Cardinals Opposing Cardinals, Bishops against Bishops, Popes against Popes

Cardinals Opposing Cardinals, Bishops against Bishops, Popes against Popes

by Christopher A. Ferrara
December 2, 2016

“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres… churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.”

Thus warned Our Lady of Akita in 1973, no doubt echoing Her warning in the integral Third Secret of Fatima, Her own explanation of which has been suppressed in favor of the absurd “interpretation” of Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the scandal-ridden friend and protector of the ecclesiastical criminal Marcial Maciel Degollado.

And now the prophecy comes to pass: In the wake of Amoris Laetitia, bishops in Buenos Aires, Germany, Italy and elsewhere will now admit divorced and “remarried” Catholics to Holy Communion following a period of “discernment,” while the bishops of Poland, parts of Canada and certain American dioceses, among other places, maintain the bimillennial discipline of the Church as other bishops in Canada and America abandon it. What is mortally sinful sacrilege in some dioceses will now be proclaimed an act of “mercy” in others. One need only take a short drive in the car to get the result one prefers. Forum shopping has come to the Catholic Church.

As the chaos spreads, four cardinals have publicly presented dubia which question the Pope on whether, in promulgating Amoris Laetitia, he means to overthrow the teaching of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage and the existence of exceptionless moral absolutes. Cardinal Pell supports them in an interview in which he asks: “How can you disagree with a question?” Bishop Athanasius Schneider likewise supports the four cardinals, as does a Polish bishop, reflecting the view of the Polish hierarchy:

“The four Cardinals did well in asking for clarification about Amoris Laetitia. It is evidently necessary to answer them…. They did well and have exercised correctly what Canon Law provides for. I think it is not just a right, but moreover a duty.”

Opposing the four cardinals, Cardinal Joseph Tobin, one of the freshly minted reliably Bergoglian progressives emerging from the latest consistory, declared to the press that the cardinals’ dubia are “troublesome” and that “The Holy Father is capturing the work of two synods, so if four cardinals say that two synods were wrong, or that somehow the Holy Father didn’t reflect what was said in those synods, I think that should be questioned.”

Cardinal Schönborn, to whom Francis has referred those seeking the definitive “interpretation” of Amoris, went so far as to assert that the letter of the four cardinals is “an attack on the pope” and that they “have to obey the pope” by accepting Amoris without question. That is, Schönborn demands that the four cardinals “obey” the admission of public adulterers to Holy Communion.

The ultra-progressive Cardinal Cupich, another Bergoglian red hat, huffed that “if you begin to question the legitimacy or what is being said in such a document [Amoris], do you throw into question then all the other documents that have been issued before by the other popes? So I think it’s not for the pope to respond to that, it’s a moment for anyone who has doubts to examine how they got to that position because it is a magisterial document of the Catholic Church.”

Cupich failed to mention that Amoris itself appears to question the teaching of “all the other documents that have been issued before by the other popes,” summarized in the document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under John Paul II, which said this about admitting public adulterers in so-called second marriages to Holy Communion: “In other words, if the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid, under no circumstances can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible. The conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception.”

So not only do we see cardinals opposing cardinals and bishops opposing bishops, but also a Pope opposing his own predecessors. At Fatima, Akita and other places, the Blessed Virgin warned us that this time was coming. But the warnings were not heeded. They were even despised by the “enlightened” ones who dismissed them all as “private revelations.”

“Despise not prophecies. But prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:20-21). The leadership of the Church has despised the prophecies of the Mother of God; it has failed to hold fast to that which is good. And now the Church “is full of those who accept compromises” as we reap the whirlwind from which it seems only divine intervention of the most dramatic kind can deliver us.

Get AQ Email Updates

3 comments on “Cardinals Opposing Cardinals, Bishops against Bishops, Popes against Popes

  1. Quote: “Cupich failed to mention that Amoris itself appears to question the teaching of “all the other documents that have been issued before by the other popes,”

    A modernist too stupid to notice the contradiction? That shows how much work reforming seminary formation and curriculum at Catholic colleges needs to be done!

  2. The Akita Deception
    (something I wrote awhile ago)

    A discussion of deceptions in traditionalist circles would not be complete without a look at false apparitions and prophecy. In Novus-Ordo circles, it is easy to see the damage done by obviously false apparitions like Medjugorje. That heretical phenomenon has ruined peoples’ lives and drained families of much needed money. But the appetite for inside information and end-times prophecy isn’t confined to the Novus Ordo crowd because it derives from our concupiscence. Hence, it is not surprising to find persons exploiting apparitions among traditionalists. There is even abuse of true apparitions, such as Our Lady of Fatima, causing distractions and factions, all to no good end. But there is also at least one false apparition, which is Akita.

    Akita, Japan, was the location of messages supposedly from Our Lady to a religious Sister in the 1970’s. Catholics are free to believe and promote the apparitions because they have been approved and even promoted by local ordinary (bishop) of that time. However, there is good reason to avoid Akita because it derives from a false 1940’s apparition in Holland known as “The Lady of All Nations.” The clear indicator of falsehood is that apparition’s promotion of socialism (link here): “Breadth of vision has to come, a more social outlook. There are various movements showing a trend to socialism, which is good, …” (8/29/1945, emphasis added) It is impossible that the Mother of God could promote socialism after the clear condemnations of Popes Pius IX and Pius XI and others.

    The weeping wooden statue at Akita was carved after the image of “The Lady of All Nations” at the request of the Sister just before she received the messages. The videotape “Hill of Redemption” highlights the Sister’s devotion to The Lady of All Nations. Because of this, one could logically infer that Our Lady is pleased to be identified with The Lady of all Nations—an impossibility. Add to this the strangeness of the Sister opening the tabernacle and handling the Body of Our Lord (in the video), and you have abundant reason to avoid this apparition.

    There are many false visions of and messages from Our Lady since Fatima, but this shouldn’t be a surprise. For Our Lady of Fatima said “Only I can help you,” and she gave very strong warnings and commands. Why would the Queen of Heaven repeat herself when she has been deliberately ignored? Or why would she begin a new title for herself which would only distract from Fatima? The safest course is to avoid apparitions, and to heed Our Lady’s command to pray the Rosary every day.

Leave a Reply