Clicks4.5K
en.news
112

Carmelite Sister: Francis Enforces Death Sentence Upon Contemplative Nuns

Francis has released rules to suppress contemplative life, an anonymous Carmelite writes on RemnantNewspaper.com (January 22).

These guidelines have already caused "many religious communities" to be "divided, amalgamated, or disbanded,” the nun reports.

She states that for “those in control of the Vatican” [Francis] religious are a “hindrance.” Therefore they have pronounced a "death sentence upon contemplative nuns.”

According to the nun, attempts throughout the centuries to suppress monasteries haven't once come as close to success as in the present day, because this time the attack comes from within the Church.

The nun concludes that it is not beneficial to seek recognition from people in the Vatican "who are eager for the death of the Church."

She remembers that in former times the approval of Rome meant the approval of God, “Now, we are forced to choose between the two. It is a matter of life and death.”

Picture: © Mazur, CC BY-NC-SA, #newsTlyltccipx

colemanmd likes this.
Moses in his famous Bible Song prophesied the antics of the current antipope bergoglio whose rock is Oops “who am I to judge.”

Indeed their rock is not like our Rock,
Even our enemies themselves judge this.
For their vine is from the vine of Sodom,
And from the fields of Gomorrah”

[Deuteronomy 32]
Caroline03 likes this.
F M Shyanguya likes this.
The anti Pope Bergoglio only supports gay activist nuns, feminist-Marxist lesbians. From Argentina Bergoglio persecuted not only the faithful priests but also the religious communities. In 2017 Bergoglio promoted the book of the gay activist nun, Mónica Astorga Cremona, who does militancy in favor of the gay 'gender identity law' of Argentina 4christum.blogspot.com/…/in-2017-bergogl…
Ludovic Denim and one more user like this.
Ludovic Denim likes this.
mccallansteve likes this.
Bergoglio in Argentina seized the lands of the nuns 4christum.blogspot.com/…/in-argentina-be…
I think St Ireneaus spoke about this fromrome.info/…/st-ireneaus-pro…
la verdad prevalece likes this.
This ominous sign is another proof that “francis” is an antipope and wolf in sheep’s clothing.
The greatest hatred of excommunicated heretics is always reserved for Catholics who spend their lives in perpetual contemplative prayer to Almighty God.
Henry VIII on his deathbed murmured “monks, monks.
This was always interpreted as his guilt/ prayer to the contemplative monks he had murdered.
But …More
This ominous sign is another proof that “francis” is an antipope and wolf in sheep’s clothing.
The greatest hatred of excommunicated heretics is always reserved for Catholics who spend their lives in perpetual contemplative prayer to Almighty God.
Henry VIII on his deathbed murmured “monks, monks.
This was always interpreted as his guilt/ prayer to the contemplative monks he had murdered.
But Henry’s sins of the flesh are mild compared to antipopes francis spiritual demonic crusade to destroy catholic faith and identity.
F M Shyanguya and one more user like this.
F M Shyanguya likes this.
la verdad prevalece likes this.
"This was always interpreted as his guilt/ prayer to the contemplative monks he had murdered."

Wrong.

Agnes Strickland was a 19th century historian and the primary source for recounting Henry VIII's last words. She wrote that Henry VIII “was afflicted with visionary horrors at the hour of his departure; for that he glanced with rolling eyes and looks of wild import towards the darker recesses…More
"This was always interpreted as his guilt/ prayer to the contemplative monks he had murdered."

Wrong.

Agnes Strickland was a 19th century historian and the primary source for recounting Henry VIII's last words. She wrote that Henry VIII “was afflicted with visionary horrors at the hour of his departure; for that he glanced with rolling eyes and looks of wild import towards the darker recesses of his chamber, muttering, ‘Monks—monks!’ ”

So, no, it has not "always been interpreted" as a "prayer to the contemplative monks he had murdered". The very historian who recounted the last moments of Henry VIII claimed the king was reacting to "visionary horrors", not praying..

www.earlymodernengland.com/…/monks-monks-mon…
You miss the forest again for the trees.
My point is the attack by antipope Francis on the concept of contemplative prayer as a vocation in itself.
But you are fine with such anti catholic agendas since you continue to accept a proven public formal heretic as the Vicar of Christ.
Clearly the Christ you believe in must also be a deceiver
God bless the solid Catholic nuns, religious, and priests.
I pray that the Cardinals actually do their duty and kick out the heretic, idolater, before he does any more damage.
"You miss the forest again for the trees."

This isn't a forestry class, Thor. This is you falsifying history for your own ends.

"My point is the attack by antipope Francis on the concept of contemplative prayer as a vocation in itself."

A "point" you were reduced to supporting by inventing a blatantly false claim about how the last words of an English king were "always interpreted as.".

More
"You miss the forest again for the trees."

This isn't a forestry class, Thor. This is you falsifying history for your own ends.

"My point is the attack by antipope Francis on the concept of contemplative prayer as a vocation in itself."

A "point" you were reduced to supporting by inventing a blatantly false claim about how the last words of an English king were "always interpreted as.".

They weren't "always interpreted" that way at all. In fact, the very historian who serves as the primary source of this attribution to the king interpreted them entirely differently. Further, the historian's description of the king's behavior directly contradicts your interpretation.

King Henry VIII wasn't praying and that isn't how his last words were "always interpreted as".

The point is you routinely fabricate claims of support for your own interpretations where none exists.

This is a recurring theme with all your claims on GTV, regardless of the subject.

The point is you're a habitual liar, maybe even a pathological one.

"But you are fine with such anti catholic agendas since you continue to accept a proven public formal heretic as the Vicar of Christ."

Case in point: I have no "anti-catholic agenda". This is you telling another lie. Again.

It's a particularly ugly lie since you're telling it with the intent to defame my reputation and vilify my character to other Catholic readers.

Unlike you, I'm consistent in applying Canon Law and Church Magesterium uniformly to all Popes. You don't.

It's funny to watch you tack on your usual qualifications to bolster your claim. A "proven" heretic? By whom? You?

I can readily find at least one staunchly Catholic traditionalist Cardinal, highly esteemed here on GTV, who claims just the opposite.

novusordowatch.org/…/burke-francis-n…

...and suppose Francis is, which is possible, something I've never disputed.

If he is, then you have a problem. The Church has a problem.

Others have also "proven" the last four Popes are formal heretics as well. There are a number of "proven" heresies in Benedict XVI's writings going all the way back to when he was Cardinal Ratzinger.

You resort to every fast-talking demagogue's trick to avoid answering and disproving that long, long list of "proven" heresies against Francis' predecessors..

You know the ones. The ones you recoil from. The ones you demand I re-write hoping to find some new "point" to attack because you can't disprove them the way they're already presented right now.

Those heresies.

"Clearly the Christ you believe in must also be a deceiver"

The only demonstrable "deceiver" on this comments thread is you.

Next time you tell a lie on GTV, pick a better subject. History, particularly English history, has little if any room for your fabrications..
To Ultraviolet.
You really will believe any old nonsense.
Your so called “primary” source historian was writing some centuries after Henry VIII death. You quote this as though it is infallible.
Gullibility is your defect and this manifests in the acceptance of the falsehood that sitting popes promulgated doctrinal heresy.
That has never happened and your scatter gun approach to drown the board …More
To Ultraviolet.
You really will believe any old nonsense.
Your so called “primary” source historian was writing some centuries after Henry VIII death. You quote this as though it is infallible.
Gullibility is your defect and this manifests in the acceptance of the falsehood that sitting popes promulgated doctrinal heresy.
That has never happened and your scatter gun approach to drown the board with dozens of dodgy websites alleging such will not work.
You then rashly expect me to examine this drivel and then agree with you.
No.
Finally you have failed to document as asked one specific doctrinal heresy by a sitting pope.
Having lost your argument you now like all losers resort to personal abuse.
That is what happens to superficial people incapable of in depth analysis and argument.
The antipope Francis is very very definitely your type of pope and suits you down to ground.
That is really why you recognize his false pontificate as valid and licit.
This silly "summary" of yours is just another demagogue's gimmick to avoid discussing what you must. Saying something doesn't make it so, Thor. Making a claim and proving it aren't the same.

www.calefactory.org/misc-v2-heresiesofb16.htm

"You really will believe any old nonsense."

Not so. I've become quite skilled at debunking YOUR nonsense.

"Your so called 'primary' source historian was writ…More
This silly "summary" of yours is just another demagogue's gimmick to avoid discussing what you must. Saying something doesn't make it so, Thor. Making a claim and proving it aren't the same.

www.calefactory.org/misc-v2-heresiesofb16.htm

"You really will believe any old nonsense."

Not so. I've become quite skilled at debunking YOUR nonsense.

"Your so called 'primary' source historian was writing some centuries after Henry VIII death. You quote this as though it is infallible."

That historian remains the primary source for the very information that YOU cited.

The same historian countered your fabrication. Too bad. If you wish to prove the historian was wrong, that's your job and like usual you won't do it.

"Gullibility is your defect and this manifests in the acceptance of the falsehood that sitting popes promulgated doctrinal heresy."

It isn't a falsehood until you prove otherwise. And you can't. You won't even address the heresies of just Benedict XVI.

"That has never happened and your scatter gun approach to drown the board with dozens of dodgy websites alleging such will not work."

Your approach is to do endlessly repeat your claims, refuse to support your claims, refuse to counter evidence that disproves the claims you make, and then dismiss those sources as "dodgy".

You're nothing but a charlatan

"You then rashly expect me to examine this drivel and then agree with you."

No. I already know you examined the information and found it isn't drivel. It is unendurable for you. If it was "drivel", you'd be pridefully "disproving" it as such. You can't. You won't.

"Finally you have failed to document as asked one specific doctrinal heresy by a sitting pope."

When I supply evidence, that's documentation. When you refuse to counter that evidence, that's when you lose.

"Having lost your argument you now like all losers resort to personal abuse."

It isn't abuse if it's true and I have caught you in a lie, which makes you a liar.

"That is really why you recognize his false pontificate as valid and licit."

...and again, you refuse to even address the staggering amount of information showing that, if Francis is illicit, so too are the previous four popes.