Amazon Primed

  • Posted September 30, 2019

from Introibo Ad Altare Dei

The Amazon Synod is approaching wherein the Argentinian apostate of the Vatican II sect, Jorge Bergoglio, looks primed and ready to decimate the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. It is widely believed that he will make de jure what has been the case de facto, namely, to allow those divorced and “remarried” adulterers to receive their invalid “communion” as long as the adulterer subjectively feels alright about it.  According to the Index of Leading Catholic Indicators authored by Kenneth C. Jones [pub. 2003], in 1968, the nascent Vatican II sect granted just 338 annulments to its U.S. members. Thirty years later, in 1998, there were 50,498 granted in the United States. (See pg.70). These were divorces euphemistically referred to as “annulments;” if  someone could pay the price you got the worthless piece of paper that declared a marriage null and void.

The reason behind the dramatic increase came especially after 1983, when the Vatican II sect’s “Code of Canon Law,” based on the heresies of the Robber Council, added “psychological immaturity” (whatever that means) as a reason to abandon your spouse and commit adultery. My spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, an approved pre-Vatican II canonist, sounded the alarm through the media (even making an appearance on NYC talk radio) that this would wreak havoc on the institution of marriage and cause many divorces in the name of “religion.” It happened exactly as he said it would. Not being content with phony annulments, which declare marriages as non-existent at the time of their inception, Bergoglio seeks to undermine marriage by allowing adulterers who don’t even pretend their first marriage was invalid to receive “communion.” He has already done so in Amoris Laetitia (2016), and that will most likely be “ratified,” so to speak, at the Amazon Synod; perhaps even made more radical.

The apologists for the Vatican II sect claim that this abandoning of Church teaching concerning the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is merely a “development of dogma.” On April 8, 2016, The Washington Post published an opinion piece by one Stephanie Coontz, who made the following ignorant and unsubstantiated claim:

The Catholic Church did not make marriage a sacrament until the 13th century, and only began to enforce strict religious conformity in marriage in the 16th century — in part as a reaction to criticism from Protestants that Catholics were insufficiently enthusiastic about the institution. (See

While I understand this is an opinion, I also agree with a former New York politician who said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.” The article contains no citation to any relevant authority for the purpose of even attempting to make this lie seem plausible. It merely stands on the author’s own ipse dixit.

The purpose of this post is to explain what is (and what is not) a true development of dogma, showing the truly Catholic meaning with the heretical Modernist understanding which holds sway over most people today.

The “Evolution” of Dogma is Condemned by the ChurchWhat Vatican II apologists refer to as “development of dogma” is in actuality an “evolution” into something altogether different. One need only refer to what happened on August 2, 2018.  Bergoglio announced that he was changing the Vatican II sect’s stance on capital punishment. According to the Modernist Vatican’s Congregation for the [Destruction of the] Doctrine of the Faith:
Ending the life of a criminal as punishment for a crime is inadmissible because it attacks the dignity of the person, a dignity that is not lost even after having committed the most serious crimes. This conclusion is reached taking into account the new understanding of penal sanctions applied by the modern State, which should be oriented above all to the rehabilitation and social reintegration of the criminal. Finally, given that modern society possesses more efficient detention systems, the death penalty becomes unnecessary as protection for the life of innocent people.

Compare with the true teaching on capital punishment:

Theologians McHugh and Callan teach, “Killing human beings is lawful in two cases. (a) It is lawful when when the common safety requires that the State inflict death for a crime (capital punishment)” (See Moral Theology 2: 100). They also assert, “Though lawful, capital punishment is not always necessary; for it is a means to an end, and it may be omitted therefore, when the end can be obtained by the use of other and less severe means.” (See Moral Theology, 2: 101).

Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas taught, “It is lawful to kill an evildoer insofar as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the communities welfare…[to] lawfully put evildoers to death.” (See ST II-II, 64, 3)

Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori taught, “…if it is necessary for the defense of the republic…[or] in order to preserve the order of law” the death penalty is licit.” (See Theologia Moralis III, 4, 1).

How is it possible to go from a position that capital punishment is in principle licit (although not mandatory to use), to a position where it is “inadmissible” in principle, and not call it a denial of Church teaching? This is not, in any way, a “development” of doctrine. If capital punishment really were, after all, always and intrinsically immoral, this would be an admission that the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium can teach error and give evil—a denial of the dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church.

This is the most recent and concrete denial of dogma disguised under the Modernist conception of “development of dogma.”

The Church teaches:

From the letter Quantum presbyterorum of Pope St. Simplicius to Acacius, Bishop of Constantinople, January 9, 476]:
Because, according to the extant doctrine of our predecessors of sacred memory, against which it is wrong to argue, whoever seems to understand rightly, does not desire to be taught by new assertions, but all [matters] in which either he who has been deceived by heretics can be instructed, or he who is about to be planted in the vineyard of the Lord can be trained, are clear and perfect; after imploring trust in your most merciful leader, have the request for calling a synod refused. I urge (therefore), dearest brother, that by every means resistance be offered to the efforts of the perverse to call a synod, which has not always been enjoined in other cases, unless something new arose in distorted minds or something ambiguous in a pronouncement so that, if there were any obscurity, the authority of sacerdotal deliberation might illumine those who were treating the ambiguous pronouncement in common, just as first the impiety of Arius and then that of Nestorius, lastly that of Dioscorus and also of Eutyches caused this to be done. And –may the mercy of Christ our God (and) Savior avert this–it must be made known, abominable [as it is], that [the purpose is] to restore [to their former positions] in opposition to the opinions of the priests of the Lord of the whole world and of the principal rulers of both [scil., worlds] those who have been condemned. . . .

This letter clearly instructs the bishop to oppose summoning a council on the grounds that said council was intended to teach new doctrine, whereas the Church already possessed all true doctrine in its entirety and used councils only for the condemnation of new heresies or for the clarification of ambiguities. Compare to Roncalli, Montini, and Vatican II.

From the Vatican Council of 1870, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius:

 For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding “Therefore […] let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.” [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3]. (Emphasis mine)

Canon III: If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

From the Anti-Modernist Oath of Pope St. Pius X (1910):
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.

From Lamentabili Sane of Pope St. Pius X (1907):
CONDEMNED PROPOSITION 21: Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles.

True Development of DoctrineDogma cannot change. This is made absolutely clear by the Church, as cited in the section above. However, there is an authentic, Catholic, non-Modernist way in which doctrines can be said to “develop.” This will be outlined below.
1. A doctrine can be formulated more clearly than it had been previously. The term Transubstantiation was adopted by the Church in the Middle Ages as the most precise way of expressing the manner in which the bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ during the Consecration at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. 
2. A doctrine may be defined by the Church, which was part of the Deposit of Divine Revelation, but that was not recognized as such by all. Two such examples are the Immaculate Conception, and the Particular Judgement.
3. When heretics put forth statements incompatible with Catholic belief, the controversy that ensues exposes them as errors. Their solemn condemnation increases the number of beliefs Catholics are bound to accept. However, that simply means that the implications of the unchanging Deposit of Faith have been manifested by the Church; the infallible Guardian and Teacher of that Divine Deposit of Revelation. The condemnation of the errors of the Modernists by Pope St. Pius X is a good example of this type of development.
Notice that none of these three ways constitutes a change in doctrine. The first way is a linguistic improvement to make something more lucid. The second way gives a Divine guarantee as to their apodictic certainty. The third way establishes the logical consequences of doctrines. Notice it is not a true change in meaning, nor an addition or deletion of what has always been believed since public revelation ended with the death of St. John the Apostle in 100 A.D. 
The Spurious “Defense” of Giving “Communion” to Adulterers by the V2 Sect Given all the above, how can V2 sect apologists claim giving their “communion” to divorced and “remarried” adulterers is not a change in doctrine, but a permissible development? One such lofty sounding defense was offered by Paul Fahey on the blog Where Peter Is (See 
The article begins thus:
In chapter eight of Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis teaches that individuals in objective situations of sin (being divorced and remarried), but who are not subjectively culpable because of mitigating factors (insufficient knowledge and/or consent) may, in certain cases, receive Communion…This is entirely in line with the Church’s teaching concerning mortal sin. The [Vatican II sect] Catechism says that mortal sin prevents one from legitimately receiving Holy Communion (CCC 1415). However, the Catechism also says that “Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice” (CCC 1859). Further, the Catechism states that, “Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” (CCC 1735).
Here, Fahey is trying to circumvent the idea of a change by claiming that the Church forbids Her members in mortal sin from receiving Communion (this is true). He then reminds his readers that mortal sin requires full knowledge that the act is wrong (and the act must be a grave matter), as well as full consent of the will. (This also is true). From these starting principles he will try to make a case that in certain instances the necessary consent of the will to make living in adultery a mortal sin is absent. If there is no mortal sin, then there is nothing stopping that adulterous person from receiving Communion. I will demonstrate why his theory falls flat on its face. 
Someone who is divorced and contracts a second phony “marriage” is living in adultery, a mortal sin against the Sixth Commandment and may not be admitted to Communion. If they wish to be forgiven and admitted to the sacraments, the adulterer must separate bed and board from their partner. If, because of children and/or lack of financial ability to do so, they must live as brother and sister. In addition, the admission to Communion must avoid the appearance of scandal. It is thought that the Amazon Synod will allow those living in open adultery (having sexual relations) to receive Communion. Bergoglio allowed it in “certain cases” in Amoris Laetitiae (2016). Even if the Amazon Synod enshrines Amoris with the same qualifier of “certain cases” it cannot escape the charge of heresy. Amoris is a heretical change of doctrine. 
Fahey doesn’t claim the person living in adultery doesn’t have full knowledge. This is good because Amoris Laetitia talks about people no longer being barred from Vatican II sect “sacraments.” Hence, they had knowledge of the sinfulness of their living in adultery since they had been publicly denied the Novus Bogus “communion.” Fahey gives us two examples that center on “full consent of the will.” 
Say there’s a woman who is divorced and civilly remarried. She is Catholic and has recently gone through a personal conversion and wants to be reconciled to the Church. However, her “second husband” who is also the primary breadwinner for the family, threatens to leave her and the kids if she stops having sex with him for the twelve or more months it will take for their annulment to come through (this is assuming that they live in an area that has a functioning tribunal). Because of the threat to her and her children’s well being, she is not fully able to say no to the objectively sinful act of having sex with her civil husband…Another possible example could be a situation where there’s a Baptist couple who have been married several years and have multiple children. After attending Mass with a friend the husband finds himself intrigued and attracted to Catholicism and begins RCIA [Vatican II sect’s “Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults”] with the intention of joining the Church. During those classes he learns that he and his wife aren’t really married because she was previously married to someone else for six months when she was in his early 20s. Thus, in order for the husband to receive Communion, he and his wife must abstain from sex for the rest of their lives because they live in a diocese that does not have a tribunal. The wife simply refuses to submit to Catholic teaching on this matter and won’t accept living with her husband in total abstinence.

As we learned in law school, “hard cases make bad law.” In other words, trying to make a principle of general applicability based on difficult, rare cases, leads to a faulty principles. Here, when dealing with God’s Law, the cases are meant to (a) appeal to the emotions and (b) make “compulsion” reduce adultery from the status of mortal sin. As the unanimous teaching of the approved theologians tells us, there are five (5) factors that mitigate the seriousness of a sin: ignorance, concupiscence (or “passion”), fear, habit, and violence (See theologian Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology, [1925], 1:11-16; See also theologian Davis [1934], Moral and Pastoral Theology, 1:16-30).  As already demonstrated, ignorance cannot be a mitigating factor

What about concupiscence? Theologian Slater says concupiscence “signifies the inclination to evil, which in human nature is a result of the Fall of our First Parents.” Further, it is a strong feeling and “movement of the sensitive appetite” towards some perceived object of desire. Concupiscence may be antecedent or consequent. Only antecedent concupiscence diminishes moral culpability. (See Slater, Ibid, pgs. 13-15). Example: A man find’s out his wife has been having an affair with his neighbor. He sees the neighbor, and in a fit of spontaneous rage, beats him severely. His passion (anger) temporarily deprived him of right reason. Nothing even remotely analogous applies to those persistently living in adultery.  Hence, concupiscence is not a mitigating factor.

What about habit? According to theologian Jone, a habit is “a facility and a readiness of acting in a certain manner acquired by repeated acts.” (See Moral Theology, [1962], pg. 10). A bad habit would be, e.g. consenting to impure thoughts. Habits mitigate culpability only if a person would “strive earnestly to rid himself of a bad habit,” and “does not sin in doing the evil deed by force of habit without advertence [full knowledge] to its sinful character.” (Ibid, pg. 10). Living in a state of adultery can in no way be deemed a “habit.”

What about violence? If you are violently compelled to do something evil, there is no culpability provided one offers as much resistance as possible externally, and does not consent internally. (See theologian Jone, Ibid, pg. 7). However, if one is not simply passive, but cooperation is offered (or no external resistance is given when possible), the action will be voluntary and imputable to that extent. (See Slater, Ibid, pg. 18). Therefore, as the adulterer chooses to stay in that situation and consent to an intrinsic evil, violence cannot be a mitigating factor. Here, you’d basically be discussing forcible rape. No one should stay in such a situation. Take the children (if any), go to a shelter, and have the perpetrator arrested and prosecuted. There are also people to help such victims get back on their feet.

What about fear? This is one of the driving factors used by Fahey in his hypotheticals quoted above.  According to theologian Davis, “Fear is defined as a shrinking from impending evil.” (Ibid, pg. 27). Fear, unless it “deprives a person of the use of reason” does not excuse from an intrinsically evil action. That’s why fear of death is not an excuse for apostasy. (Ibid, pgs. 27-28).

What about “…inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” (CCC 1735)”? Pure Modernist claptrap that was never considered “mitigating factors” prior to Vatican II. Since it is Modernist drivel, it need not be considered.

Therefore, “communion” for divorced and remarried adulterers is not a “development of doctrine.” It is the heretical denial of the Indissolubility of marriage.

ConclusionBergoglio seems primed and ready to continue Modernist decimation of any last remnants of Catholic teaching from his sect. Holy Matrimony is under attack as never before from both the world and the Vatican II sect. Sodomite “marriage,” so-called domestic partnerships, no-fault divorce, easy to obtain phony annulments, and now “communion” for open adulterers, makes a sham of true marriage. There are more broken families than ever before, and the number of psychologically scarred children grows steadily. 
The Amazon Synod will attempt to portray any heresy, like the one in Amoris Laetitia, as another “development of doctrine.” It has been demonstrated that this idea of “development” is a heretical, Modernist concept solemnly condemned by the Church. One of the many sickening implications of this teaching in regards to marriage, is that King Henry VIII was right and St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher both died in vain. They didn’t realize that living in a persistent state of open adultery might not be seriously sinful if done for the social factor of wanting a male heir; it’s a doctrinal development. I’m sure it will be extra hot in the Amazon during the Synod–not to mention the stench of brimstone.