Monday, February 19, 2018

Contra the Bishops: A Canadian Defends the Holy Eucharist

PM Justin Trudeau, with wife Sophie and Quebec Premier P. Couillard
at the Mass commemorating Montreal's 375th birthday

How is it possible to foster respect for human life when disrespect for God Himself, through the Body and Blood of Christ, is not only tolerated but modeled at every Mass?   Blood on their Hands

On May 17, 2017, at a commemorative high Mass in Notre Dame Basilica in the midst of gala celebrations for the 375th anniversary of the founding of Montreal, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a self-identified Catholic, shared in the Eucharistic celebration, stepping forward to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. He was served Holy Communion by none other than the Archbishop of Montréal, Christian Lépine, a Bishop who later justified his action by characterizing it as a “gesture of hope.”

Before delving more deeply into the substance of my claims against Archbishop Lépine—as well as against every other present-day Canadian Catholic Bishop—it is necessary to review some elementary Catholic teaching on the subject of “Holy Communion,” more commonly known in Catholic parlance as “Holy Mass” or “the Holy Eucharist” [but also referred to as “the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ,” “the Holy Sacrifice,” “the Lord’s Supper”].

The biblical account makes clear: God alone is holy, man is not. Man, in fact, is unholy, a sinner. Again, history makes clear: Never approach God on your own terms. The terrible truth is that ignoring or forgetting, even accidentally, the law of God respecting His presence, is a fatal mistake. Witness the account of Uzzah in the Old Testament, struck dead for trying to steady the ark of the Lord.
“The anger of the LORD burned against Uzza, so He struck him down because he put out his hand to the ark; and he died there before God.” 1 Chronicles 13:10
The instruction of God’s Word is incontestable: Sinners are unclean and God’s command is “but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY." 1 Peter 1:15-16.  The divine rule then is “be holy yourselves also in all your behavior.” But exactly what does this rule comprise? How do we know for sure?

For a Catholic this is not a difficult question. We trust to the wisdom of the One True Church of Christ to interpret and counsel us in this regard. The Church has authoritatively spoken on the matter of holy behaviour and drawing nigh unto the Lord: We are invited to approach God the Father through Jesus Christ His Son in the Holy Eucharist.  
CCC1384 The Lord addresses an invitation to us, urging us to receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist: "Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."
We don’t get to make our own rules.
CCC1385 To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself [I Cor. 11:27-29] ." Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.
Again, for the Catholic, it is the Church who speaks for Christ in this world, and in our time. To follow Christ is to humbly follow in the Church for whom He died and to conform our attitudes, beliefs and behaviour accordingly. Of course we are free to choose to believe otherwise, and align our behaviour according to some other system or standard. But, in that case, when we resist the Church and her teaching, we do not have the option of insisting on the name Catholic.

The Church further explains the nature of the Encounter:
CCC1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).
Let us be clear: This is no Protestant notion of Holy Communion. This is Christ Himself who comes to meet us under cover of bread and wine. It is not some symbol, simple or profound, glorious or mysterious, of Christ, but rather Christ Himself. It is not merely a ceremony of remembrance of Christ; rather it is the remembered Christ truly present. It is Christ Himself, with us, and worthy of the worship of God, yet present mysteriously in the bread and wine.

What then are the rules of this engagement? How must we conduct ourselves in the Very Presence of Christ the King of the Universe? For the good of our souls there must be no mistakes or misunderstandings!

The Church sounds out clear instruction and warning:
CCC1415 Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, wife Sophie and Quebec Premier Couillard meet with Archbishop Lepine before Mass

Very well then, at an appropriate time before Mass, we must look inward, taking stock of our condition. This is what is referred to as an examination of conscience and its results will either clear us for Holy Communion or send us off to Confession, that the grave sin(s) confirmed in our exam of conscience might be confessed before a priest who stands in the stead of Christ and whose declaration of absolution then readies us for Holy Communion.

But what if a Catholic should object to this formula or otherwise trivialize the matter of grave sin? What if the Catholic were fooling himself on the matter, being deceived by devils? And what if the Catholic, while acting contrary to the formula—for whatever reason—were a prominent, public figure?

Ultimately, the responsibility for safeguarding the Eucharist from any and all abuses, including those just described, rests with the Bishop. However, the Bishop has been provided with guidance in the matter and is expected to respond according to well defined Church law. This is a crucial point: The Bishop has relatively little latitude in the matter precisely because of the magnitude of the potential damage arising from a sacrilegious Holy Communion [more simply, a sacrilege, otherwise known as a desecration of the Holy Eucharist]. And what is the magnitude of this sacrilege? The judgment of the Church throughout history concerning this most grave offense may be summed up by quoting from the Catechism of the Council of Trent 1566 (De Euch., iv.i):
“As of all the sacred mysteries bequeathed to us by our Lord and Savior as most infallible instruments of divine grace, there is none comparable to the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist; so, for no crime is there a heavier punishment to be feared from God than for the unholy or irreligious use by the faithful of that which is full of holiness, or rather which contains the very author and source of holiness (1 Cor. 11:30).”
Let’s return then to the subject of the prominent, public Catholic figure approaching for Holy Communion whose actions appear contrary to the formula provided in CCC1415. How is the Bishop instructed to prevent the possibility of grave abuse of the Eucharist? Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church provides the rationale and the response. The text of the Canon is as follows:  
“Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
Canon 915 identifies three different conditions under which Holy Communion is to be denied to a Catholic:
i. First, those who have been excommunicated e.g. the decision in 2013 by Pope Francis to dismiss Father Greg Reynolds from the clerical state and to declare him excommunicated because of his public teaching on the ordination of women contrary to the teaching of the Church.
ii. Secondly, those who have been interdicted, e.g. such as the inderdict threatened by Bishop Robert Morlino of the Catholic Diocese of Madison against unruly parishioners in 2012.
iii. Thirdly, those “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” [more commonly known in past times as the “publicly unworthy”.]
A 2004 memorandum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion", signed by its Prefect, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, explains in brief form the administration guidelines for Canon 915. Here is the most relevant passage for our purposes:
4. Apart from an individual's judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).
5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.
There has been a good deal of disputation by Bishops regarding the denial of Holy Communion under the terms of Canon 915. A good many Bishops insist that the decision whether or not to even apply the Canon, at any time or under any conditions, is a matter strictly of the Bishop’s personal judgment, i.e. his normal right to “prudential judgement, “ thus setting aside the objective truths embedded in the canon. Thus do these Bishops shield themselves against any criticism of their inaction relative to Canon 915. Bishop Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois has spoken out in order to educate Catholics on the duty of all Bishops with respect to ecclesiastical laws:
“All clergy before they are ordained take an Oath of Fidelity which includes the statement, ‘In fulfilling the charge entrusted to me in the name of the Church, I shall hold fast to the deposit of faith in its entirety; I shall faithfully hand it on and explain it, and I shall avoid any teachings contrary to it. I shall follow and foster the common discipline of the entire Church and I shall maintain the observance of all ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law.’ Pastors and bishops repeat this oath upon assuming their office to be exercised in the name of the Church. Thus, deacons, priests and bishops cannot contradict church teachings or refuse to observe ecclesiastical laws without violating their oath, which is a promise made to God.” [full text available here.]
Other Bishops in other dioceses have issued similar reminders.

A seldom mentioned authoritative source, powerful in its statement, beckons all those who wish to gain clarity over the din of voices on the subject. Cardinal Ratzinger, in his 2004 memorandum discussed above, pointed already to this source: the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Although the context of the document concerns the admission to Holy Communion of Catholics who are divorced and remarried, the application of the principles of Canon 915 are on full display and the foundation of the Church’s teaching strongly defended therein. All those seeking to know the mind of the Church on the matter of Canon 915 are urged to read the brief judgment of the Pontifical Council. The Council, in the early stages of its document, sets the tone:
Any interpretation of can. 915 that would set itself against the canon's substantial content, as declared uninterruptedly by the Magisterium and by the discipline of the Church throughout the centuries, is clearly misleading.
In the wider context of Canon 915, a very important and recent discussion by canonist Edward Peters on the severe consequences of disregarding its divinely-rooted origins can be found here.

Claims against the Archbishop of Montreal

Having reviewed some basic principles of Catholic teaching on the subject of “Holy Communion” we must now return to the matter of my claims against the Archbishop of Montreal. These are the two claims: 

Claim 1: Archbishop Lépine transgressed the laws of the Church
Archbishop Lépine, in allowing reception of the Eucharist by the Prime Minister, transgressed the laws of the Church by sidestepping the provisions and mandate of Canon 915. To my knowledge only one news outlet reported the event in that light, declaring it to be an act of sacrilege. Others reported it in a very matter of fact way, drawing no attention whatever to its controversial nature. The Catholic Register, official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Toronto, included in its coverage of the anniversary Mass a statement that was truly oddball, at least in its very glaring omission: “Trudeau, who supports a woman’s right to abortion and whose government recently began funding abortion in the developing world, received Holy Communion from Lepine.” This was a shocking and scandalous disclosure, by any Catholic standard, but the lack of any related comment by the Register added further shock and disgrace. The Cardinal Archbishop of Toronto, Thomas Collins, attended the commemorative Mass along with about 30 other Bishops and sat a mere few metres from the ignoble act. Was that a factor in this omission from his diocesan newspaper?

Claim 2: Archbishop Lépine spouted heresy
Archbishop Lépine seriously compounded his predicament through a series of heretical statements made to media sometime soon after the event. Here, drawn from one media report, is the essence of Archbishop Christian Lepine’s apologetic for giving Holy Communion to Justin Trudeau, along with my comments in red and in brackets. The Archbishop's words (with very minor adaptation) appear in italics at the start of each paragraph.

Holy Communion was a “gesture of hope.” [This statement represents a great danger to the Catholic faith. It suggests that the Holy Eucharist may be enjoyed by one whose communion with Christ is not only in doubt but whose outward behaviour overwhelmingly testifies against that fact. It views the partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ only as a stepping stone of sorts to that true communion with Christ which, to the contrary, the Church says is non-negotiable in the moment. Instead, the Archbishop proposes that it is about what may be, or what might develop over time or merely what is desirable. If Holy Communion may be a “gesture of hope” then it does not speak of what is; it does not testify to current realities and dispositions. May we hear a word from the Church? “The celebration of the Eucharist, however, cannot be the starting-point for communion; it presupposes that communion already exists, a communion which it seeks to consolidate and bring to perfection.” #35. Ecclesia De Eucharistia, Pope John Paul II.]

Holy Communion was “to keep in contact and…to keep a bridge open.”  [This statement is but a continuation of the first thought, i.e. that Holy Communion is a hopeful gesture only, foreseeing some future attainment of a state of grace. The Archbishop reduces the Holy Sacrament to a kind of symbol that serves as a step in the process of conversion or readiness to meet Christ. He denies that it is to be in every case an already established communion accompanied by holy disposition.]

There’s a “distinction between the human being and what the person does, or says or thinks.” [This is a statement aimed at destroying the connection between free will and the chosen act of sin. It is a fundamental contradiction of the moral law, implying human beings must not be judged and/or censored on the basis of their thoughts, words or deeds. It also implies all human beings, regardless of spiritual disposition, are free to partake of Christ in the Holy Sacrament.]

We must “stay focused on who the person is, a human being called by Christ, called to true freedom.” [The subtle argument here is that our human dignity alone qualifies us to approach and receive Our Lord. Because Christ has called us to divine life we must be automatically & perfectly united to Him, regardless of personal choice. We are encouraged no longer to focus on a man freely choosing a host of evil actions that kill bodies and souls, but rather we must see simply a fellow human being called by Christ.]

“One of the difficulties is that we live in a dialectic of opposition, pressure groups against pressure groups, ways of thinking against ways of thinking, but behind that we’re all human beings.” [Here we are informed that we must break free of our identity group which imposes contradictory ways of thinking upon us and which keeps us from seeing one another as simply the human beings that we are. This is purely a call to abandon our Catholic way of life and the reality of objective truth.]

“Publicly, there’s a need for communication, and there’s been communication, but there are many forces going on in society, so yet again, it’s a matter of hope.” [This seems to be an acknowledgement of the need to resolve some difficulty, and a public one at that, with conversation, which is a giant step forward. But because society—and presumably conversation about those public matters—is complicated, there has been no resolution. Therefore, we must return to the “gesture of hope” argument. See Archbishop’s first apologetic above. But note well that the Archbishop is here admitting, on the one hand, failure of a process that is meant to restore a soul to good standing with Christ, and, on the other hand, nevertheless affording that same soul all the benefits of good standing! This is a dangerous breakdown in logic since what he advocates is unworthy reception of Holy Communion, which only compounds the grave state of sin of the individual!]

Regarding sacrilege, a distinction must be made between “the person and the acts of the person and what the person says.” [Again, we see the same argument as in a similar previous statement cited above. We are being informed that we must not judge someone’s right to the Holy Eucharist on anything other than the fact of being a human person. Therefore, we must accept that regardless of words or actions, every person, presumably every baptized person, may freely feed on Christ at Mass. This formula erases the concept of sin as well as any distinction between the grave sin that prohibits reception of the Sacrament and the grave sin of sacrilege that results from the profanation of the Sacrament. Since it is a denial of sin itself, it also denies the concept of sacrilege.]

It’s “going too far” if someone “feels to be rejected as a person.” [It’s true that in some settings and situations we might say that it goes too far to place restrictions on people that cause them to feel rejected. However, the context here is the Holy Eucharist and God Himself imposes His divine law on access to that Sacrament. The Church merely seeks to serve God in making His Son accessible to all men, but only in full accord with the express will of God, regardless of the feelings of any one individual, since God is not a respecter of persons.]

The challenge is “how to discuss what is said or what is done without rejecting the person as a person.” [Since there is no conflict between the law of God and the perfection of man, we can be sure that nothing God asks of us is actually a rejection of our person. The Archbishop seems to be denying this fact. He seems to be saying that when an explanation is given of Church teaching on the subject of the Holy Eucharist and particularly the worthy reception of that Sacrament, the Prime Minister might imagine he is being rejected, and that is an unacceptable outcome. Since a Bishop is called to govern, to teach and to sanctify, one hopes that he can connect the dots better than this. In the final analysis however, Canon 915 is suited perfectly to just this sort of impasse and it deals only with the outward objective condition of the Catholic’s public behaviour. It is not a judgment on the subjective state of the soul of the person.]

Regarding scandal, “it can cause scandal to the faithful if you cut someone.” [Is the argument here that there is no good or effective method to deal with scandal, regardless of how we govern our actions? If that is the case Our Lord left us in a terrible predicament, warning us at the peril of our souls not to offend the little ones while knowing at the same time that it was really impossible for any man to personally prevent scandal. However, it is possible that the Archbishop was saying something else. Perhaps he was saying that if action was taken against the Prime Minister in regard to denying him Holy Communion, that some of the faithful would nevertheless still be scandalized by such a serious action. But we must reply to that with a question: Dear Archbishop, is it better to obey God and be misunderstood for it, thus being forced to undertake better catechesis of the faithful or is it better to ignore God because His ways seem to put us in what we consider impossible straits?]

We mustn’t “lose sight that it’s a human being created in the image of God.” [This is basically another version of a previous argument already discussed above: “stay focused on who the person is, a human being called by Christ…” The argument denies the very Gospel of Jesus Christ since all men are human beings created in the image of God and have always been, from creation, exactly that. If that were sufficient basis today for any human being to approach the Eternal God then Jesus Christ need not have died for our sin and redemption. ]

On establishing contact with Trudeau: “The call is happening, but if you want to call, you have to be connected, you have to meet somewhere.” [The Archbishop is quite adept at vague language, leaving the listener to fill in the blanks as required. But this is another version of failure of resolution and the “gesture of hope” argument which we have seen in previous statements. This is what the Archbishop is really saying: “We’re working on the problem with our PM but if we deny him access to the Holy Sacrament it will rupture our connection so we have to go with a less than perfect solution, i.e. allow him to make a sacrilegious Holy Communion. This, by the way, is a near perfect picture of the new “accompaniment” paradigm being fostered by many renegade Bishops globally, which is nothing more than accompaniment in sin.]

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith [CCC2089]. In his statements given in May 2017 Archbishop Lépine clearly denies a divinely revealed truth: that the eternal moral code demands the recipient of Holy Communion be in a state of grace. Because he has made no other public statements or corrections on the matter since that date one might fairly conclude he stands accused of heresy, a state of obstinate denial of Catholic teaching.

He has also denied his obligation under Church law, specifically Canon 915, to deny Holy Communion to public sinners but that breach does not in itself constitute heresy.

Concluding comments

In the annals of unholy communion in the Great White North over the last 60 years or so, has a Bishop ever ventured to explain why he served up the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to the nation’s at-the-time #1 public sinner, the Prime Minister himself? I suspect not. Whether it was Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Joe Clark, John Turner, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien, or Paul Martin, perhaps we are only now getting a glimpse of what was in the minds and hearts of renegade Bishops who never once denied Holy Communion to the #1 public sinner of their day.

This latest blog posting then is merely a continuation of many years of reporting on the tragedy of heresy and dissent evident among the Catholic Bishops of Canada since the early 1960’s. Of all my postings, my article entitled Pastors And Bishops With Blood On Their Hands-Updated Version provides perhaps the single best overview of the calamity we face here in Canada. The article was first written and published for the Vote Life Canada blog in 2007 as an Open Letter to the Catholic Bishops of Canada and subsequently was posted also on the website. It was written in an attempt to understand the roots of the tragedy of legalized abortion in Canada and provides the background for a question I asked myself over and over again in those early years of being a Catholic convert.
 How is it possible to foster respect for human life when disrespect for God Himself, through the Body and Blood of Christ, is not only tolerated but modeled at every Mass?
I can refer the reader to another more recent posting which deals very well with the same subject matter, but directed specifically at the failure of Ottawa Archbishop Terrance Prendergast to control the awful scandal of rising star Justin Trudeau in our Canadian politics: Archbishop Prendergast Resign: Part 4 Why Torture Canon 915?

Here's a question really worth considering: If Canon 915 applies to any public sinner in present-day Canada who might that Catholic be? Broaden the timeline now to the last 60 years: who might that Catholic be? Pierre Elliot Trudeau? The culture warriors of today would likely not consider the father, Pierre, to be more despicably evil than who the son, Justin, has proved to be. A number of Catholic Bishops have even weighed in over the years on what might happen "should ever an evil or wicked Catholic politician arise in the distant future to torment Canada with unjust and ungodly laws." Two of these well known, brave churchmen (whom I’ve tagged as the Two Amigos) are on record here and here as being ready to jump into the lion’s den and rout the enemy! Duly noted.

But not only have these Bishops not done what they said—and what the Church has commanded—they have done worse! Now they remain silent when a sacrilegious Holy Communion takes place by the highest public official in Canada, even when it takes place on national TV! Presumably they think they will be spared the discomfort of having to comment any further on canon 915! But as usual, they forget God. Such wickedness must be punished and will be! But in the meanwhile, until these Bishops face the Almighty on their day of passing from this world, Canada itself will pay a high price as the resultant moral evil spewing from renegade Catholic politicians spreads into the social fabric of the nation.

The following are some comments I’ve tweeted out over this past year on the sacrilege that took place in Montreal in May of 2017. I use the hashtag #Montreal375Outrage to identify the infamous event.

·         Since that blasphemous moment in Montreal not 1 of the more than 30 influential Bishops & 400 priests present, including @archterentius has spoken up to condemn the evil perpetrated at that event or to defend the teaching of Christ. #Montreal375Outrage

·         #Montreal375Outrage demands redress. Who is on the Lord's side? Archbishop Lepine @diocesemontreal ignorant of Church teaching on Holy Eucharist? Eternal moral code demands recipient of Holy Communion be in a state of grace. This was act of objective mortal sin & heresy. Both parties automatically excommunicated.

·         But how is this possible? Justin Trudeau is in #CommunionWithChrist according to 30 Bishops & 400 priests. Just ask @archterentius or @gclacroix or @CardinalCollins. They were all there 4 the #Montreal375Outrage; have never repudiated the action, no hint #Canon915 might apply.

·         #1EvilPM Trudeau can't B wrong. Catholic Bishops of Canada affirm that he is in #CommunionWithChrist. It's all on national TV, no repudiation to date. What R Canadians supposed to think?

·         Priests & Bishops who have not publicly condemned the sacrilege of #Montreal375Outrage endanger their eternal souls. Repent & make public your error!

·         The most pressing matter in Canada today between Bishops & the PM is Y there's not yet been public condemnation of the #Montreal375Outrage.

·         Priests & Bishops who have not condemned the sacrilege of #Montreal375Outrage endanger their eternal souls. Repent & make public your error!

·         During #Montreal375Outrage, Bishops degraded Eucharist to lowest common denominator, #PseudoCatholic trademark.

·         The Bishops failed to deal w/ the dangerous, evil behaviour of Canada’s #1 public sinner PM Justin Trudeau.

·         And only a fellow heretic would deny, either openly or through silence, that the grave sin of sacrilege took place at #Montreal375Outrage.

·         Trudeau publicly faced down the Bishops at Notre Dame Basilica. He (& his father the devil) will forever B their master. #Montreal375Outrage

·         I must have missed the part where Bishops expressed sorrow for desecration of Eucharist, now beg the Virgin for help. #Montreal375Outrage

Thursday, November 09, 2017

Is Michael Voris The Most Radical Catholic Thinker Of His Day?

Or is he simply America's greatest prophet?

"The reason for the collapse of Western civilization is contraception."  OMG! Outrageous! Preposterous! Absolute madness! Shut this guy down!

Monday, October 09, 2017

Entire Doctrinal Structure Of The Church At Risk Of Collapse?

A controversy of great magnitude is raging in the Catholic universe right now. It centres around the papal document Amoris Laetitia and threatens even to create a schism in the Catholic Church. I contend that widespread neglect of the traditional doctrine and discipline of the Church since Vatican II has paved the way for this crisis and, for decades, nowhere has this been more illustrative than in the refusal of Bishops to discipline pro-abortion public sinners, especially politicians. I would go so far as to suggest that this long term failure by Bishops has created a laissez faire environment and actually set the stage for the attack upon marriage and the family which we are currently witnessing. Either Canon 915 is to be taken seriously since it governs the worst forms of abuses of the Holy Eucharist or, if not, the Eucharist is not what Catholic teaching claims; in which case the entire doctrinal structure of the Church collapses.

Clearly, Dr. Edward Peters sees the situation in a similar light and is sounding the warning by pointing to the divine law roots of Canon 915. Here is the introductory paragraph from his post of today’s date.

For several years I and others have argued that the question of admitting divorced-and-remarried Catholics to holy Communion turns primarily on Canon 915 (which norm, against a backdrop of canons protecting the right of the faithful to access the sacraments, sets out a minister’s duty to refuse holy Communion under certain conditions). Asserting the importance of Canon 915 in this Communion discussion, however, has been an uphill battle as virtually none of the official documents central to this debate—including Amoris laetitia,the Buenos Aires letterthe Maltese directives, the German episcopal conference document, and several others—so much as mentions Canon 915, let alone do they recognize that this canon directly regulates the sacramental disciplinary question at hand.

The full posting is here. It deserves a full reading.

Unless the laity rises up—speedily—and demands unreserved fidelity from their priests and Bishops, we are approaching a meltdown, at least in practical terms, of the One True Church of Jesus Christ. God help us, we are in an abyss!

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Catholic Bishops of Canada, The Virgin Mother Pleads: "First Honour My Son"

The effrontery of Canada's Catholic Bishops is truly stunning! For decades they dismantled the substance of the Moral Law of Christ's Catholic Church and dumbed down everyday Catholics to the point of being unaware of sin. Now, when they realize our nation might face serious challenges, instead of repentance and reform, their magic cure is a re-consecration of Canada to the Immaculate Heart of Mary!

I was outside Notre Dame Cathedral-Basilica in Ottawa with my signs when the Catholic Bishops re-consecrated Canada to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on September 26, 2017. If it had been possible, this is the message I would have liked to shout out yesterday, in addition to holding signs.

Fellow Catholics,

Canada was first consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1947 by the Catholic Bishops of Canada. Less than twenty years later the same Catholic Bishops took a hatchet to their Master’s teaching when they declared contraception was not a matter of Canada’s common good but simply one of many moral teachings of the Catholic Church. Canada has never recovered from that devastating act of betrayal. Our nation has since been plunged into the quicksand of moral relativity, dying a slow death from the many evils which soon overtook us through the privatization of contraception, divorce and abortion and the subsequent rise of homosexuality, same sex “marriage” and euthanasia.

So did the Virgin fail us? Was the first consecration of Canada to the Immaculate Heart of Mary a failure which now needs a refreshing, a recharging of the batteries, so that Canada might at last be noticed by the Mother of God and saved from its bleak future? Or do the Bishops feel driven, through desperation or maybe a guilty conscience, to invent the latest greatest cure-all for Canada’s sick society?

No, the Blessed Virgin Mary did not fail Canada since the first consecration of 1947. Nor will she ever fail us. In fact, there can be no doubt that thanks to her intercession for the last seventy years God`s hand of judgment against this wicked nation has largely been stayed. Canada might otherwise have collapsed under the weight and guilt of four million aborted children’s corpses, or balkanized politically due to disunity caused by the grave state of immorality, faithlessness and apostasy.

No, the Immaculate Heart of Mary will always prevail. But calling upon her for help and intercession is not a substitute for the obedience of Bishops. It is always appropriate to honour our Lady and acknowledge her miraculous role in our salvation but I say again: Calling upon the Virgin Mother of God is not a substitute for the obedience of Bishops, regardless of how many times they might consecrate Canada to her Immaculate Heart. Always the Blessed Virgin has made clear her message down through the ages to all servants of the Lord Jesus Christ:

“FIRST honour my Son. Do whatever He tells you.”

But, even God’s patience is known to wane over time and, when provoked, mothers can also speak with stinging criticism, especially in defense of son or daughter.

“FIRST honour my Son. Christ my Son instituted laws in His Church to prevent unworthy sinners from desecrating His Body and Blood. Yet for more than 50 years Canada has been plunged into a confused, moral abyss because my Son is regularly handed over to His enemies in an unholy communion. Why do the Bishops, the Successors of my Son’s Apostles, pick and choose which laws and doctrines of the Church they will obey? Why do they fail to discipline wayward, influential Catholics? As I have warned in many other places and times: the work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church, attacking first consecrated souls and luring them to accept compromises and errors. Such errors eventually force bishops to oppose bishops. Now I beg Canadian Catholics to pray especially for bishops and priests and for reparation before the Blessed Sacrament. These same Bishops now wish to consecrate Canada once again to my Immaculate Heart and I say to them again: Catholic Bishops, first learn to obey my Son and the laws of the Church for which He gave His life!”

Such a scolding from Our Heavenly Mother would, sadly, be puzzling to a great many Catholics. But just weeks ago we witnessed in Montreal the greatest scandal to take place in Canada’s recent history—made all the worse because it was televised live on national TV. Yet Church leaders and media alike have been completely silent. At a high Mass at Notre Dame Basilica in the midst of gala celebrations for the 375th anniversary of the founding of Montreal, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a renegade Catholic, shared in Eucharistic Holy Communion. Trudeau defies the law of Christ pertaining to practically every social evil currently plaguing Canada, including abortion, contraception, divorce, euthanasia, homosexuality, same sex marriage, and gender theory. Nevertheless, he stepped forward to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and was enabled in his act of sacrilege by none other than an Archbishop, His Excellency Christian Lépine, a Bishop who later justified his scandalous behaviour by characterizing it as a “gesture of hope.”

Impossible! The warning from Holy Scripture is clear:
Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord… For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 1 Corinthians 11:27, 29
Since that blasphemous moment in Montreal not one of the more than 30 influential Bishops and 400 priests present, including Archbishop Prendergast, has spoken up to condemn the evil perpetrated at that event or to defend the teaching of Christ. By all appearances these consecrated men fear the wrath of men more than the wrath of God. The Catholic Church prescribes for public sinners such as Justin Trudeau the application of Canon Law No. 915, which mandates the denial of Holy Communion as a measure to help save the sinner’s soul and also as a measure to prevent the affected community being scandalized. Note that the adherence to Canon Law is not an option for Bishops; in fact they are sworn to uphold both Church law and doctrine. Neither is it a matter of prudential judgment as some Bishops claim. Once the conditions of the law are met, the Bishop is required to act. Failure to act is disobedience to Christ Himself.

Archbishop Prendergast, do your duty to God: Discipline Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in accord with the law of Christ that his soul might be saved and the tide of evil stemmed in this great land of Canada.

Ottawa’s Archbishop is considered by many to be one of Canada’s finest Bishops. Perhaps he is, but he may also be considered a reckless Bishop as well. Christ Himself said that to whom much is given much is required. The Archbishop has been given a station of tremendous influence in our nation’s capital. Why then has he first equivocated, then ignored, the remedy proposed by Christ and His Church to deal with the dangerous behaviour of Canada’s #1 public sinner, Justin Trudeau?

Since arriving in Ottawa in 2007 the Archbishop could practically see from his front yard the rise to political prominence of Justin Trudeau and all the scandal surrounding this renegade Catholic’s denial of Church teaching. As Trudeau’s Bishop, he refused to confront Trudeau’s demon actions and to properly address the scandal in a timely fashion in accordance with Church law. Had he done so in the earliest stages, the Archbishop might have helped to save Trudeau’s soul. At the very least early action would have publicly signaled to Canada the true nature of Trudeau’s immoral character and devilish mindset. Such exposure might well have inhibited his rise to power and very possibly prevented his election to the most powerful office in the nation.

Tragically then it must be acknowledged that Archbishop Prendergast is complicit in the rise of great evil in our land because he refused to employ the Church's remedy for public sinners. There is no getting around it, the Archbishop defied Church law and spurned Christ. And, indirectly, he has endangered all of Canada and subjected even other nations to the demonic influence of Trudeau’s evils. Yes, Prime Minister Trudeau even sponsors contraception and abortion overseas using millions of dollars of Canadian taxpayer’s money.

Archbishop Prendergast was aware that PM Trudeau would be attending—and speaking—at the commemorative Mass in Montreal several weeks ago. If Trudeau had been contacted and informed it would have been a simple matter to ensure the Prime Minister did not present for Holy Communion. Had the PM ignored such a warning, those who were Ministers of Holy Communion, including Archbishop Lépine, could have readied themselves to deny Holy Communion should Trudeau step forward. Bottom line: Had the Bishops been joined heart and mind to Christ the scandal could have been averted.

The Bishops commemorate 150 years of Canadian Confederation but what exactly are we celebrating in this once great nation of ours? What does God see when His gaze fixes on Canada? 50 years of unrestricted legal killing of unborn children, as many as 4 million lives destroyed by therapeutic abortions due to a criminal code that is blind to abortion; A nation addicted to the unnatural sexual appetite of sodomy, with perhaps 90-95% of the population practicing or supporting contraception and another huge percentage cheering on the drive to fully normalize homosexual relationships; A Supreme Court which has somehow determined from our Charter of Rights that Canadians possess a right also to euthanasia, or the more polite phrase, M-A-I-D (medical aid in dying).

What else does God see? One of the first Western nations to legally assault God’s divine plan of marriage and legitimize so called “same sex” marriage; And now these days we see unfolding in Canada Satan’s latest attack on God’s truth, that of gender ideology. Already it has started in our schools to twist the minds of our youngest children and only days ago, it was given protections under law by PM Trudeau; now the state has free reign to silence its critics and corrupt our society. On Canada Day 2017, rather than a celebration, shouldn’t we be preparing a national day of mourning and humiliation before the Lord?

The hour is late. There can be no further delay. Archbishop Prendergast, do your duty to God: Discipline Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in accord with the law of Christ that his soul might be saved and the scandal redressed.

But the evil extends far beyond Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. In fact, since the first consecration in 1947, Canada’s Bishops have fostered an altogether different religion in Canada and the gambit has been swallowed hook, line and sinker. Few will acknowledge this devastating reality. Why was it that no Catholic in Canada traveled to Montreal to attend and to safeguard, if warranted, the Holy Eucharist from desecration by the Prime Minister? Why did no Catholic prepare himself, at just the correct moment, to suddenly stand from the balcony and shout out loudly, "Sacrilege! Sacrilege! Sacrilege! Justin Trudeau is a public sinner! He must be denied Holy Communion in accordance with Canon 915! A pox upon any clergyman in this building who would dare to commit sacrilege by handing over the Body and Blood of Jesus to one of His enemies!"

After you've meditated upon that mystery, then consider that the Montreal Basilica, which holds thousands of persons, had a large crowd in attendance, many of whom were the most influential clergy and laypeople of Canada. Not one of the thousands were distressed sufficiently to rise from their seats when Trudeau stepped forward for Holy Communion or to make a public comment afterwards to protest the desecration that took place that day. Yes, indeed, the counterfeit, pseudo-catholic Church sponsored by Canada’s Catholic Bishops for decades, has corrupted the great majority of observant Catholics.

Fellow Canadians, a watershed moment recently occurred in the history of Catholic Canada. The leaders of Christ's Catholic Church chose sacrilege over duty and calling. A few faithful Catholics in Canada might have held to a slim hope that the future of Catholicism in our nation had taken a turn for the better over the last ten or twenty years thanks to what some claimed to be a revived clergy and hierarchy. But any such hopes have been altogether dashed. The future for Canada can only be bleaker.


I will explain again why I say the Pastors and Bishops of Canada have blood upon their hands.

The prophet Ezekiel declared:
If... you do not speak out to dissuade the wicked man from his way, he (the wicked man) shall die for his guilt, but I will hold you responsible for his death.
Along with many other Catholics, I am greatly distressed by the ongoing and virtual silence of too many Bishops on the subject of legalized child-killing in Canada. I have plead with the Bishops to take every necessary step to confront the demon of abortion in Canada which has claimed over four million unborn victims. In addition I am very troubled by the near total neglect by Bishops and their priests to teach and reinforce to those under their spiritual care the Moral Law of God, as defined by the Catholic Church in her official teachings. These two striking failures have taken a dramatic toll on Canadian society, paving the way for a multitude of present day evils.

Lament, ye Catholics for the Wholesale Desecration of the Eucharist.

In evaluating the factors contributing to the tragedy of legalized child-killing in our nation, special notice must be taken of the desecration of the Eucharist by obstinate, dissenting Catholics living in grave sin. This widespread and large-scale practice counts as the single greatest contributing factor to Canada’s moral descent and disrespect for human life. It would be impossible indeed to account for such desecration without acknowledging the neglect and/or indifference of too many Bishops because, in fact, the oversight of the Eucharist is entrusted entirely to the Successors of the Apostles. How is it possible to foster respect for human life when disrespect for God Himself, through the Body and Blood of Christ, is not only tolerated but modeled at every Mass?

This sacrilege of handing over Jesus to His enemies, through Holy Communion, is no less a crime today than when it was first perpetrated by Pilate two thousand years ago. The Scriptures warn, “For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.” Furthermore, the Christian “cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.” Communion with Christ and communion with devils cannot be had at once. Christians, who by association, sympathies, and actions participate in devilish strategies that destroy life, family and the common good, cannot participate in Holy Communion. Unless the Holy Scriptures are lying, the implications of this truth are clear and astounding: No such wholesale sacrilegious Holy Communion could take place unless great numbers of Bishops sympathize, knowingly or unknowingly, with the work of demons!

Shockingly then, just as “pro-choice” Pontius Pilate, who was “personally opposed,” nevertheless delivered Jesus over to His enemies, the Bishops of Canada have dispensed the Body and Blood of Jesus to any and all Catholics in the Communion line, even though it is a well-known fact that as many as 90% of Catholics reject the authority and certain crucial teachings of His Church in Canada. The truly faithful Catholics have been scandalized and demoralized for decades by this officially sanctioned sacrilege.

Yes, mourn and weep, fellow Catholics: A Pseudo-Catholic Culture Flourishes in Canada.

The result of this abomination is a flourishing pseudo-catholic culture—one based not upon the mystery of the Eucharist but upon the “magic” of the Eucharist. Yes, be shocked, but not because I described it as magic. I do not defame the Eucharist. It is the Bishops who defame the Holy Eucharist. Thanks to the negligence, or perhaps simply the spiritual darkness, of Canada’s Bishops, regardless of the moral conduct or spiritual disposition of vast numbers of renegade Catholics, attendance at Mass and mere reception of Holy Communion is assumed to magically confer absolution for even grave sins and to satisfy all of God’s significant imperatives for the Catholic.

This is the horrific, practical outcome of the Bishops’ negligence and it bears repeating: Regardless of the moral conduct or spiritual disposition of vast numbers of renegade Catholics, attendance at Mass and mere reception of Holy Communion is assumed to magically confer absolution for even grave sins and to satisfy all of God’s significant imperatives for the Catholic.

Does not the recent public and sacrilegious Holy Communion offered to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau prove this very claim?

This grave misrepresentation of the Catholic faith not only dishonors faithful Catholics but scandalizes the entire Christian community in Canada, many of whom are forced to conclude that Catholicism is but another cultish enemy of the true Christian faith.

The Bishops are well aware that, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, those Catholics who deny Church teaching on the intrinsic evils of contraception, abortion and sodomitic relations as well as the mortal sins of masturbation, co-habitation, fornication, pornography, adultery and divorce disqualify themselves from partaking in the Holy Eucharist. Without first giving evidence in Confession of genuine repentance followed by absolution, they may not receive the Body and Blood of Christ. Despite such explicit teaching, not only inordinate numbers of average Catholics condemn themselves through sacrilegious Communion but significant numbers of openly dissenting priests, religious, theologians, and professors do so as well. These leaders have been permitted to further corrupt the faithful by disparaging the Church’s doctrine on priestly celibacy, women’s ordination, same sex “marriage,” and other non-negotiables of the faith, all without public rebuke by the Bishops.

The dissent—if not outright heresy—from Rome’s teaching by so many Bishops themselves in regard to Catholic sexual ethics, particularly contraception, with its consequent immoral living by millions of Catholics, is bringing Canada to the brink of demographic and cultural collapse. The most egregious example of such rebellion surfaced in the Church’s last encyclical on contraception, "Humanae Vitae" in July 1968, wherein the Church reinforced its prohibition of contraception as a moral absolute. However, the Canadian bishops in their “Winnipeg Statement” of September 1968 subtly denied the truth of that encyclical. In effect their statement affirmed that there are circumstances in which fornication and adultery and sodomy are legitimate. Through sophistry, the Winnipeg Statement planted the seeds of destruction of the Canadian Catholic Church. The Bishops have dismantled chastity, a virtue that has been all but wiped off the Canadian landscape.

Shouldn’t the Bishops be warning all obstinate unrepentant Catholics that neither baptism nor the Eucharist will save them? Again, according to the Catholic Catechism, to die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love is to be separated forever from Him in Hell. The Bishops know these things but their neglect or unbelief betrays them since they refuse to teach and to warn Catholics. Therefore they corrupt the faith and prove themselves not shepherds but wolves, risking the eternal salvation of millions of Canadian Catholics. The result of their distorted, devilish thinking is a collapse in the integrity of the Canadian Catholic community as a whole. An entire generation of Catholics is confused about the true means of obtaining God’s grace. Thus have the Bishops created a parallel Church composed of millions of professing Catholics whose lives day in and day out are characterized by intrinsically evil behaviours yet whose shepherds purposely shield them from the truth.

How was it that Pope Emeritus Benedict tried to set Canadian Bishops on a new path?

Which habits have the Bishops determined to change in light of Pope Benedict’s warning in October 2006? None, it would seem. In no uncertain terms, the Pope tackled the failure of Bishops to address the moral problems of Canada, specifically pointing to homosexual “marriage” and abortion and to the extreme split between the Gospel and culture, strongly evidenced by the exclusion of God in the political realm. The Pope was warning that Canadian society would continue to go amuck “in the most disturbing of ways,” through neglect of the truth and of discipline.

By continuing the unscriptural and heretical practice of granting Holy Communion to those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, the Bishops have refused to heed Pope Benedict’s admonition. They have failed to take due diligence in defending the Holy Eucharist from sacrilege by the ordinary renegade Catholic.

The Pope’s comments politely and subtly pointed to a pervasive counterfeit culture which is supported by these sacrilegious communions and the immoral lifestyles of Catholics living in grave sin. Multitudes of such corrupted Catholics said to be “in good standing with their Church” impact every strata of Canadian society, including politics and the courts, and further degrade it with their anti-God and anti-life attitudes. Politicians, particularly pro-abortion, pro-sodomy Catholic Prime Ministers, draw special attention and indeed are capable of shocking degrees of scandal but it is the average uncatechized Catholic voter, in step with the spiritual blindness and befuddlement of Canada’s Bishops, who empowers these “pro-choice” legislators and killers of the Unborn.

Why is it that Bishops Have Failed to Mobilize the Catholic Voting Bloc?

There is perhaps no greater example of the dereliction of duty by Bishops to halt the killing of preborn children in Canada than the failure to mobilize the Catholic voting bloc by means of a strong spiritual formation which generates an authentic Catholic conscience. Legal protection for unborn children necessitates a political, legislative solution, a fact evident to even the least politically savvy of Canadians. Roman Catholic Bishops in Canada exercise moral authority over a formidable voting bloc of nearly 10 million Catholics and yet after more than forty years of legalized child killing in Canada there is no indication whatever that Catholics have been guided by the Bishops to effect this political change. It could be accomplished through the simplest of voting strategies, one solidly founded not on partisan politics but on basic moral principles.

Why must it fall to other groups to mobilize the Christians of Canada to vote effectively on behalf of preborn children? Surely if the Bishops had a will to stop the child killing in Canada a focused and comprehensive nation-wide, diocesan wide, strategy to engage every Catholic of voting age to cast a vote for legal protection of the Unborn would have yielded long ago a complete halt to the killing. God have mercy on the Bishops for their failure in this most practical of all ways to end the holocaust of the Unborn. Their inaction for decades makes them culpable in the deaths of millions of unborn children.

What then are the Political Consequences of the Counterfeit Catholic Culture?

Out of Canada’s counterfeit Catholic culture has emerged political devils such as Catholic Prime Ministers Trudeau, Chretien, and Paul Martin. Catholic Bishops were clearly in a compromised, weakened state when, in 1969, they permitted Catholic Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and Catholic Justice Minister John Turner to foist the triad of legal contraception, abortion and homosexuality upon Canada, along with the liberalization of divorce laws.

Up until PM Stephen Harper’s election in 2006, Catholic Prime Ministers had managed the affairs of Canada for 38 years (except for a five month break). Every one of them without exception has flouted Catholic teaching on sexuality through their pro-contraception, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy agendas. And every one of them considered themselves good Catholics and regularly presented themselves for Holy Communion. During that 38 year reign of social devastation and spiritual ruin the Catholic Bishops failed to take steps to deal with this epic scandal. Despite the fierce defiance of Catholic teaching exhibited by the Prime Ministers there is no record of even one single occasion when a Catholic PM was denied Holy Communion. And now we have a new Catholic PM, Justin Trudeau, who likewise claims to be a serious Catholic but is probably the most strident pro-abortion PM ever.

Canada’s Bishops failed to deal with the grave scandal caused by Paul Martin, one of Canada’s recent pro-abortion, pro-sodomy Catholic PM’s, defeated in the 2006 election, who spearheaded same sex marriage in Canada and vehemently proclaimed his government’s commitment to “a woman’s right to choose” without restrictions. His Bishop, the Bishop of Canada’s capital city, Ottawa, dismissed any possibility of discipline for Martin, claiming that the PM was a “faithful member of my cathedral parish.” Ottawa’s current Archbishop Prendergast has repeatedly refused to employ Canon 915, the Church’s prescription for discipline of renegade Justin Trudeau’s scandalous statements and actions.

Profound failures such as this by the Bishops of Canada blur the line between that which is evil and that which is good and sustain the “extreme split between the Gospel and culture, strongly evidenced by the exclusion of God in the political realm” lamented by Pope Emeritus Benedict. How can such a caricature of apostolic leadership be described as anything other than the “blind leading the blind?”

Bishops Urgently Need to Implement Guidelines Provided to them by Rome.

Two sets of guidelines authored by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later Benedict XVI, if diligently and universally honoured by the Bishops of Canada, would decidedly impact the moral climate of Canada and immediately set Canada on a path to rescuing the Unborn and reviving respect for the moral law of God.

In a 2004 letter to the American Bishops entitled appropriately “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion” then-Cardinal Ratzinger said that those Catholics who continue to obstinately reject Church teachings must be denied Communion. He cited Canon 915 and other church documents to support this position.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in 2003, published “The Participation of Catholics in Political Life” which was directed to Catholic Bishops, Catholic politicians and all lay members of the faithful called to participate in the political life of democratic societies. Principles contained in this guide urgently need application in Canada but are constantly ignored by the Bishops.

Bishops Need to Call for a National Fast and Penance.

Much is made these days in Catholic circles of initiatives such as the “New Evangelization” and “Social Justice.” However, truly worthwhile Catholic endeavours such as these can never see the blessing of God until the fundamental errors and injustices of the Bishops are resolved. Celebrations like the 2008 International Congress in Quebec City by the Bishops with the theme “The Eucharist, gift of God for the life of the world” ought to instead be a call for a national fast whose primary purpose is repentance and conversion of Canada’s Catholic population and their leaders. God desires first of all obedience from His Bishops, certainly not festivals, celebration and song at such a time of crisis as we face. Ironically, God’s gift of life is also the Unborn…who will pay with their life for the ongoing desecration of the Eucharist.

It is past time for a Congress that enjoins Catholics throughout Canada to instead put on sack cloth and ashes, seeking repentance and forgiveness for the disobedience of the Bishops and the profanation of the Holy Eucharist.

Every day the Bishops delay, the souls of Catholics entrapped in the darkness of a false religious culture remain in great danger of eternal damnation and every day the Bishops delay, a further 300 preborn Canadians perish. Their silent scream continues to daily torment those whose Christian conscience remains unfettered by the deceptions of demons.

The prophet Amos declared:
I hate, I despise your festivals -- and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings, and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.