It was high time that Vladimir Putin supports the syrian president Assad in this war against the terrorists, because the Syrian president tolerated the Christians. This do not like the Western politicians, as they do not like the mass immigration. They did not expect it, and it destroys their plans against the syrian president. The german Chancellor fears especially the discontent of the citizens because of mass immigration, and therefore seeks help from Turkey. She was never willing to give the many refugees a decent accommodation.
But the US president and the European politicians will reap what they have sown.

The inspired word of God makes it very clear that Satan is the actual "God" of this age of this present human society. The Apostle Paul described typical, carnal people, "whose minds the God of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the Glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them." 2 Corinthians 4,4
Later, the Apostle described how such people walk "according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience." Ephesians 2,2
So, Satan is the one who actually controls many of the thoughts and impulses that beset human beings. Satan controls the children of disobedience, for he is the invisible "prince of the power of the air."

"Enter through the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to damnation, and there are many who enter through it, for the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to Life, and there are few who find it." Matthew 7,13-14
And someone said to Him, "Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?" And He said to them: "Strive to enter through the narrow door, for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, 'Lord, open up to us!' then He will answer and say to you: 'I do not know where you are from.'"…Luke 13,23-25

IS THE CHURCH BEING SUBJECTED TO THE “DICTATORSHIP OF RELATIVISM”?

If the “dictatorship of relativism” were allowed hold sway over the whole Church, it would shatter it into as many pieces as there are episcopal conferences in the world.
Devolving doctrinal and disciplinary authority to the Bishops’ conferences is a dangerous idea.

In a now famous speech made in the Vatican Basilica on the eve of his election to the papacy, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger deplored what he termed a “dictatorship of relativism”. He remarked:

Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be “tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine”, seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.

Fighting a “dictatorship of relativism” which affirms that moral or religious truth is not absolute, but relative to situations, persons, or places, had been a constant, if not the dominant theme of Pope Benedict’s papacy.

Moral relativism holds that there is no such thing as a moral or religious truth that is absolutely true, that is, true no matter to whom it is said, when it is said and where. Rather, proponents of relativism hold that propositions of a moral type, such as “Thou shalt not kill”, can be true for some, but false for others.

For the moral relativist:

Same-sex marriage may be wrong in Africa or the middle East, but right in the West.

Owning slaves can be right for some cultures, but unacceptable for others

Polygamy can be right in Muslim countries, but unacceptable everywhere else

and so on…

Moral relativism constantly tempts those responsible for the common good, whether spiritual or temporal. Taking note of the existence of a great variety of moral and religious beliefs, many leaders are loathe to affirm, much less enforce, a certain moral code or spiritual doctrine, lest they lose the adhesion and cooperation of the people under their charge. Democratic governments, naturally, are most tempted to relativism, since elected representatives need to obtain votes from groups with different and often opposing religious and moral views. These politicians, in order to obtain votes, are likely to affirm that each group’s deeply held moral and religious views are “true for them” and therefore respectable.

As Pope Benedict observed, however, moral relativism is but a step towards individualism — the view that each individual has his or her own moral and spiritual truths–, for, according to him, relativism’s “ultimate goal” consists “solely of one’s ego and desires.”

Moral relativism is thus the beginning of a slippery slope that leads to the individualism and anarchy that blights the West today: If it is good and proper that each culture have its moral and religious truths, then there is no reason why each individual could not have his own, too. But the slope does not end there, for that same individual who has decided that it was good and proper for him to hold his own moral and spiritual truth, could then decide that it is good and proper that the moral and religious truths he holds could change from one day to the next.

Pope Benedict, then, clearly saw that moral and spiritual relativism was a recipe for the practical dissolution of morality and spirituality, which is why he dedicated much of his papacy to fighting it.

How quickly we forget.

A mere 10 short years after Pope Benedict’s momentous speech, German Benedictine abbot Jeremias Schröder, reporting on the general discussions held during the current Ordinary Synod on the Family, said on October 14 of this year that many synod fathers seemed to be espousing the very relativism that Benedict XVI had spent his whole papacy denouncing. He said:

Many of the speeches in the general discussions mentioned the possibility of dealing with questions on the basis of a given cultural context. I would say there were about twenty or so speeches and only two or three were against, claiming that for the sake of the Church’s unity handing over powers would have fatal consequences. … I, for example am German and it seems to me that the remarried divorces issue is very strongly and widely felt in Germany and much less so elsewhere. This is an area where there could be space for original pastoral ideas, also as far as the understanding of homosexuality goes, an issue that really varies from culture to culture. National Episcopal Conferences could be allowed to search for pastoral solutions that are in tune with their specific cultural context. (emphasis added)

This same abbot is also quoted in a German newspaper as saying:

We do not need for every problem a uniform, whole-church solution which was compiled in Rome. The church must maybe come to an agreement about the fact that in different world regions and societies another contact with the complicated subject Family is allowed. An order member from the Middle East said me recently: An acknowledgment of same-sexual life forms by the church would be conceivable, purely hypothetically, possibly in Europe. However, in the Islamic context it would on no account be this. (emphasis added, translation Vox Cantoris)

This talk is also reminiscent of that of another German, Cardinal Reinhart Marx, who affirmed in February of this year that the Church in Germany was “not just a subsidiary of Rome.”

But this is nothing but the “dictatorship of relativism”, condemned throughout Benedict XVI’s papacy, applied to the Church: what is morally and spiritually right or wrong, in practice, must now depend upon which episcopal conference we are talking about.

Truth be told, this tacit condoning of relativism by Synod fathers and Cardinal Marx was foreshadowed by no less than Pope Francis himself who wrote, in his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, that “a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority, has not yet been sufficiently elaborated.” (emphasis added) This observation was followed by the affirmation that “Excessive centralization, rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach.” These lines are contained in paragraph 32 of his exhortation, which is headed by a call for a “conversion of the papacy”.

This seems to indicate that Pope Francis would be open to the possibility of devolving some of the doctrinal power of the papacy to the individual episcopal conferences. If this means anything, it means giving the episcopal conferences the power to adopt disciplines and even doctrines that are different from those of other conferences. Would then a “converted papacy” be one in which the pope becomes, to use Benedict’s phrase, a “dictator of relativism” enforcing the moral and spiritual relativism that reigns among the episcopal conferences? If so, the “dictatorship of relativism” would hold sway over the whole Church, shattering it into as many pieces as there are episcopal conferences in the world.

The process of dissolution would not end there, however. For as with moral relativism in society at large, spiritual and moral relativism in the church will very likely lead to a radical subjectivism, where individual “catholics”, chaffing under the constraints of their “authoritarian” episcopal conferences, will consider it right and proper to have disciplines and religious truths custom-tailored to their particular situations. Will a future Apostolic exhortation hint at a “conversion of the papacy” devolving even more of the powers of the papacy to these “oppressed” or “excluded” individuals?

Anticipating the debacle that would surely follow should episcopal conferences be endowed with doctrinal and disciplinary power, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, condemned the whole idea as “an absolutely anti-Catholic idea that does not respect the catholicity of the Church.” Indeed, Catholic literally means universal, as in a universal moral and spiritual code that applies equally to everyone, everywhere, for all time; it is the antithesis of relativism, which states that moral and spiritual truths are true only for some or for a specific time.

Also, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke has recently rejected the view that local bishops or episcopal conferences could have the authority on a pastoral level to deal with moral questions, condemning the proposal as “simply contrary to Catholic Faith and life”, going on to state that “there is no change in these truths, from one place to another or from one time to another.”

Devolving power from the papacy to the episcopal conferences therefore compromises both the catholicity (universality) and unicity (one-ness) of the Church, making it a hodge-podge of “churches” all operating under their own rules and beliefs, and, ultimately, in thrall to the caprices of the individual egos that populate them.

Drawing us away from the temptation to gratify our ego, Cardinal Ratzinger shows us, again by way of his Vatican basilica address, the way out of this mess: he invited us to adopt an “adult faith that refuses to follow the trends of fashion and the latest novelty.” Instead of embracing a dangerous relativism which is nothing more than a mask for a childish faith “tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine” we should look to Christ. For only through friendship with him can we obtain “a sure criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceit from truth” thus escaping the “dictatorship of relativism” that threatens us all.

voiceofthefamily.com/power-episcopal-conferences/

Sentimentalismo:
Un obispo en el sínodo jugó con la carta del sentimentalismo con el fin de abogar a favor de dar la comunión a los adúlteros. Relató la historia de un chico que hizo su Primera Comunión. Después de haber recibido la Hostia en la mano, lo partió y le dio un pedazo a su Padre que por desconocidas razones estaba a su lado. El padre no podía recibir la comunión según el obispo porque estaba divorciados y vuelto a casar.

BREAKING: Archbishop Cupich lays out pathway for gay couples to receive Communion at Vatican press scrum

Blase Cupich , Homosexuality

Sign the pledge to pray for the Synod on the Family here.

ROME, October 16, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Archbishop Blase Cupich of Chicago — who is participating in the Synod of the Family at Pope Francis’ personal invitation — said at a press scrum in the Vatican press office this afternoon that the conscience is "inviolable" and that he believes divorced and remarried couples could be permitted to receive the sacraments, if they have "come to a decision" to do so "in good conscience" - theological reasoning that he indicated in response to a follow-up question would also apply to gay couples.

During the lengthy press briefing, the archbishop also spoke approvingly of the so-called "Kasper Proposal," which would permit divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion in some cases. Cupich explained that he had distributed Cardinal Walter Kasper's book, The Gospel of the Family, in which the cardinal had laid out this proposal, to all of the priests in his diocese.

“In Chicago I visit regularly with people who feel marginalized: the elderly, the divorced and remarried, gay and lesbian individuals and also couples. I think that we really need to get to know what their life is like if we’re going to accompany them,” he said.

When asked to give a concrete example of how he would accompany the divorced and remarried in their desire to receive the sacraments, Cupich replied: “If people come to a decision in good conscience then our job is to help them move forward and to respect that. The conscience is inviolable and we have to respect that when they make decisions, and I’ve always done that.”

When asked by LifeSiteNews if the notion of accompanying people to "the Sacrament" who had a clear indication of conscience to do so also applied to gay couples in the Church, Cupich indicated an affirmative answer.

“I think that gay people are human beings too and they have a conscience. And my role as a pastor is to help them to discern what the will of God is by looking at the objective moral teaching of the Church and yet, at the same time, helping them through a period of discernment to understand what God is calling them to at that point,” he said. “It’s for everybody. I think that we have to make sure that we don’t pigeonhole one group as though they are not part of the human family, as though there’s a different set of rules for them. That would be a big mistake.”

STORY: Exclusive: Cardinal Burke: controversial Synod proposal ‘simply contrary’ to Catholicism

The Catholic Church teaches that while a person “must always obey the certain judgement of his conscience” the conscience, at the same time, must be formed by the “Word of God” and the “Church’s authority and her teaching” to make judgments that are “in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator.”

“Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgements. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt,” the Catechism of the Catholic Church states.

On Cardinal Kasper's proposal specifically, Cupich said, "I think that he has reasoned this proposal well, given the theology that he offers. I do think that we should look at a way in which people are not just accompanied but integrated and reconciled."

The archbishop had previously responded to a question, in December 2014, about giving Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians, saying he would "not use the Eucharist or as they call it the communion rail as the place to have those discussions or weigh in which people would be either excluded from the life of the church."

Since his appointment as bishop of Spokane in 2010, Cupich has developed a reputation as one of the most "progressive" bishops in the U.S. episcopate. Last year, Pope Francis tapped Cupich to lead the Chicago archdiocese, one of the country's most prominent dioceses, previously led by the conservative Cardinal Francis George.

In 2011 Cupich, then bishop of Spokane, forbade priests in his diocese from taking part in the semi-annual 40 Days for Life pro-life prayer vigil. His response to the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to redefine marriage focused primarily on decrying discrimination against homosexuals rather than criticizing the imposition of same-sex “marriage.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and that “under no circumstances can they be approved” since they are contrary to God’s plan for sexuality.

“They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life,” states the Catechism.

The Catholic Church teaches the those who present themselves to receive Holy Communion, which Catholics believe to be the real body and blood of Jesus Christ, must be in the state of grace and be free from mortal sin, which cuts off the life of God’s grace from the soul.

STORY: Cardinal Dolan confirms he signed leaked letter to Pope Francis: provides more details

“Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive Communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance,” the Catechism states. St. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians states that whoever receives Communion “in an unworthy manner” is “guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” thereby bringing “judgement upon himself.”

Cardinal Burke, when asked yesterday by LifeSiteNews in an exclusive interviewwhat the faithful should do when they see Synod Fathers suggesting heterodox positions regarding homosexuality and divorce, replied that the the faithful must stay close to Jesus.

“We follow our Lord Jesus Christ. He is our Master. And we are all held to be obedient to him and to his word, beginning with the Holy Father and with the Bishops. If a bishop, or a priest, or anyone, should announce something or declare something that is contrary to the truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as it’s communicated to us in the teaching of the Church, we follow Christ.”

“I say to people who are very anxious, because it seems in this time that there is simply a lot of confusion and statements that are really quite stunning about the faith, that we should remain serene. Because, in the Catholic Church, we have teaching authority, which is expressed, for instance, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and we simply need to study those things more deeply, adhere to them more ardently, and not be led astray by false teaching, from whatever source it comes,” he said.

Sign the pledge to pray for the Synod on the Family here.

CARDINAL BURKE PROCLAIMS CONTROVERSIAL SYNOD PROPOSALS ‘SIMPLY CONTRARY’ TO CATHOLICISM

October 16, 2015

The following article has been reproduced with permission of LifeSiteNews

Oct. 15, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – On Thursday morning, LifeSiteNews had an opportunity to sit down with Cardinal Raymond Burke in Rome, after a press conference he attended hosted by Voice of the Family. LifeSiteNews spoke with the Cardinal about the ongoing Synod on the Family, and in particular a controversial proposal, promoted by a participant in a recent Vatican press conference, to allow local bishops make decisions on how to deal with issues like homosexuality and divorce.

Cardinal Burke also critiqued the so-called “Kasper Proposal,” saying that it is based upon the false idea “that somehow doctrine and pastoral practice are in conflict with one another.”

The following is a transcript of this interview:

LSN: What do you make of the idea of “regional diversity” in the Church? Should local bishops have the authority on a pastoral level to deal with questions pertaining to the “social acceptance of homosexuality” and with “divorced and remarried persons?”

Burke: This is simply contrary to Catholic Faith and life. The Church follows the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ as it has first of all been taught to us by God in the creation — what we call the natural law, what every human heart understands because it has been created by God — but it’s also then been explained and illuminated by the teaching of Christ and in the tradition of the Church.

And this Church is one all over the world. There is no change in these truths, from one place to another or from one time to another. Certainly the teaching of these truths takes into account the particular needs in each area. But it doesn’t change the teaching. The teaching sometimes has to be even stronger in places where it is more compromised.

So, this is unacceptable. I don’t know where this idea comes from. What it actually means is that the Church is no longer Catholic [universal]. It means that it’s no longer one in its teaching throughout the whole world. We have one faith. We have one [collection of] sacraments. We have one governance throughout the whole world. That’s what it means to be ‘Catholic.’

I’d also like to comment on this idea of what is “pastoral.”

In much of the discussion which has taken place, beginning with the infamous presentation of Cardinal Walter Kasper in the Extraordinary Consistory on February 20 and 21 of 2014, centered around this idea that somehow doctrine and pastoral practice are in conflict with one another.

This is absurd. The pastoral practice exists to help us to live the truths of the faith, to live the doctrine of the faith in our daily lives. You can’t have a conflict [between these]. You can’t have the Church teaching, for instance, that marriage is indissoluble and then someone claiming at the same time for ‘pastoral’ reasons that a person who is living in an irregular union is able to receive the sacraments, which would mean that marriage isn’t indissoluble. These are just false distinctions — false contrasts — that we really need to clear up because it’s causing an immense confusion among the faithful and, of course, ultimately can lead people into serious error with great harm to their spiritual life and their eternal salvation.

LSN: What are the faithful to think and to do when they see Synod Fathers suggesting heterodox positions regarding homosexuality and divorce?

Burke: We follow our Lord Jesus Christ. He is our Master. And we are all held to be obedient to him and to his word, beginning with the Holy Father and with the Bishops. If a bishop, or a priest, or anyone, should announce something or declare something that is contrary to the truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as it’s communicated to us in the teaching of the Church, we follow Christ.

I say to people who are very anxious, because it seems in this time that there is simply a lot of confusion and statements that are really quite stunning about the faith, that we should remain serene. Because, in the Catholic Church, we have teaching authority, which is expressed, for instance, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and we simply need to study those things more deeply, adhere to them more ardently, and not be led astray by false teaching, from whatever source it comes.

LSN: Some suggest that there is very little disagreement in the Synod and that the media is guilty of manufacturing conflict where non exists. Your thoughts?

Burke: First of all, I have to qualify my observation by saying I’m not part of the Synod. I have no involvement at all within the Synod. I’ve been reading, not only what has been said in the media, but also official reports from the Vatican. And, I’ve had conversations with one or another Synod Father. To the contrary, I understand that there are very strong disagreements within the Synod. Given the discussion which has proceeded the Synod — and also, given the Instrumentum Laboris [Synod working document] with the very serious difficulties with that document — I would find it difficult to believe that there wouldn’t be strong disagreement. Otherwise, we’re not going to get to the truth of matters. We’re not going to safeguard and promote the Catholic faith as we need to.

Just my impression is that indeed there is disagreement.