Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Actress Mischa Barton Hospitalized Has Mk Ultra Breakdown!

The Virgin Mary and Your Vocation

Nineveh 90: Lets do this!

Headlines—January 31, 2017

A Narrow Escape!

A few years ago, one of my sisters from my community came to fetch me from Split airport. We decided to pray the Rosary on our way to Medjugorje. That winter was very cold and the road was very slippery and icy in places. It was pitch black.  We were not going very fast, but suddenly our car swerved to the left towards the huge mountainous rocks which form the inside of the roads here.  On the right side was a ditch that we managed to avoid; and fortunately, along the left side of the road below the rocks, there was a small wall (about 20 cm high), curved like you see on a racetrack. Without hitting the rocks, our car went over the small wall, skidded along and ended by going back in the right direction on the road without any damage. We had had a narrow escape!

We owed this protection to the Blessed Mother, to whom we were praying, and to the many Angels of whom she is the Queen. We warmly thanked them! But the most surprising part of the story unfolded a few days later when I had to drive on the same road back to Split.

Since I knew exactly where the event had happened, I took a close look at the place because I had never seen a road with a curved retaining-wall except in films which showed racing-car scenes.  To my amazement the retaining-walls were not there! They actually never existed!
Along the rocks there was an average small wall that is perpendicular to the road (90°), like on other roads everywhere else in the country. I understood that, on that night, Our Lady had looked after us in a way we never could have imagined!

Not only had she protected us from a freefall down the precipice on the right and from crashing into the rocks on the left, but she made sure that there was a curved sidewall in place so that we could come back home safe and sound in a car free from bumps! Thank you Mary, thank you for the power of the Rosary! I hope many of your children will adopt it while driving their car, and not only in the car!

Sister Emmanuel

1917-2017: “Return to the Rosary”!

2017, the centennial anniversary of the apparitions in Fatima, is a vitally important year for believers. Let’s take a careful look at the message that Mary gave the 3 little shepherds, a message that shown across the entire 20th century like a beam of light. Mary presented herself as Our Lady of the Rosary. She revealed to us the path toward a lasting peace for the whole world, and she specifically gave us a sure way of ending World War I, namely to pray the Rosary!

There is certainly a major reason why the Blessed Virgin, in all of her appearances throughout the Church’s history, strongly insists that we pray the rosary every day. Why does she constantly reiterate this tender supplication? As a Mother, she knows best how to guide her children toward happiness.
Many have never practiced this prayer. Some do not even know it, while others have stopped praying it. It has to be said that the hidden treasure of the rosary is not always very easy to find. That is why I propose to give you a little explanation.

There are 2 ways of praying the Rosary, the good way and the badway. Or…Let’s rather say: the weak way and the powerful way.

The weak way:  Suppose that I carry a heavy burden on my heart because one of my relatives is dying in hospital and is in great pain. So I decide to say a Rosary for this intention, in the hope of obtaining a healing for that person or at least some tangible relief. So I start reciting my Hail Mary’s pretty mechanically, while my mind is anxiously focused on the suffering of this person. I wonder how I am going to be able to deal with this very difficult situation. It goes without saying that this Rosary will still bear a little fruit, but it will leave me more tired and stressed than before I prayed. It’s a pity, because I’ve spent some time praying it!
The powerful way: The Blessed Mother has taught us to pray the Rosary for the past 35 years with great precision. Suppose that the same problem is bothering me and it hurts: one of my parents is dying in hospital and is in great pain. So I am going to share this concern with my Mother in Heaven. Instead of locking my mind on that problem, I am going to completely get rid of it, let it go, throw it and abandon it in her Immaculate Heart.

Image published by RL George: http://www.rlgeorge.com/our-lady-of-fatima/
I may tell her: “MOM, now this is YOUR problem! The burden is too heavy for me, please take care of it since you’re my mother. Aren’t you all-powerful on the heart of God? He can’t say no to you!”
I know she is good at taking care of her children’s problems, so while she is busy with my problem, my heart is relieved and free to pray with serenity. With deep trust in her, I can now focus on Jesus wholeheartedly and contemplate the various situations in His life that the mysteries talk about.

Of course, before pronouncing the prayers of the Rosary, I take some time to go in spirit to the place where the mystery has happened. At that point, it’s always a good idea to read the relevant part of the Gospel. With all my heart and using my imagination, I am going to look at Jesus in this situation, enter the scene and participate in what is happening.
A concrete example: when I pray the 5th luminous mystery, the institution of the Holy Eucharist during the Last Supper, I go in spirit to Jerusalem, I enter the Upper Room in the Cenacle and I sit down at the table among the Apostles in order to participate in the meal.

When Jesus gave his friends his Body and his Blood, he was already thinking of me, because in his divine spirit he already knew all the Holy Communions that I was going to receive, as well as those of all men of all time. So I am not a distant outsider, rather I fully become part of this event that involves me directly. This extraordinary event is not an old story that is disconnected from my life. No, this action of Jesus is something he does for me again today. While I am watching him in prayer, I receive the same grace from Jesus that he poured out 2000 years earlier to his friends. Because “we become what we contemplate”, everything that lives in the heart of Jesus at this moment penetrates into my own heart.  I become filled with his treasures and my whole being is enriched by the burning love which emanates from him.

This example enables us to understand why such a prayer fills us with who Christ is and increases our love for others. This love will then be transformed into action, because it is solid. As Our Mother says: “Of you, my apostles, I am asking for your roses of prayer which need to be acts of love. To my motherly heart these are the dearest prayers.” (In the Rosary, each Hail Mary is a new rose which we offer to Mary). “Always love one another and above all, love my Son. This is the only way to salvation, to Eternal Life. This is my dearest prayer which fills my heart with the most beautiful scent of roses.”

Dearest Gospa, please, don’t let us fall into spiritual laziness, help us seize all the means you are giving us to finally enjoy true peace and divine protection!
Sister Emmanuel

‘Appalling’: Top Ontario Catholic bishops’ employee re-tweets pro-abortion criticism of Trump

[No relation to Catholic World News’ Phil Lawler; if ACBO(Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario)-Church does not can this character, it is complicit in his support of the culture of sterility and death]
ONTARIO, January 30, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — The Ontario bishops’ top employee has been using his personal Twitter account to criticize Donald Trump’s pro-life policies.
Roger Lawler, General Secretary of the Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario (ACBO), re-tweeted two posts on January 23 critical of President Donald Trump’s reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy. The policy banned government funding of foreign pro-abortion groups like the International Planned Parenthood Federation. 

The Heresy of “Discernment”

Written by  

heresy of discemernBergoglio confers with a chief co-conspirator 
Purely from the standpoint of ecclesiastical history, the Bergoglian pontificate is a fascinating anomaly. Never before has the Church witnessed a Pope fanatically devoted to the overthrow in practice of universally applicable, exceptionless negative precepts of the natural moral law, beginning with Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.
It is easy enough to show that the rest of this pontificate is merely a continuation of the trajectory established during and after the Second Vatican Council, which provided the decisive opening for the neo-Modernist uprising that has convulsed the Church ever since. As I have noted on these pages before, Pope Bergoglio’s rampant ecumenism, his disdain for liturgical tradition, his demagogic attacks on “rigorists,” his religious indifferentism, his pursuit of endless, fruitless “dialogue” with the Church’s implacable foes, and his preoccupation with social and political issues beyond the purview of the Magisterium differ from the line of immediate predecessors, if at all, only in intensity.

But as I also noted on that occasion (may the reader forgive me for quoting myself):
[T]here is one truly substantial difference between Francis and the other conciliar Popes, that being his astounding, relentless attempt to subvert, in the name of “mercy,” the Church’s teaching and sacramental discipline concerning marriage, family and sexual morality generally. It is Francis alone—dismissing the contrary teaching even of his two immediate predecessors—who has launched the “final battle” of which Sister Lucia of Fatima, speaking in light of the Third Secret, warned Cardinal Caffarra... It is here, with Francis, that we encounter something really new and terrifying, even in the midst of what Cardinal Ratzinger admitted is a “continuing process of decay” since the Council.
This new and terrifying Bergoglian innovation reduces to single subversive pseudo-doctrine, which now joins the others (e.g. “dialogue,” “ecumenism,” “collegiality”) that have proliferated in the Church since the Council. Like the other pseudo-doctrines, it in turn is reducible to a single operative word with immense but never openly explicated consequences: “discernment.”

Having plucked the word from its context in John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio, n. 84—which reaffirms the Church’s constant teaching that public adulterers in “second marriages” cannot be absolved or admitted to Holy Communion without an amendment of life—Bergoglio has, with the promulgation of Amoris Laetitia (AL), broadened its meaning into a practical framework for the introduction of situation ethics into the Church’s moral theology and praxis, thereby flatly contradicting John Paul. But Bergoglio’s—one must say it—mendacious abuse of his predecessor’s terminology allows him to claim “continuity” with the very Pope whose teaching he seeks to negate.

Whereas John Paul II spoke of “discernment” in the context of dealing pastorally with those who, on account of their divorce and remarriage, cannot be admitted to the sacraments but are in differing degrees of fault respecting their situation, Bergoglio twists the concept into a pastoral program precisely for their admission to the sacraments while continuing to engage in adulterous sexual relations. With his letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires, confirming that they are correct in interpreting AL to allow precisely for this outcome—under the illusory restriction of “more complex circumstances”—Bergoglio has left no reasonable doubt of his intention.

Hence the Four Cardinals Letter and the dubia it presents in a direct challenge to Bergoglio’s attack on the moral order. For as the cardinals recognize, AL involves much more than “a practical question regarding the divorced and civilly remarried,” but also “questions [that] touch on fundamental issues of the Christian life.”

The full implications of “discernment” are set forth with artful ambiguity in ¶¶ 303-304 of AL:
Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limitswhile yet not fully the objective ideal. In any event, let us recall that this discernment is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized.

It is reductive simply to consider whether or not an individual’s actions correspond to a general law or rule, because that is not enough to discern and ensure full fidelity to God in the concrete life of a human being.
For the first time in Church history, a Pope dares to propose that a negative precept of the natural law is merely “a general rule or law” representing merely an “objective ideal” for human conduct, and that fidelity to God is not inconsistent with disobedience to the precept—e.g. Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery—given the “concrete complexity of one’s limits” and the “concrete life” of each individual as “discerned” by a local pastor or bishop. In short, for the first time in Church history, a Pope advocates the pastoral practice of situation ethics: What is adultery for John may not be adultery for Sarah; it all depends on the “complexity” of their respective “limits,” which must be “discerned” in each particular situation.

Accordingly, the four cardinals wish Francis to answer Yes or No to the following question, among the five they have presented to him:
After the publication of the Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
Bergoglio’s silence in the face of this question is a thunderclap that will echo in history until the end of time. He cannot answer the question because the answer, if given honestly, would condemn him as a heretic. Bergoglio really does think, and wishes the Church to think, that moral laws are merely rules from which one can be exempted based upon circumstances. This is just another way of saying that he really does not believe there is any such thing as mortal sin—at least when it comes to sexual behavior. For him, there are only variously excusable departures from “the general rule” and the “objective ideal.” Seen Bergoglio’s way, the negative precepts of the natural law would become benchmarks, not divine commands admitting of no exceptions. They would cease to have the character of true and binding law. The prohibitory Commandments would be obrogated, if not entirely abrogated, by a Bergoglian gloss on the Gospel.

As he continues to attempt to hide his nefarious scheme behind a wall of silence while his subordinates attempt to implement it, Bergoglio’s co-conspirators confirm the object of the conspiracy. One example suffices—that of his closest Jesuit confidant, Antonio Spadaro. As Spadaro revealed during a Q & A with Religion News Service:
He realizes that the problem at the core of “Amoris Laetitia” is not a dogmatic problem. Which it’s not – it’s not a dogmatic problem.

The problem is that the church must learn to apply the practice of discernment better and more deeply and not just apply rules in the same way for everyone. The church must be attentive to people’s lives, to their journey of faith and to the way in which God works in each person. So a pastor can’t be a pastor by applying general rules to individual peopleThe church has to grow in discernment. That would be also one of the most important topics of the next synod….

I don’t know if they [the four cardinals] are critics of the discernment. I just know that the pope has said that life is not black and white. It is gray. There are a lot of nuances, and we have to discern nuances.

This is the meaning of the Incarnation – the Lord took flesh, which means we are involved with real humanity, which is never fixed or too clear. So the pastor has to get into the real dynamic of human life. This is the message of mercy. Discernment and mercy are the two big pillars of this pontificate.
There we have it from the Pope’s “mouthpiece” (a description Spadaro denies even as he performs the function). According to Bergoglio “the church must learn” from him—for the first time in 2,000 years! —that she cannot “apply rules in the same way for everyone,” that a priest “can’t be a pastor by applying general rules to individual people” and that “life is not black and white. It is gray.” That is, the Church must learn to practice situation ethics, applying the negative precepts of the natural law differently to different people based on “discernment” of their circumstances.

With rhetoric about as subtle as the blandishments of a used car salesman, Spadaro dares to root Bergoglio’s error in the Incarnation, risibly asserting that God Incarnate represents a humanity “that is never fixed or too clear,” meaning that the application of Christ’s moral teaching is “never too fixed or clear.” Bergoglio relies on this ecclesiastical con man, replete with Twitter account, to dupe the faithful into accepting blasphemy and moral relativism as a teaching of the authentic Magisterium.

What is this but yet another revival of the Gnostic heresy that has arisen in one form or another throughout Church history? It is the Gnosticism of the Pharisees, who claimed special knowledge— “discernment,” at it were—concerning the application of God’s law to “complex circumstances” such as divorce and purported remarriage. The Pope who ceaselessly condemns Pharisaism—on the part of those who defend our Lord’s teaching against the Pharisees’ toleration of divorce—turns out to be the leader of a Neo-Pharisaic movement. The adepts of this movement purport to “discern,” based on their superior insight, which adulterers, which cohabiters, indeed which practitioners of sodomy in “homosexual unions,” are in the state of grace and may be allowed to receive the Holy Eucharist, and which of these objective sinners, on the other hand, must continue to be denied the Sacrament. But what are the criteria for this “discernment”?
There are none. There is only the gnosis of the discerner, who is in the know.

The new age of “discernment” has been revealed—so the neo-Pharisees tell us—by a “God of surprises” very much like the God who never failed to tell the Pharisees exactly what they wanted to hear. It is the God of the keepers of the ever-evolving gnosis, who always know better than the simple faithful what God requires “today,” denouncing their orthodox Catholic opposition as “rigorists” and accusing them of being exactly what they themselves are. As Bishop Athanasius Schneider has observed of these neo-Pharisees (without naming their leader), they
try to legitimize their infidelity to Christ’s word by means of arguments such as “pastoral need”, “mercy”, “openness to the Holy Spirit”. Moreover, they have no fear and no scruples to pervert in a Gnostic manner the real meaning of these words labeling at the same time those who oppose them and defend the immutable Divine commandment and the true non-human tradition as rigid, scrupulous or traditionalist. During the great Arian crisis in the 4th century the defenders of the Divinity of the Son of God were labeled “intransigent” and “traditionalist” as well.
The “God of surprises” is simply the God of the silent apostasy, of that time when the people “will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables (2 Tim 4:3-4).” And the author of these fables, as always, is man masquerading as God.

But who could have imagined that the chief fabulist would sit on the Chair of Peter? Who could have foreseen that there would one day be a Pope who observes a stony silence—broken only by petty invective against his questioners—when asked if he really intends to bring about the collapse of the moral order? Who could have thought that a Pope would relentlessly engage in threatening to end the Church’s salvific mission by having her consent to be nothing more than yet another religious organization that has died the death of the sexual Zeitgeist?

In an article on the rising Catholic opposition to his insane designs, Bergoglio is reported to have admitted to the members of his inner circle that “It is not to excluded that I will be remembered in history as the one who split the Church.” With Bergoglio, by his own admission, we are confronted with a possible realization of the hypothetical scenario of a schismatic Pope as discussed by the great Suarez and other theologians, or at least a Pope who is the cause of schism. There is certainly no sign that Bergoglio wishes to avoid the schism he is already provoking, or that he has any intention of changing the course that would earn him that shameful place in history. He seems, rather, to be proud of the effect he is having on the Church, a testament to the power of his vainglorious “vision” or “dream” of a “Church of Mercy” he actually seems to think did not exist before his arrival from the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires, which he left in shambles. (Is it some ironic heavenly twist that Bergoglio has the same number of syllables and rhymes perfectly with orgoglio, the Italian word for pride?)

Cardinal Walter Brandmuller, one of the four presenters of the dubia, has rightly and courageously declared that “Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and the reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism.” The man from Argentina may well succeed in being the Pope who split the Church, although not even a Pope can defeat her. Should it happen, the Church will recover from the Bergoglian Schism as the Holy Ghost infallibly secures the promises of Christ through the intercession of the Mediatrix of All Graces.

But this much must be said of Pope Bergoglio lest we unjustly attribute to his predecessors his own unique contribution to the post-conciliar crisis: No document of the Council, nor any Pope since then, has so much as intimated a practical elimination of the distinction between right and wrong in the natural moral law that is written on the heart of every man. In propagating the heresy of “discernment,” Jorge Mario Bergoglio stands alone among all the Roman Pontiffs. Alone in the singularity of his disgrace.

German bishops suggest joining with Protestants for religious education

Catholic World News 

January 30, 2017
The German Catholic bishops are calling for cooperation with Protestant groups in providing religious instruction in the nation’s schools.

Religious education is available to students in German public schools, but the number of students opting to take those classes has been dropping, as fewer families are religious active and fewer young people are baptized.
To counteract the fall in enrollments, a working group of the German bishops has suggested joining with Protestants, to ensure that schools will have a sufficient number of students to justify offering religious instruction in Christianity. “Cooperation is of great importance for the future of religious classes,” said Archbishop Hans-Josef Becker of Paderbon, who led the working group.
Some German Catholics have taken the matter a step further, suggesting that Christians should join with believers of other faiths, supporting classes that offer general instruction in reliion. A group of 163 academics joined in a statement: “A plural society needs people who can judge religions with common sense and who are ready for dialogue.”

Selfishness harms marriages in many ways


  • Withdrawal into oneself with poor communication
  • Lack of giving to romantic love and the marital friendship
  • Lack of responsibility for one’s spouse
  • The treatment of one’s spouse as a sexual object
  • Lack of respect toward one’s spouse
  • Overly controlling behaviors
  • Overreactions in anger
  • Inability to ask for forgiveness
  • Failure in treating one’s spouse as one’s best friend
  • Failure to wish the best for one’s spouse
  • Weakness in giving praise
  • Excessive anger when everything doesn't go as expected
  • Insistence on having one’s own way
  • Strong desire to do what one’s feelings urge one to do
  • Focus on one’s own well-being and not one one’s spouse’s welfare
  • Tendency to avoid responsibility in some major area of life
  • An exaggerated sense of self-importance
  • Loss of kindness and thoughtfulness
  • Immature and excessive comfort-seeking behaviors
  • Obsession with working out, physical appearance and possessions
  • Controlling behaviors
  • Excessive self-indulgence
  • Blind ambition for success
  • A focus on the impression one produces rather than on one’s work
  • Loss of faith
  • Lack of motivation to resolve marital conflicts
  • Lack of openness to God’s will regarding the number of children
  • Lack of a sense of oneness and shared mission with one’s spouse
  • The failure to correct children and one’s spouse
  • Resentment of sacrificial giving
  • Use of pornography
  • The use of contraceptives
  • The annulment entitlement mentality.
The profound writings of St. John Paul II on selfishness, marriage, family, youth, contraception, divorce, cohabitation, same sex unions and the Eucharist brought hope that a time of purification had come.  However, the new growth in the support of narcissistic attitudes and situational ethics concerning those in irregular, cohabiting and same sex unions is a major psychological and spiritual threat to Catholic marriage and family life.

Growth in Selfishness and the Contraceptive Mentality

In addition to the harm done to marriages, the growth of selfishness has severely harmed the priesthood and religious life, innocent spouses and 1,000,000 children in US who are traumatized yearly by divorce.(i)
Selfishness played not a minor role in almost 100,000 priests and Religious who abandoned their vows/commitments beginning in the 1970s (Mullan, 2001).[ii]  It strongly influenced the rebellion against the Church’s teaching in Humanae Vitae. Situational ethics with the primacy of the personal conscience replaced the teachings of Jesus Christ and his Church.
Simultaneously, clerical narcissism exploded in the liturgy[iii] with massive liturgical abuses and, more importantly, in the refusal to teach the Church’s truth about sexual morality.  Instead support was given to situational ethics in Catholic seminaries, universities, and secondary schools, with the assertion of the primacy of the personal (and often uninformed and selfish) conscience over the Church’s teaching. Priests and Bishops who failed to teach the Church’s truth about sexual morality were failing to configure themselves to Christ and to live His truth. 
The staggering and shameful result was the crisis in the Church, characterized by the massive homosexual predation of adolescent males by Roman Catholic priests and religious.[iv]  No adult male would act against his own essential manly nature as a protector of youth unless he had given in to severe narcissism and the belief that he had the right to use others as sexual objects.

Narcissism, malignant selfishness and divorce

Contraceptive use severely harmed marital trust and love, with the direct result of increasing malignant selfishness in spouses which then led to the onset of the Catholic divorce plague. The relationship between the contraceptive use and the divorce plague is irrefutable.
The sad reality in our experience is that the intensely selfish spouse often initiates divorce and is often granted an annulment without this severe character conflict being identified and challenged.


Monday, January 30, 2017

What did the angel of Fatima mean?

Why Frequent Communion?

by Saint Alphonsus Liguori  

The fourth means of perfection, and even of perseverance in the grace of God, is frequently to receive the Holy Communion, of which we have already spoken in the Introduction, §II., page 275 [not part of this presentation ----- Web Master], where we affirmed that a soul can do nothing more pleasing to Jesus Christ than to receive Him often in the Sacrament of the Altar. St. Teresa said: "There is no better help to perfection than frequent Communion: oh, how admirably does the Lord bring such a soul to perfection!" And she adds, that, ordinarily speaking, they who communicate most frequently are found further advanced in perfection; and that there is greater spirituality in those communities where frequent Communion is the custom. 

For this reason it is that, as we find declared in a decree of Pius X, in 1905, the holy Fathers have so highly extolled, and so much promoted, the practice of frequent and even of daily Communion. Holy Communion, as the Council of Trent tells us, delivers us from daily faults, and preserves us from mortal ones. St. Bernard [In Cœna D.s.l.] asserts that Communion represses the movements of anger and incontinence, which are the two passions that most frequently and most violently assail us. St. Thomas says, [P. 3. q. 79. a. 6.] that Communion defeats the suggestions of the devil. And finally, St. John Chrysostom says, that Communion pours into our souls a great inclination to virtue, and a promptitude to practice it; and at the same time imparts to us a great peace, by which the path of perfection is made very sweet and easy to us. Besides, there is no Sacrament so capable of kindling the Divine love in souls as the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, in which Jesus Christ bestows on us His whole self, in order to unite us all to Himself by means of holy love. Wherefore the Venerable Father John of Avila said: "Whoever deters souls from frequent Communion does the work of the devil." Yes; for the devil has a great horror of this Sacrament, from which souls derive immense strength to advance in Divine love.

*But a suitable preparation is most useful to communicate well. The first preparation, or, in other terms, the remote preparation, to derive the greatest profit from frequent and daily Communion, is: 

1. To keep free from all deliberate affection to sin---that is, to sin committed, as we say, with open eyes. 

2. The practice of much mental prayer.

 3. The mortification of the senses and of the passions.

 4. Although it is most expedient that those who communicate frequently or daily should be free from venial sins, at least from such as are fully deliberate, and from any affection thereto, nevertheless it is sufficient that they be free from mortal sin, with the purpose of never sinning mortally in future; and, if they have this sincere purpose, it is impossible but that daily communicants should gradually emancipate themselves from even venial sins, and from all affection thereto. 

5. That the practice of frequent and daily Communion may be carried out with greater prudence and more abundant merit, the confessor's advice should be asked. Confessors, however, are to be careful not to dissuade anyone from frequent and daily Communion, provided that he is in a state of grace and approaches with a right intention." [Decree of Pius X.] In the next place, the proximate preparation for Communion is that which is made on the morning itself of Communion, for which it is recommended to make at least half an hour of mental prayer.

To reap also more abundant fruit from Communion, we should make a fervent thanksgiving. Father John of Avila said that the time after Communion is "a time to gain treasures of graces." St. Mary Magdalene of Pazzi used to say that no time can be more calculated to inflame us with Divine love than the time immediately after our Communion. And St. Teresa says: "After Communion let us be careful not to lose so good an opportunity of negotiating with God. His Divine majesty is not accustomed to pay badly for His lodging, if He meets with a good reception." 
[Way of Perfection, ch. 35.]
There are certain pusillanimous souls, who, on being exhorted to communicate more frequently, reply: "But I am not worthy." But, do you not know, that the more you refrain from Communion, the more unworthy you become of it? Because, deprived of Holy Communion, you will have less strength, and will commit many faults. Well, then, obey your director, when he tells you to go: venial faults do not forbid Holy Communion: besides, among your failings, the greatest would be not to obey when your spiritual Father bids you communicate.

"But in my past life I was very bad." And I reply, that you must know, that he who is weakest has most need of the physician and of medicine. Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is our physician and 
medicine as well.  St. Ambrose said: "I, who am always sinning, have always need of medicine." [De Sacram. 1. 4, c. 6.] You will then say, perhaps: "But my confessor does not tell me to communicate oftener." If, then, he does not tell you to do so, ask his advice. "It would seem to be pride." It would be pride if you should wish to communicate because you consider yourself entirely worthy, or better than others. This heavenly bread requires hunger. Jesus loves to be desired, says a devout author: "He thirsts to be thirsted for." [Tetr. Sent. 37.] And what a thought is this: "Today I have communicated, and tomorrow I have to communicate." Oh, how such a reflection keeps the soul attentive to avoid all defects and to do the will of God! "But I have no devotion." If you mean sensible devotion, it is not necessary, neither does God always grant it even to His most beloved souls. It is enough for you to have the devotion of a will determined to belong wholly to God, and to make progress in His Divine love. John Gerson says, [Sup. Magn. tr. 9, p. 3.] that he who abstains from Communion because he does not feel that devotion which he would like to feel, acts like a man who does not approach the fire because he does not feel warm.

"But why do so few souls approach the Divine Banquet frequently or daily?

Some, unhappily, are prevented by mortal sin which separates them from Him Who 'is the life.' It is with good reason that they recognize themselves unworthy of Holy Communion, since to communicate in such a state would be horrible sacrilege.

 Others live in grace; but, absorbed in the things of earth, loving our Lord but little, they prefer to remain in their tepidity, they do not desire to become more fervent by approaching often, still less every day, to the Flame of Love, which is Jesus Christ!

Others, in fine, love Him and would be happy to receive Him often, even daily, in the Sacrament, and ever to increase in His love. But they dare not do so because of certain prejudices and vain fears, which prevent their approach to the Holy Table."

O timid, fearful souls, why not despise these fears and prejudices, and give heed to the voice of the Church? 
[S. Antoni, Vain Fears, pp. 10-11.]
It will be found likewise to contribute very much to keep fervor alive in the soul, often to make a spiritual Communion, so much recommended by the Council of Trent, [Sess. xiii. cap: 8.] which exhorts all the faithful to practice it. The spiritual Communion, as St. Thomas says, [P. 3, q. 79, a. 1.] consists in an ardent desire to receive Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament; and therefore the Saints were careful to make it several times in the day. The method of making it is this: "My Jesus, I believe that Thou art really present in the Most Holy. Sacrament. I love Thee, and I desire Thee; come to my soul. I embrace Thee; and I beseech Thee never to allow me to be separated from Thee again." Or more briefly thus: "My Jesus, come to me; I desire Thee; I embrace Thee; let us remain ever united together." This spiritual Communion may be practiced several times a day: when we make our prayer, when we make our visit to the Blessed Sacrament, and especially when we attend Mass at the moment of the priest's Communion. The Dominican Sister Blessed Angela of the Cross said: "If my confessor had not taught me this method of communicating spiritually several times a day, I should not have trusted myself to live." 

Why Bergoglio has been so affectionate with Chinese despots and Castro, but ferocious with Trump

Here is what might happen

Antonio Socci
‎January 22, 2017

In his inaugural speech, Donald Trump made reference a number of times to God and the Bible (on which he was sworn in as President). Christian inspiration is emblematic of American popular tradition, and Trump – who usually touches on very concrete subjects in his speeches, such as the everyday lives of people – on this solemn occasion, chose to tune in with the deep religious sense of the American people.

This is a political sign of opposition to the strongly secular ideology of the “liberal” establishment, which in recent years has ruled, and which - in that speech - has been brutally evicted from the “palace” with the slogan: let’s give the power back to the people. 

In short, Trump even in his symbolic references, wanted to be united with ordinary folk and against the elite, who disdain him and [disregard] the faith of the people.

It signifies a cultural turning point. Many noted, in fact, that an indication [of this] came a few minutes after the inauguration: from the site of the White House, the pages dedicated to the LGBT battle and Global Warming were eliminated; two pillars of Obama’s “liberal” ideology.

The entire ceremony on Friday, beginning with the religious service in St. John’s Church was full of references to Christianity. 


Nevertheless in the “Repubblica” yesterday, Alberto Melloni, an influential Bergoglian fan, wrote that Trump’s speech includes “a very harsh response to Francis” and conveys already “a religious policy”.

As a matter of fact it was Bergoglio who attacked Trump first, not the other way around. Actually, this Pontiff, who has shown through his actions and words his esteem for Communist dictators like Fidel Castro and the Chinese despots, he, during the USA primaries – entered anomalously into the political arena –   and ended up accusing Trump of not being “Christian”.  And in this attack it was noted the clear intention to damage him, by alienating the Catholic vote from him.

The pretext for this unusual intrusion into the political arena was Trump’s proposal to build a wall on the Mexican border and to expel the illegal immigrants.  Except that it was just a pretext, since what Trump was manifesting as his intention, Obama had already done (he expelled two and a half million people) and Bergoglio wasn’t indignant at all about that. 

Further, Obama and Clinton are out and out pro-abortion and supporters of the LGBT battles, while Trump is in tune with the traditional values always defended by the Church. Yet Bergoglio, while being hostile to Trump, admired and collaborated with Obama, who, in his turn, praised him [Pope Francis] in every way. 

Anyway, the Catholic electorate paid no attention to him and the majority voted for Trump. Not only that, but the American Bishops, a few days after the election, chose a Ratzingerian Cardinal as their president, not Bergoglio’s “progressive” candidate. 


This orientation of the American Church has always been displeasing to the Democratic Party establishment.  Around 2011, at the time of Benedict XVI, as Wikileaks revealed, progressive “revolutions” were being cultivated inside the Catholic Church (it was then discovered that also George Soros – after Bergoglio’s election and during his visit to the USA – supported those who wanted to “to sway” the American Episcopate in favour of Bergoglio, in the Church and in Clinton’s run for the presidency). 

The Argentinean Pope ascended the papal throne in 2013 and in practice made Obama’s agenda his own: he set aside the “non-negotiable principles” replacing them with the “politically correct” themes of ecology, immigration and the ecumenical embrace with Islam.

Now the arrival of Trump has made the Argentine Pope an orphan. Yesterday, in fact, the Osservatore Romano commented on Trump’s speech like this: “[in it there is] strong discontinuity with the recent political past of the United States”. 

Bergoglio is [now] going to miss his great overseas point of political support.  So, according to Melloni, Francis and Trump are about to trigger off an epoch- making conflict (“we are now experiencing the first moments of a duel which will be hard-going”).


If you listen to Melloni it might even be a “theological” conflict.  Perhaps it would be better to say ideological. In effect, the social or political themes displayed by Bergoglio in his formal messages (care for the poor, hospitality [re: immigrants], are once again- purely ideological banners.

In reality, the American President’s speech was very social and supportive, so much so, as to be labelled “populist”:  he focussed on unemployed Americans, the marginalized, the impoverished middle-class families of the crisis, in total, he was on the side of the people and contra the elite.

Also his few words on international politics should have found some agreement in the Vatican: [he said] enough of (false) humanitarian wars that produce death and refugees, enough of the (false) exportation of democracy which spends on arms what should be spent on services for Americans.

But Bergoglio isn’t concerned about any of this: our people [on the other hand] are never interested in “the progressive elites” and he who has interest only in the ideological banners of “progressivism” like migrations, fanatical environmentalism and the embrace with Islam.

The conflict with Bergoglio is flaring up for this reason: Trump is bringing to an end the “politically correct” dictatorship which was the religion of the Obama and Bergoglio age. 

Melloni’s article forewarns [us] then of new anathema[s] from the Vatican. Similar to the papal one delivered during the primaries, when the “Daily News” produced a cover with a photo of Trump and the headline: “Antichrist!”

Except that Trump – whether we like it or not – is only an outspoken and resolute American President, who is working in the interests of his people and has nothing at all in common with that apocalyptic figure.


In fact, being an important Christian tradition, the figure of the Antichrist (his most insidious personification) will present himself in the subtle and captivating form of kind, humanitarian, ecumenical sentiments.

For example in R.H. Benson’s famous book “The Lord of the World”, which also Bergoglio knows well and has cited: “the Great Opponent will present himself under the guise of “a humanist”, a master of tolerance, pluralism, Irenicism and ecumenism; a smiling corrupter, more than a strident antagonist of the Gospel; an annihilator from the inside more than an assailant from the outside.” (Messori)

This refers to the antique Efrem latino del “Sermo de fine mundi” according to which, the Deceiver “will cunningly please everyone, […] calm in all things, he will refuse gifts, will appear affable to his fellow man, and thus, everyone will praise him exclaiming: “Behold a just man!”

Then there is Solovev’s representation, whose relevance to the present day was highlighted by Cardinal Biffi during the spiritual exercises he preached for Benedict XVI. 

The Antichrist for the Russian writer will be a fascinating philanthropist who will enchant everyone; a pacifist, a vegetarian, an animalist and an ecumenist who will gather all the religions together, deeming himself better than Jesus Christ.

The mystic, Maria Valtorta, even identifies this Great Deceiver as an ecclesiastic and places him in the midst of a terrible crisis in the Church.  

She is referring to a biblical definition:  the “Pastor Idol”, she says who “will throw “consciences into confusion” and sweep away “with his breath a third of the stars”, “this demonic harvest will be come to pass in the Court of Christ, among the great ones of His Church.”  Later, in her visions, we read these words of Jesus: “He will be someone very high up” […] “it would be less frightful to see a star of the vault of heaven shoot down […] he will make the pillars of My Church tremble in the dread brought about by his fall.”

In short, the demonization of Trump by the Vatican is completely out of place.

The insidious threat to the Church, comes, as always, from the inside. Just as all the previous popes have warned, from Pius XII to Paul VI, from John Paul II to Benedict XVI.

Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana 
- See more at: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/01/socci-why-bergoglio-has-been-so.html#more