This morning in his homily on the feast of Pentecost, Pope Francis spoke at length about the work of the Holy Spirit.


The Holy Spirit does not bring only harmony within us but also among us. He makes us Church, building different parts into one harmonious edifice. Saint Paul explains this well when, speaking of the Church, he often repeats a single word, “variety”: varieties of gifts, varieties of services, varieties of activities” (1 Cor 12:4-6). We differ in the variety of our qualities and gifts. The Holy Spirit distributes them creatively so that they are not all identical. On the basis of this variety, he builds unity. From the beginning of creation, he has done this. Because he is a specialist in changing chaos into cosmos, in creating harmony.

He also spoke about how what it means to live in the Spirit:

Repaying evil for evil, passing from victims to aggressors, is no way to go through life. Those who live by the Spirit, however, bring peace where there is discord, concord where there is conflict. Those who are spiritual repay evil with good. They respond to arrogance with meekness, to malice with goodness, to shouting with silence, to gossip with prayer, to defeatism with encouragement.

To be spiritual, to savor the harmony of the Spirit, we need to adopt his way of seeing things. Then everything changes: with the Spirit, the Church is the holy People of God, the mission is the spread of joy, as others become our brothers and sisters, all loved by the same Father. Without the Spirit, though, the Church becomes an organization, her mission becomes propaganda, her communion an exertion. The Spirit is the first and last need of the Church.

Read it all.

Liked this post? Take a second to support Where Peter Is on Patreon!

Mike Lewis is a writer and graphic designer from Maryland, having worked for many years in Catholic publishing. He's a husband, father of four, and a lifelong Catholic. He's active in his parish and community. He is the founding managing editor for Where Peter Is.

Savor the Harmony of the Holy Spirit

31 Responses

  1. jong says:

    Great wisdom again coming from our beloved Luminous Pope Francis whom I believe will Consecrate Russia in WYD 2022 right at the very ground of Fatima Apparition, why?
    It will be the golden anniversary or 50 years of Fr.Stefano Gobbi’s Marian Movement for Priest. Fr.Gobbi’s Blue Book was Mama Mary/s revelation how the priest should conduct themselves in the midst of confusions. It also prophesy the coming of Second Pentecost which I believe coincide perfectly with Elizabeth Kindelmann revelation of “Fire of Love vs. fire of hatred”.

    In the Upper Room the Holy Spirit anointed the head of all the Apostles and Disciples to preach the gospel and to testify to the Truth..
    The Second Pentecost will send fire in our hearts no longer to preach the Gospel but to fight with zealousness the forces of darkness. That’s why Jesus said “how I wish the fire were already burning in our hearts when He returns”. This is the meaning of the Fire in the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Immaculate Heart of Mary. The fire of the Second Pentecost is coming and Pope Francis Consecrating Russia will signal the start of the fight as the counterfeit catholic church will now be fully expose and become even more desperate. Forces of Light vs. forces of darkness. (John1:5)
    Let us not forget the weapon or the Sword of Light, St.JP2 gave us the Mysteries of the Light is our powerful weapon in these Age of Darkness.

    And what I’d like about Fr.Gobbi’s inspiration is the core mission of the Movement to defend the Church and the Pope in the coming confrontation with the forces of darkness. St.JP2 called this Final Confrontation.

    All the Rad Trads propaganda to attack the dignity of Pope Francis is aimed at one purpose. To further established divisiond and confusions for them to further grow in numbers.

    Pope Francis had stated the Real Schism is now unfolding and Consecrating Russia will happen soon in 2022, for Pope Francis to command all the Prideful and Disobedient Cardinals, Bishops & Priests who are infected by Clericalism or the Spirit of Judas to leave the Vatican II Church.
    This is the visible start of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart as the Church will only be compose of few bishops,priest, religious and consecrated souls fully united to Pope Francis and totally consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
    Thank you Pope Francis for leading the Church to victory.(CCC675)

  2. Ashpenaz says:

    Having looked at Cardinal Burke’s Declaration of Truths, I think the Holy Spirit has His work cut out for Him. Point for point, I take the opposite position of Burke’s–I have to commend him for spelling out his thoughts so clearly so that I can so vehemently disagree with him. If the Declaration of Truths is a valid statement of Roman Catholicism, then I don’t see myself as Roman Catholic or ever having been one. I simply do not see Jesus in Burke’s approach. It’s getting harder to see our divisions as different wings of the same Church–it looks like we are two separate Churches. I don’t see how the gap can be bridged, but I’m not the Holy Spirit! 🙂

    • jong says:

      Cardinal.Burke also made a statement that the Vatican II Church under Pope Francis is like a “New Church”.
      So, where actually dealing with two churches in these end times.
      Blessed Fulton Sheen said Satan will established a counterfeit church, and it will resembles the Catholic tone.
      Do you have an idea who is the likely candidate for a counterfeit church is?
      Dr.Marshall expounding on the Roman Canon of the Mass if Pope Francis and all Vatican II Popes was not the True Pope as Sedes teaches it, then it violated the Canon of the Mass, offering it with an illegitimate pope or antipope.
      But we know that all Vatican II Popes including Pope Francis was a True canonically elected Pope, so it backfires on SSPX and some FSSP Trads Priest who are not in Full.Communion and are embracing the “recognize and resist” attitude towards Pope Francis.
      Cardinal Oulette described the violation on the Canon of the Mass when he asked Ab.Vigano “How can you pronounced the name of the Holy Father to whom you slander in the Holy Eucharist?”.
      So, a Mass Celebration is questionable if the priest celebrating it is not offering it united to the Vicar of Christ and to the Universal Church.
      How about “black mass”, if a TLM is offered not in full communion is really questionable. A TLM offered in the name of an Anti-pope is an offering to Satan who indwelt the Anti-pope and this is the aim of Satan in establishing a counterfeit catholic church, for men to worship him in TLM…Satan wont settle for less worship and definitely wont like the Novus Ordo rite.
      Establishing a counterfeit church offering the TLM in the name of the Anti-pope is a black mass offered to Satan. and were heading for this scenario as the church critics and enemies are desperate to oust Pope Francis to appoint or install an Anti-pope.This was contained in the Alta Venditta plan.
      The big question is,..
      How do we know the counterfeit church? St.JP2 said it will be a battle between preaching the gospel and the anti-gospel.
      Pope Benedict XVI said “the heart of the gospel is Divine Mercy.”
      So, Pope Francis is preaching and magnifying the infinite mercy of God, while the Dubia Cardinals, Bishops and Dissenters are preaching the opposite as they called it “false mercy”, criticizing & opposing the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to Pope Francis.
      So now, do we have an idea who is the likely candidate that will visibly emerge as the counterfeit church?
      Ab.Lefevbre founded a priestly movement that later on separated out of Pride and Disobedience, and from the confusions a divisions among themselves created a Sedes and other Trads group.
      Dr.Marshall is dreaming of uniting this Trads clan and together they will utter in unison “NON SERVIAM”…Why?
      Recognize and resist attitude resembles the original sin of Lucifer back in the heavenly realm.When God presented to the angels His Divine Plan for the Logos stripped of majesty and power, Satan and his demons “RESISTED” although the “RECOGNIZED” God Almghty.
      When God presented His Merciful plan in Vatican II, the Holy Spirit will be strip too of majesty and beauty in the Holy Mass, the rebellious Trads “RESISTED too” and not only separated themselves but attack the Divine Plan of God.
      Pope Francis already stated the “Real Schism” is unfolding meaning the “counterfeit church” is not ashame anymore to show its ugly head of “pride and disobedience”.
      For me WYD 2022 is the turning point where the counterfeit church will be shaken to its core, why?
      Pope Francis a Luminous Pope is the Bishop Dressed in White destined and prepared by Mama Mary to Consecrate Russia right at the very ground of Fatima apparition.

      • carn says:

        “So, Pope Francis is preaching and magnifying the infinite mercy of God, while the Dubia Cardinals, Bishops and Dissenters are preaching the opposite as they called it “false mercy”, criticizing & opposing the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to Pope Francis.”

        Since Cardinal Burke is a dubia cardinal and since we are a declaration of “truths” signed by him and since you suggest that Cardinal Burke is “preaching the opposite” of what Pope Francis teaches,
        would you mind pointing out some items in the “Declaration of the truths …” which are partly or as a whole “opposite” to what Pope Francis teaches?

        E.g. with item 16 (@Ashpenaz: that is the one i meant; i got the number wrong; item 16 is about abortion) it seems that what Cardinal Burke teaches is at least not in direct opposition to Pope Francis, as Pope Francis has said that abortion is as if hiring a hitman for murder; as one can presume that Pope Francis considers hiring a hitman to always be wrong, it seems that item 16 of Burke et al. has large or even complete overlap with Pope Francis.

        Accordingly, you pointing out opposing items in that document:

        would be helpful for me.

      • jong says:

        I only have one simple question to you as there are only Two Opposing forces operating in this world., the Spirit of Truth vs. the spirit of error or lies.
        Pope Francis is anointed and guided by the Holy Spirit as the Vicar of Christ and cannot err in teaching the sheep in matters of faith & morals.
        Pope Francis is the Supreme Interpreter and Guarantor of Faith and is shielded by Jesus powerful promised of protection in Luke22:32 which Cardinal Burke et al do not have.
        So, if there are statements in the Declaration of Truth that runs contrary to the teaching inspirations of Pope Francis.What can say?
        If we use the Gift of Prudence, which statement or teaching the Universal Church must upheld?
        Cardinal Caffara a former member of the Dubia Cardinals who had reconciled with Pope Francis before his death has an important words for Cardinal Burke and Dissenting Bishops,
        “All bishops who oppose the Pope must go away because they are no longer one with Christ. The opposing bishops must go away because they will lead the confused souls to eternal damnation.”
        I dont see any Wisdom in the Declaration of Truth as it is a Declaration of Pride & Disobedience stemming from the embraced evil attitude of “recognize and resist” that resembles the original sin of Lucifer and fallen angels in unison uttering “Non Serviam”.
        The Rad Trads are uttering the “Non Serviam” too by opposing the Vatican II Teachings and esp.the Novus Ordo Mass.
        The sin of Rad Trads opposing and criticizing the Novus Ordo is clearly written in Matthew12:32 and it is called the “Unforgivable Sin”.Why?
        Pope Benedict XVI stated the Light of the Holy Spirit guided the Vatican II. Therefore if we criticize publicly the works of the Holy Spirit we are commiting the “Unforgivable Sin”. Satan loves to inspires this attitude as he is assured that all of this soul will be go straight to hell if they do not repent and stop doing this evil things of criticizing the Novus Ordo.
        My Jesus mercy.

      • Marthe Lépine says:

        I think that this sentence is not well constructed and appears to say the opposite of what Jong is trying to say. The “not in communion” applies to cardinal Burke’s interpretation. I see it to mean that Cardinal’s Burke is expressing his own opinion, and doing so is not in communion with the Magisterium and the Pope, and the question is whether an opinion that is not in communion with the Magisterium and the Pope, and has been expressed by someone that is not in communion with the Magisterium and the Pope can be guided by the Holy Spirit. But I admit I had to re-read the sentence several times and do an analysis of the kind we learn in primary school to figure out what the sentence means.

    • Marthe Lépine says:

      I agree with you that Catholics in the US are becoming 2 separate churches. I have been saying sometimes that a Reformed Catholic Church of America is somewhere down the horizon, but as you say the Holy Spirit could certainly build a bridge.

    • carn says:

      “Point for point, I take the opposite position of Burke’s–I have to commend him for spelling out his thoughts so clearly so that I can so vehemently disagree with him.”

      Interesting that you disagree with every single item. Item 17 especially raised my eyebrows.

      Are there any limits for a woman regarding killing her unborn child which you would agree to?

      Though i must say that i think they could have worded item 18 better; as they worded it it could be interpreted to include someone shielding someone else with his body from bullets, as that might be “to cause himself to be put to
      death by others”; but that is at least not intrinsic evil, so not always forbidden.

      • Ashpenaz says:

        I believe the best way to reduce and ultimately eliminate abortion is to give mothers the absolute authority to make decisions about their pregnancies unimpeded by the State. Only a mother has the compassion and knowledge to make decisions concerning her pregnancy. She literally has skin in the game. If we take away her decision power and give it to the State, we are allowing an abstract entity with no direct concern for the child to make decisions. In the end, the more power we give the State to make decisions about a pregnancy, the more likely the State will want to get rid of unborn children who are going to cost them money.

        God gave Mary absolute authority over her body; her “Yes” was free and uncoerced. He didn’t have to create and enforce some Roman law to get her obedience. God gives the same authority to each mother and trusts the mother alone with all the difficult decisions concerning her unborn child.

      • carn says:

        While this:

        “In the end, the more power we give the State to make decisions about a pregnancy, the more likely the State will want to get rid of unborn children who are going to cost them money.”

        is one of the better pro-choice arguments (the state and its laws are crude instruments; one should always think about if and why using them upon some problem makes the situation better, cause there are always some nasty side effects when using these crude instruments),

        i think you might overlook something:

        “16. A woman who has conceived a child within her womb is forbidden by natural and Divine law to
        kill this human life within her, by herself or by others, whether directly or indirectly (see John
        Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, 62).”

        This is a statement about what the woman may or may not due according to natural and Divine law, whether it might be under some circumstances a good and moral act to kill the unborn child.

        Burke et al say that it is never a good and moral act.

        But this is not a statement about:

        whether and which laws the state should have regarding this matter and how the state should enforce them.

        The only thing one can conclude from item 16 of Burke et al. is that the state may not declare abortion to be a moral and good act, which probably implies, that the state may not declare a right to abortion.

        But this statement for example does not in any way requires the state to punish abortion as murder under all circumstances and/or that the state must punish women for having an abortion.

        So it is from what you say not obvious that you disagree completely with item 16; they say it is never right for a woman to abort; you say that using the laws to protect the unborn is a bad idea; this is not in itself a contradiction.

        (Of course maybe your further opinions might end up being in contradiction to item 16; but i just look at what you wrote now)

      • Ashpenaz says:

        Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:

        1° has not completed the sixteenth year of age;

        2° was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance

        3° acted under physical force, or under the impetus of a chanceoccurrence which the person could not foresee or if foreseen could not avoid;

        4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;

        5° acted, within the limits of due moderation, in lawful self-defence or defence of another against an unjust aggressor;

        6° lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the provisions of cann. 1324, §1, n. 2 and 1325;

        7° thought, through no personal fault, that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in nn. 4 or 5.

      • carn says:


        “No one is liable to a penalty who, when …”

        is NOT IDENTICAL to

        “No one does anything immoral/wrong who, when …”

        You can see this right away when looking at:

        “has not completed the sixteenth year of age”.

        Is it immoral/wrong for a fifteen year old to grab a gun, walk to the next bank and require money otherwise he’ll shoot someone?

        Yes, it is wrong.

        Can this behavior be punished according to canon law?

        No, due to the norm you just cited.

        And the only thing changing with most secular laws is the age, at which punishment is first possible (except potentially US law; i think they didn’t get everywhere in the US the memo, that punishing a 6 year old as an adult for sexual assault cause he touched another 6 year old inappropriately is a pretty dumb idea).

        Some action can be wrong and even seriously wrong without Church teaching demanding punishment.

        There is a great difference between:

        A behavior that is wrong.

        The state having a law according to which that behavior is to be punished and the state applying that law.

        Most Church teaching is only about the first.

        So please do not presume that when someone like Burke et al. suggest that some behavior is wrong, that they then necessarily mean that that behavior must be punished by the state.

    • Jane says:

      Dear Ashpenaz, I just saw the headline re: the Declaration of Truths by the two cardinals and my stomach just turned. The whole thing seems VERY passive agressive to me. We have a declaration of Truths, dear friend. It’s called the CATECHISM! ! ! I just wrote to one of the two Cardinals and asked him if he would please consider what he is doing and that it looks like another break-off action is being done with this ‘Declaration.’ It makes me ill.

      I refuse to read it. The whole thing will, I am sure, feel like a mockery to me, of the True Church with Pope Francis as the rightfully-elected Vicar of Christ on earth and all in union with him.

      I have been studying my Faith since I was a child and Ashpenaz, you are in good hands here. You will NOT be lead astray by reading these articles.

      Please correct me everyone, if I am not correct about this.

      God Bless you 🙂

      • jong says:

        You are perfectly and doctrinally correct. Catechism was produced by the Church Magisterium or a Church Teaching Authority united with the Supreme Pontiff.
        The 2000 years Church Tradition clearly stated, the Church united to the Vicar of Christ cannot err in teaching in matters of faith & morals.
        How about the Declaration of Truth?
        Can we say that they are guided by the Holy Spirit and cannot err knowing fully that they are not doing it under Full Communion with the Supreme Interpreter & Guarantor of Faith?
        Definitely Cardinal Burke et,al is in error and is not guided by the Holy Spirit when it condradicted any Church teaching and Pope Francis teachings particularly Amoris Laetetia and Death Penalty changes, and other teachings.
        Even in interpreting the Church Tradition and Doctrines, Cardinal Burke et, al cannot claimed their interpretation is the Truth, why?
        Any interpretation not united and in Full Communion with the Pope can err, as they do not have a Teaching Authority apart from the Vicar of Christ.
        All the Dubia Cardinals, Dissenting Bishops and expert theologians even biblical scholars can be deceive by satan to fall into error & heresy but not the Pope.
        Pope Francis was shielded by Jesus powerful promised of protection in Luke22:32.
        I dont see any Wisdom in all the Dubia Cardinals and Dissenting Bishops opinions, why?
        Wisdom do not & cannot dwells in a PRIDEFUL & DISOBEDIENT heart.
        Those who agrees with the Declaration of Truth mostly embrace the evil attitude of “recognize and resist”
        Pope Francis Wisdom is supernatural as it is anchored in living a life of simplicity, humility and transparency while the wisdom of Cardinal Burke et,al are rooted in Pride & Disobedience and definitely not inspired by the Holy Spirit.
        “OBEDIENCE is better than sacrifice”

      • Marthe Lépine says:

        Good answer. Thank you. I like the way you have written about wisdom.

      • carn says:

        “Definitely Cardinal Burke et,al is in error”

        Surely, if Burke is wrong, you can offer one or several numbers between 1 and 40, which indicate the items of the declaration which are at odds with Church teaching.

        To make things easier for you, you could try item 22.

        “Those who agrees with the Declaration of Truth mostly embrace the evil attitude of “recognize and resist””

        So if i agree that:

        “15. “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is
        intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God, which is written in every human heart,
        knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church” (John Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium,
        vitae, 62).”

        or in other words agree with JPII, i embrace an evil attitude?

      • carn says:

        “Please correct me everyone, if I am not correct about this.”

        “We have a declaration of Truths, dear friend. It’s called the CATECHISM! ! !”

        You are wrong to act as if due to having the catechism, it would be always wrong for some Cardinals/Bishops to highlight specific aspects of Church teaching in some statement of their own.

        Cardinals/Bishop are called to proclaim the faith in their own words and not only do a copy/paste from the catechism.

        It would only be wrong, if the content of their declaration would be at odds with some Church teaching.


        “I refuse to read it.”

        “I just wrote to one of the two Cardinals and asked him if he would please consider”

        you did something wrong by criticizing these people without checking first, whether they actually say something contrary to Church teaching.

        Also think about how dumb that might look; imagine if you yourself felt the need to write some text highlighting specific aspects of Church teaching (BTW, that is what folks here at WPI do all the time); and then someone called you out for “break-off action” so for breaking away from the Church WITHOUT EVER READING what you wrote;

        would you even for the inch of a second consider the criticism of that someone seriously?

        I can tell you, that whenever i write something and someone criticizes me WITHOUT reading what i wrote, i usually will dismiss that criticism rather fast.


        I already asked above, but again:

        It would be nice if someone listed at least one item from that declaration which is supposedly at odds with Church teaching.

      • Jane says:

        It wasnt about the fact that they were saying something wrong or right about the Faith that I have the big problem. It’s the timing, the climate in which it was proclaimed, the underlying attack on Our Holy Father, the passive aggressiveness of it, that I have a problem with, not the proclaiming of Truth.

        I think someone could take every one of those “truths” and prove that Pope Francis has already implicitly or explicitly proclaimed them already.

        Please correct me if I am wrong, but that whole thing feels to me as if these prelates are saying to the whole Catholic Church around the world, “Pope Francis is NOT teaching the Faith so we are here to do it instead.”

        And that is the insidiousness of it all, Carn, and definitely NOT the preaching of Truth. I am a lover of the Truth. I despise the same thing Christ our Savior despised: undermining authority in the name of being correct with a passive aggressive manner that takes down the legitimate Authority rather than submits and obeys to it out of love.

      • Marie says:

        That’s beautiful Jane, thank you! This is what it’s all about!

      • jong says:

        One simple question, Is Cardinal Burke interpretation of Church Doctrines and Tradition not in Full Communion with Church Magisterium and the Supreme Pontiff guided by the Holy Spirit? sorry but the answer is No!..
        Why? the Holy Spirit cannot and will not guide a good Cardinal to interpret Church Doctrines separated from the Living Church Magisterium united to the Pope.
        WPI already had written an article on this, as the Filial Correctio and Dubia Cardinals are creating a parallel magisterium opposing the Living Church Magisterium.
        To make it straight, Is the Declaration of Truth guided by the Holy Spirit? Sorry but the answer is definitely No again…
        The Holy Spirit only guides the Church united to the Vicar of Christ when it comes to teaching the faithfuls in matters of faith and morals.
        Does Cardinal Burke et,al interpretation stated in the Declaration of Truth have a Teaching Authority? None
        So, can they bind their interpretation to be bound in Heaven too and command the faithfuls to assent to their declaration? No!
        Did Jesus gave Cardinals, Bishops, Priest, Theologians and biblical scholars Teaching Authority apart from the Vicar of Christ? No.
        So if all the answer is No!, where is the need to review the 40 statement in Declaration of Truth? if that declaration was not inspired by the Holy Spirit and comes from a Cardinal that has No Teaching Authority apart from the Vicar of Christ, why would I put credence or assent on that declaration?
        Prudence tells me to follow the Infallible Truth. The 2000 years Tradition is, the Spirit of Truth only resides in the Church united to the Vicar of Christ, and all other declaration stemming from pride and disobedience interpreted by Dubia Cardinals who are still embracing onfusions up to now cannot be trusted and taken as the Truth.
        How can the Dubia Cardinals who are also confused lead their confused followers?
        Its like Blind leading the blind.
        My Jesus mercy.

      • Marie says:

        Jong- Very very true. I simply cannot understand how they don’t get it. Do you think they do, and still do this? It seems so straightforward. Can the ego really blind us so much that we ignore basic things? I really wonder if it is intentional or not. Any thoughts?

        On a side note, I found it very interesting that both Cardinal Burke and Archbishop Vigano were recipients of Bishop Bransfield’s financial gifts. I won’t speculate further, but it does raise eyebrows.

      • carn says:

        I’ll stick with the first question, as the rest seem to be variations thereof:

        “One simple question, Is Cardinal Burke interpretation of Church Doctrines and Tradition not in Full Communion with Church Magisterium and the Supreme Pontiff guided by the Holy Spirit? sorry but the answer is No!..”

        1. It is obviously not a simple question, cause you answered it with a wording that is opposite to what you probably intended as an answer. You negated that Burke is not in full communion with the Church.

        2. Ideally, it is not mine to decide who is in communion with the Church magisterium and who isn’t. The is the job of CDF. If CDF does no longer do this, my guess is as good as anybody’s whether someone is or isn’t in communion with the Church magisterium.

        3. Your claim that the content of the “truths” declaration fits to what Pope Francis teaches, but at the same time the “truths” declaration is not in communion with Church magisterium is irritating at best.

        At least the content would be in itself in communion, if it isn’t at odds with Papal teaching.

      • Marthe Lépine says:

        Dave Armstrong has recently written about several specific items contained in that list of “truths” in his blog “Biblical Evidence for Catholicism”. Go to:

      • carn says:

        I did not find an article on that site discussing the declaration.

        If some articles did adress some items before publication of the declaration, linking the article iteself and indicating the numbers of the items in the declaration this article is relevant for seems necessary for me to even spot, which articles wou might mean.

      • Marthe Lépine says:

        Sorry – my mistake. I remembered reading a blog but not exactly which one. The correct link is: ——
        Cardinal Burke & Four Band Members Create Parallel Magisterium. Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome Vol. XXIII.
        JUNE 10, 2019 BY SCOTT ERIC ALT

      • jong says:

        Cardinal.Burke is both a Canon Lawyer and a Theologian.
        Is he not continously violating Canon752 and the evangelical guidelines of Donum Veritatis for expressing contradictory views on Church approved Magisterial Teachings?
        Now tell us, is Cardinal Burke et, al still in Full Communion with the Vatican II Church?
        or perhaps you are talking about full communion with their own established church that resembles catholic tone only but No Pope and Living Church Magistrium.
        Are you familiar with Blessed Fulton Sheen prophecy of counterfeit church and WPI had an article on the published secret conversation between St.Pope Paul VI and Ab.Lefevbre?
        What does Ab.Lefevbre intentions on the SSPX, according to the published conversations?
        Ab.Lefevbre want an “autonomous church” not subject to the Supreme Pontiff, therefore a separate church that resembles Catholic Church only. It is the most likely candidate for a counterfeit church that resembles catholic tone that Blessed Sheen had prophesied.
        Do you know that their motto of “recognize and resist” resembles the original sin of Lucifer back in the Heavenly Realm?

      • carn says:

        @Marthe Lepine


        That article instead of showing that anything in the declaration might be false,

        instead suggests that everything in the declaration is in accordance with what Pope Francis teaches.

        And he specifically mentions that nowhere in the document Burke et al. mention or cite in anyway Pope Francis.

        So we have a bunch of bishops/cardinals who teach something in full accordance with Peter, without offering any criticism of him.

        Therefore it seems that they teach with authority for they teach in communion with Peter.

        You are going to say, that at other times Burke et al criticized the Pope beyond what is acceptable?

        That is irrelevant for this document. If in this document they teach what Peter teaches and do not say an ill word about him, then in this document they do not do anything wrong.

        That is the funny thing about many sins/errors: sin/error one day will – usually – not make an act on another day, which in itself is perfectly fine, into something evil, that is to be criticized.

        If “Team Francis” were serious about mercy and welcoming back sinners, they would react to that declaration with a:

        Great, that you stopped attacking the Pope for long enough to fulfill your duties to teach what the Pope teaches; we offer our prayers that thanks to your reiteration of these truths, the message of Pope Francis and the Church reaches more hearts.

        But no, a Cardinal declaring truths without contradicting the Pope is evil.

      • Marthe Lépine says:

        Really, did you read the article carefully, and all of it, including the first paragraphs? The problem there is not what points are being made, but the clear intent, which is to correct things that Pope Francis has been previously accused of having said. As Mr Alt points out, “Now, (…) Burke and the band do not mention Pope Francis. But it is evident to Fake Site and Pentin at Formerly that the quintet are pitting their life and their song against Father. For indeed, several items among the forty plagiarize—and I mean verbatim—points already made in the Filial Correction of 2017 and the much more shameless accusation of heresy last month. And this latest “correction,” regardless of how much truth it may contain, has no Magisterial authority whatever. “

      • Marie says:

        Marthe- That’s exactly it. Ignoring the obvious attack on Pope Francis, supported by headlines like “…to correct rampant doctrinal confusion” by suggesting it is irritating at best to hear such claims of assault when all the cardinal is doing is speaking the truth is disingenuous at best. One has to wonder if the constant ‘confusion’ felt by those who oppose the Pope have now had their ‘fog’ removed. Has Cardinal Burke explained things with such clarity now that all confusion has passed? No, they must still battle their faith, for Cardinal Burke ignores all social teachings, etc, and again mostly focuses on the ‘rules’ related to sexuality, which of course virtually all Catholics and non Catholics are aware the Church teaches. No enlightenment there. Where and how did he clear the confusion?

  3. jong says:

    The simple answer is can be found in Sis.Lucia revelation regarding diabolical disorientation.When one embraced Pride & Disobedience they will be blinded by the Truth as Lucifer was blinded by this original sin. And worst when one embraced the evil attitude of “recognize and resist” it prevented the graces of the Holy Spirit as all the graces emanates from the Church thru the Vicar of Christ.,So, when a faithful voluntary separated themselves from the Church they cut themselves off from the source of graces and how much more if they oppose,resist and rebel against the Church Authority esp.the Pope.
    Scriptures clearly teaches God resist the proud and give more graces to the humble.
    Regarding your news about Cardinal Burke and Ab.Vigano receiving financial aids, I have no knowledge on that, sorry but the life witnessing of Pope Francis living a life of humility, simplicity and transparency expose in contrast his pious character among all the people sorrounding Cardinal Burke.
    As Pope Francis stated how God shielded him from scandalous attack.
    “Sanctity is stronger than scandal.” Godbless

  4. M. says:

    Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider are sowing confusion. They are gathering their flock around them. But Bannon’s “Nazi Hogwarts” initiative (as Mark Shea humorously called it) has failed for them. Where will their new alternative Vatican be, now?

Share via
Copy link