the name ‘right and catholic’, can be given in which there is no mention of the absolute necessity of the observance of God’s commandments as a precondition for the gift of eternal salvation.

We condemn as false and heretical the assertion that “it can no longer be simply said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace” (AL 301), since it is de fide that mortal sin deprives a soul of sanctifying grace, as the Apostle St. John teaches.

We condemn as false that assertion that though “a subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding its inherent value“, that therefore he may be licitly allowed to transgress it, or counseled or permitted to do so.

We condemn as false, the notion that one can avoid all sin by not making a decision, when their objective moral practice is not in conformity with the objective standards of the divine, moral or natural law, since a deliberate sin of omission in the observances of these laws in grave matters is mortal.

We condemn as deceitful and a trickery the application of a quotation by the Angelic Doctor, when speaking of those with habitual grace, to those who are in the state of mortal sin.

We condemn as false and blasphemous the notion that God Himself might inspire a soul to take a step towards being better disposed to repentance and on that basis absolve them from the moral obligation thereof in that moment of repentance or account that dead work as meritorious of justification.

We condemn as deceitful the quotation of the Angelic Doctor in regard to the difficulty in understanding the application of moral principles in detailed cases, as if he were speaking of the failure of the principles themselves or their non applicability to such cases.

We condemn the notion that the natural law, inscribed by God into all things, is not an a priori set of moral obligations universally binding all human individuals.

We condemn as false and blasphemous the assertion that the process of better disposing oneself to the grace of conversion is a process of sanctification, as such an error revives the error of the Pharisees which regarded works of the Law as meritorious of or effective out of themselves of the grace of justification or sanctification.

We condemn as false, a contradiction in terms and heretical the notion that a soul in the state of mortal sin can grow in grace, by whatever means, while remaining in such a state.

We condemn as false and heretical the assertion that the term “mortal sin”, or “deadly sin” no longer be used of public sinners who violate a grave Divine precept revealed by God.

We condemn the false quotation of the writings of John Paul II for the purpose of refuting his condemnation of the law of graduality in morals.

We condemn the false notion that the obligations of a subjective false conscience take priority over the objective obligation of the moral or sacramental law.

 Against the errors opposed to Catholic Ecclesiology

We condemn the notion that one can share spiritually in the life of the Church but incompletely, since all things spiritual are simple and are not capable of division.

We likewise condemn the notion that those in mortal sin share spiritually in the life of the Church.

We condemn the notion that those in mortal sin have a way of participating in the life of the Church which is proper to those who remain in mortal sin, rather than by repenting of their sin and returning to the life of grace and the Sacraments.

We condemn as false and heretical the notion that those in habitual mortal sin, public or private, ought to be integrated into the life of the Church in any other way than by repentance and confession.

We condemn as blasphemous and heretical the notion that the Immaculate Bride of Christ, Holy Mother Church, should befoul Herself with the sins of Her children or accommodate Herself or Her manners of practicing pastoral charity with the mundane and corrupt values and habits of the world.

We condemn as false and erronous the notion that in the pastoral ministry charity should be preached before faith and repentance, since for sinful man it is only from the fear of God that the love of God arises.

Against the cultivated Abuse of the Sacraments

We condemn the notion that under any pretext of circumstance or conscience an individual can exempt himself or be exempted by his confessor from the obligation of receiving the Sacraments with repentance and faith, or in the state of grace.

We condemn the notion that it is morally licit, and not meritorious of eternal and everlasting damnation, for an individual to receive the Sacraments in the state of mortal sin, or for a Confessor to grant a sinner to so receive the Sacraments of the living in such a state.

We condemn the notion that an individual who has admitted the commission of an act which is gravely immoral in se, and is not repentant, can be permitted under any pretext by one who knows this in the external forum, to receive a Sacrament.

We condemn the notion, that a habitual mortal sinner can by his evil habit of sin come to be so inculpable of his individual acts of sin that he could approach the Sacraments without full repentance, perfect contrition and Catholic faith, or be allowed licitly to do so by any authority on Earth.

We condemn the blasphemous and heretical assertion that the Confessional is or can be a “torture chamber”, since such an affirmation is not fitting for a Christian mouth but for the mouth of a demon.

We condemn the assertion that the perennial and received sacramental discipline of denying the Sacraments to habitual or public sinners is cruel, inappropriate to modern sensibilities, or in need of a reformulation.

We condemn as blasphemous, heretical and a depravity of judgement the assertion that those who hold to the traditional sacramental discipline are Pharisees or rigorists.

We condemn any insinuation or effort “to overcome” the current “forms of exclusion” which have been part of the traditional sacramental discipline in the Church from time immemorial.

Against Errors opposed to Catholic Faith in the Last Things

We condemn the notion that “no one can be condemned forever”, or that the affirmation of eternal or perpetual condemnation of individuals in general, is contrary to “the logic of the Gospel”, because Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, in fulfillment of the will of His Eternal Father, denounced the Pharasees of the Old Law, saying emphatically, “You shall die in your sins”, and foretold that He would at the Last Judgement say to the wicked, “Depart from Me into the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels”.

We condemn the notion that Christ’s sacred ministers, in fulfillment of their Apostolic duty, cannot threaten with eternal damnation individuals who commit, persist, approve or condone of moral acts of whatever kind which are formally contrary to God’s law, according to genus, species, intention or circumstance.

We condemn the notion that Christ’s sacred ministers and all the faithful in fidelity to their Baptism, cannot or ought not condemn such moral acts as meritorious of eternal and everlasting damnation in the fires of Hell, or that in doing so they transgress the obligations of divine charity.

We condemn the heretical assertion or affirmation that that there are or there might be no souls condemned in Hell or that the salvation of all or of anyone in particular can be presumed a priori.

We condemn the heretical assertion or affirmation that, Hell is not a physical place, since Christ Himself affirmed that in Gehenna souls and bodies will be punished with spiritual and physical sufferings.

We condemn as heretical the assertion that after death the human soul does not continue to exist.

We condemn the notion that at death there is no particular judgement of the individual.

We condemn the notion that at death an individual is judged only on his fundamental option for or against God, and not on the particular observance of the divine precepts.

Against the Errors opposed to the Sacrament of Matrimony

We condemn with Trent as false and heretical the notion that the state of virginity chosen for the love of God and the pursuit and observance of evangelical perfection is not of itself superior to the state of holy Matrimony, confected with due ritual in the Church.

We condemn the notion that natural marriage or sacramental marriage is an ideal to be strived for and/or not a divine institution the obligations of which bind all men and women who wish to form a family or unite together as a couple.

We condemn the notion that the reception of the Sacrament of Matrimony is not a grave moral obligation for all Catholics who wish to have children or use the powers of procreation which God has given them, and that it is merely an enrichment option for their personal betterment.

We condemn the notion that the two ends of marriage, the procreative and the unitive are equal or that the latter is not subordinated to the former.

We condemn the notion that Catholics who marry civilly and not in the Church are “often not motivated by prejudice or resistance to a sacramental union, but by cultural or contingent situations”, as if preference of the values of the world did not constitute prejudice to or resistance toward the acceptance of the teaching of Christ on the Sacrament.

We condemn the notion that any deliberate use of the procreative power of the human body, outside of matrimony is morally licit at any time for any person.

We reject as blasphemous and heretical the notion that adulterous or impure unions can in any manner reflect the love of the God Who is infinitely pure and must be worshiped in spirit and in truth.

We reject as false and a sacrilege of Scripture the implication that Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman with a purpose of sanctifying the adulterous union in which He found her.

We condemn the notion that an individual living in adultery has a greater moral obligation to remain in an adulterous union, on account of the children, than of separating from it on account of Christ’s precept against adultery.

We condemn the notion that the family or marriage can be in truth constituted by anything other than the union of 1 man with 1 woman.

We condemn the notion that Catholics or any human person ought to respect and accept any other notion of marriage or family, than that constituted by 1 man and 1 woman.

We condemn as deceitful and malicious the use of quotations from Magisterial documents which regard the Sacrament of Matrimony to defend adulterous or illicit unions.

We condemn the false notion that the validity of a marriage can be legitimately judged by the individual without seeking recourse to ecclesiastical authority, as if the jurisdiction of tribunal pertained by some right to private judgement properly or falsely formed.

We condemn as blasphemous and heretical the notion that the Gospel of Faith and Repentance which Christ preached from the first days of His public ministry is not a easy solution to the moral difficulty in which habitual public sinners find themselves.

Against the Abuse of the Pastoral Office

We condemn as injurious to ecclesiastical discipline and a grave failure of pastoral office to exhort the Clergy not to continue in a faithful adherence to the traditional sacramental discipline, so as to accommodate the corrupt morals and minds of the present age.

We condemn as grave treachery, the use of the Petrine Office to encourage, promote or dispose souls to accept sin, or to depart from fidelity to Christ, from fidelity to the Apostles, from fidelity to the teachings contained in Sacred Scripture and/or transmitted by Sacred Tradition, under any pretext of love, mercy or compassion.

We condemn as a grave treachery to and attack upon the unity of the Church, the use of the Petrine Office to encourage local churches to depart from fidelity to Christ, from fidelity to the Apostles, from fidelity to the teachings contained in Sacred Scripture and/or transmitted by Sacred Tradition, under any pretext of love, mercy or compassion.


Filed under English