Italian Liturgist Alleged to be Working on Ecumenical Mass: “Transubstantiation is Not a Dogma”

bid 24 uur

Posted on October 28, 2017 by abyssum


Italian Liturgist Alleged to be Working on Ecumenical Mass: “Transubstantiation is Not a Dogma”

Steve SkojecSteve Skojec,October 28, 2017.

In his Monday column at First Things, Italian journalist and veteran Vatican-watcher Marco Tosatti gave voice to what had previously been little more than a whispered rumor: that a group was at work, with Vatican knowledge and support, on a kind of interfaith liturgy:

[T]here is the matter of the “Ecumenical Mass,” a liturgy designed to unite Catholics and Protestants around the Holy Table. Though never officially announced, a committee reporting directly to Pope Francis has been working on this liturgy for some time. Certainly this topic is within the jurisdiction of the Congregation for Divine Worship, but Cardinal Sarah has not officially been informed of the committee’s existence. According to good sources, Sarah’s secretary, Arthur Roche—who holds positions opposite to those…

View original post 992 woorden meer


Video: Doreen Irvine. De duistere kant van Halloween, en meer…

bid 24 uur

Getuigenis van Doreen Irvine
Doreen Irvine was voorheen een heks en een satanist, een prostituee, aan heroïne verslaafd, koningin van zwarte heksen in Europa, slachtoffer van gruwelijke praktijken…  maar gered door Gods kracht. Ze is christen geworden. Ze getuigt van haar geloof in God en legt de duistere zijde uit in woorden en begrippen die we begrijpen.

Video uit 1986, Nederlands ondertiteld.


View original post




  1. The 38 Most Ridiculous Things Martin Luther Ever Wrote
  2. Luther and Calvin Destroy Marriage
  3. The Cycle of Insanity
  4. The Failure of Protestant Emotionalism
  5. The Ferguson Riots

As we approach the five hundred year anniversary of the Protestant reformulation on October 31, 2017, it is good for us to look back and examine how that all worked out for them. For, how are we to judge the fruit of tree over the last 500 years unless we first examine the roots of that tree? Therefore, let us start from the beginning and blink our eyes at the 38 Most Ridiculous things that Martin Luther, the illustrious Father of Protestantism and the Bible-Only (sola-scriptura) movement, said. It is still hard to believe how we allowed and still allow this very plain instrument of Satan to divide God’s people . . .

Martin Luther on the Dignity and Majesty of God

  1. “I look upon God no better than a scoundrel” (ref. Weimar, Vol. 1, Pg. 487. Cf. Table Talk, No. 963).
  2. “Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.” (ref. Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107. – What a great blasphemy from a man who is regarded as “great reformer”!).
  3. “I have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ” (ref. Table Talk, 2397b).
  4. “It does not matter how Christ behaved – what He taught is all that matters” (ref. Erlangen Vol. 29, Pg. 126).

    Martin Luther on the 10 Commandments

  5. “[The commandments] only purpose is to show man his impotence to do good and to teach him to despair of himself” (ref: Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), Volume III, p. 364).
  6. “We must remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart” (ref. De Wette 4, 188)
  7. “If we allow them – the Commandments – any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies” (ref. Comm. ad Galat, p.310).
  8. “It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.” (ref. Trischreden, Wittenberg Edition, Vol. VI., p. 160).

    Martin Luther on the Material Necessity of Good Works

  9. “Good works are bad and are sin like the rest.” (ref. Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), VOl. III, pg. 47).
  10. “There is no scandal greater, more dangerous, more venomous, than a good outward life, manifested by good works and a pious mode of life. That is the grand portal, the highway that leads to damnation.” (ref. Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), VOl. II, pg. 128).

    Martin Luther on the Importance of Free-Will

  11. “…with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, (man) has no ‘free-will’, but is a captive, prisoner and bond slave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.” (ref. From the essay, ‘Bondage of the Will,’ ‘Martin Luther: Selections From His Writings, ed. by Dillenberger, Anchor Books, 1962 p. 190).
  12. “Man is like a horse. Does God leap into the saddle? The horse is obedient and accommodates itself to every movement of the rider and goes whither he wills it. Does God throw down the reins? Then Satan leaps upon the back of the animal, which bends, goes and submits to the spurs and caprices of its new rider… Therefore, necessity, not free will, is the controlling principle of our conduct. God is the author of what is evil as well as of what is good, and, as He bestows happiness on those who merit it not, so also does He damn others who deserve not their fate.” (ref. ‘De Servo Arbitrio’, 7, 113 seq., quoted by O’Hare, in ‘The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, pp. 266-267).
  13. “His (Judas) will was the work of God; God by His almighty power moved his will as He does all that is in this world.” (ref. De servo Arbitrio, against man’s free will).
  14. “No good work happens as the result of one’s own wisdom; but everything must happen in a stupor . . . Reason must be left behind for it is the enemy of faith.” (ref. Trischreden, Weimer VI, 143, 25-35).

    Martin Luther on Christian Living

  15. “Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.” (ref. ‘Let Your Sins Be Strong, from ‘The Wittenberg Project;’ ‘The Wartburg Segment’, translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther’s Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521. – Cf. Also Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), VOl. II, pg. 404))
  16. “Do not ask anything of your conscience; and if it speaks, do not listen to it; if it insists, stifle it, amuse yourself; if necessary, commit some good big sin, in order to drive it away. Conscience is the voice of Satan, and it is necessary always to do just the contrary of what Satan wishes.” (ref. J. Dollinger, La Reforme et les resultants qu’elle a produits. (Trans. E. Perrot, Paris, Gaume, 1848-49), Vol III, pg. 248).

    Martin Luther on Capital Punishment and Charity

  17. “If some were to teach doctrines contradicting an article of faith clearly grounded in Scripture and believed throughout the world by all Christendom, such as the articles we teach children in the Creed — for example, if anyone were to teach that Christ is not God, but a mere man and like other prophets, as the Turks and the Anabaptists hold — such teachers shuold not be tolerated, but punished as blasphemers . . . By this procedure no one is compelled to believe, for he can still believe what he will; but he is forbidden to teach and to blaspheme.” (ref. Luther’s Works [LW], Vol. 13, 61-62)
  18. “That seditious articles of doctrine should be punished by the sword needed no further proof. For the rest, the Anabaptists hold tenets relating to infant baptism, original sin, and inspiration, which have no connection with the Word of God, and are indeed opposed to it . . . Secular authorities are also bound to restrain and punish avowedly false doctrine . . . For think what disaster would ensue if children were not baptized? . . . Besides this the Anabaptists separate themselves from the churches . . . and they set up a ministry and congregation of their own, which is also contrary to the command of God. From all this it becomes clear that the secular authorities are bound . . . to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders . . . Also when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then . . . we conclude that . . . the stubborn sectaries must be put to death.” (ref. pamphlet of 1536; in Johannes Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 volumes, translated by A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 [orig. 1891]; Vol. X, 222-223)

    Martin Luther on Social Justice

  19. “Peasants are no better than straw. They will not hear the word and they are without sense; therefore they must be compelled to hear the crack of the whip and the whiz of bullets and it is only what they deserve.” (ref. Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294).
  20. “To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!” – “If they say that I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned. Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs” (ref. Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294).
  21. “Like the drivers of donkeys, who have to belabor the donkeys incessantly with rods and whips, or they will not obey, so must the ruler do with the people; they must drive, beat throttle, hang, burn, behead and torture, so as to make themselves feared and to keep the people in check.” (ref. Erlangen Vol 15, Pg. 276).

    Adolf Hitler Martin Luther on the Love of Jews

  22. “My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire… Second, that all their books– their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible– be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted…Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country…Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it… He who hears this name [God] from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away”. (ref. Martin Luther; On the Jews and Their Lies, translated by Martin H. Bertram, Fortress Press, 1955).
  23. “Burn their synagogues. Forbid them all that I have mentioned above. Force them to work and treat them with every kind of severity, as Moses did in the desert and slew three thousand… If that is no use, we must drive them away like mad dogs, in order that we may not be partakers of their abominable blasphemy and of all their vices, and in order that we may not deserve the anger of God and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Let everyone see how he does his. I am excused.” (ref. About the Jews and Their Lies,’ quoted by O’Hare, in ‘The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, p. 290).
  24. “If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words I baptize thee in the name of Abraham” (ref. Grisar, “Luther”, Vol. V. pg. 413).
  25. “The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary thieves.” (ref. Weimar, Vol. 53, Pg. 502).

    Martin Luther on the Sanctity and Dignity of Marriage

  26. “If the husband is unwilling, there is another who is; if the wife is unwilling, then let the maid come.” (ref. Of Married Life).
  27. “Suppose I should counsel the wife of an impotent man, with his consent, to giver herself to another, say her husband’s brother, but to keep this marriage secret and to ascribe the children to the so-called putative father. The question is: Is such a women in a saved state? I answer, certainly.” (ref. On Marriage).
  28. “It is not in opposition to the Holy Scriptures for a man to have several wives.” (ref. De Wette, Vol. 2, p. 459).
  29. “The word and work of God is quite clear, viz., that women are made to be either wives or prostitutes.” (ref. On Married Life).
  30. “In spite of all the good I say of married life, I will not grant so much to nature as to admit that there is no sin in it. .. no conjugal due is ever rendered without sin. The matrimonial duty is never performed without sin.” (ref. Weimar, Vol 8. Pg. 654. In other words for Luther the matrimonial act is “a sin differing in nothing from adultery and fornication.” ibid. What then is the purpose of marriage for Luther you may ask? Luther affirms that it’s simply to satisfy one’s sexual cravings “The body asks for a women and must have it” or again “To marry is a remedy for fornication” – Grisar, “Luther”, vol. iv, pg. 145).

    Martin Luther on the Quality of Edifying Speech

  31. “What harm could it do if a man told a good lusty lie in a worthy cause and for the sake of the Christian Churches?” (ref. Lenz: Briefwechsel, Vol. 1. Pg. 373).
  32. “To lie in a case of necessity or for convenience or in excuse – such lying would not be against God; He was ready to take such lies on Himself” (ref. Lenz: Briefwechsel, Vol. 1. Pg. 375).

    Martin Luther on Humility

  33. “St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius cannot be compared with me.” (ref. Erlangen, Vol. 61, pg. 422).
  34. “What I teach and write remains true even though the whole world should fall to pieces over it” (ref. Weimar, Vol. 18, Pg. 401).

    Martin Luther on the value of Sacred Scripture

  35. “To my mind it (the book of the Apocalypse) bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character… Everyone may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it.” (ref. ammtliche Werke, 63, pp. 169-170, ‘The Facts About Luther,’ O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 203).
  36. “If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’ – Rom. 3:28), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and ass are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.” (ref. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,’The Facts About Luther,’ O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201. Cf. Also J. Dollinger, La Reforme et les resultants qu’elle a produits. (Trans. E. Perrot, Paris, Gaume, 1848-49), Vol III, pg. 138).
  37. “The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.” (ref. The Facts About Luther, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 202).
  38. “…the epistle of St. James is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical.” (ref. ‘Preface to the New Testament,’ ed. Dillenberger, p. 19. – Cf. Also Jean Janssen, L’Allemagne et la Reforme. (Trans. E. Paris, Plon, 1887-1911). Vol II, Pg. 218).

– For more great quotes from the Father of Protestantism visit Luther, Exposing the Myth. Also check out my book Dead on Arrival: The Seven Fatal Errors of Sola-Scriptura.


Even though you can find all of these quotes online, this compilation, ever since its publication, has received a lot of attention from our brothers and sisters in the protesting community. I have read all of the comments to the blogs and messages boards that are linked to this article, and here are some of their conclusions. (1) The book Table Talk is not a reliable reference for Martin Luther’s work (ONLY TWO quotes above come from Table Talk). (2) There is a problem with the translation of some of the quotes, because some are from German or Latin to French to English, rather than from German or Latin to English. (4) Luther’s violent comments against the peasants are to be contextualized in light of the Peasant Revolt of which he sided with the German Princes. (5) Luther’s violent comments against the Jews are to be contextualized in light of his disappointment that they didn’t receive his reformulation of the Gospel. (6) Luther’s comments against Scripture are true. (7) Luther’s comments against monogamous marriage are true (probably). (8) Luther’s violent comments against the Anabaptists are true, (9) Luther’s comments against the Catholic understanding of Freewill are true, and (10) The only writings of Luther that conservative Lutheran pastors are required to subscribe to (because they strictly reflect biblical doctrine) are the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism and the Smalkald Articles.

In regards to one of the sources of this compilation, (Luther, Exposing the Myth), Reformed protester and Martin Luther Apologist James Swan of William Paterson University, has written a detailed critique of. In crafting this compilation I considered Swan’s response, and I ended up not including many of the quotes that he had a good case against. In some cases Swan was spot on, but in other cases he would have been much better off not trying to contextualize or excuse Luther. In those cases, Swan’s intellectually honesty is betrayed by his passion for Luther.


Kardinaal Sarah krijgt van paus Franciscus een draai om zijn oren. Achter de schermen.

Kardinaal Sarah krijgt van Franciscus een draai om zijn oren.
Achter de schermen.

(Hieronder een commentaar van de Vaticanist Sandro Magister op de onheuse manier waarop paus Franciscus de hoogstaande kardinaal Sarah behandelt en op de weg die Franciscus met de Kerk wil inslaan)

De brief waarmee Franciscus onlangs kardinaal Robert Sarah, de prefect van de Congregatie voor de Goddelijke Eredienst, weersprak en vernederde, is het nieuwste bewijs van hoe deze paus zijn magisterium uitoefent. Als Franciscus nieuwigheden wil invoeren, doet hij dat nooit in duidelijke en heldere bewoordingen. Hij zorgt liever dat er discussies ontstaan, hij zet “processen” in werking waarin die nieuwigheden geleidelijk meer naar voren komen. Het grofste voorbeeld daarvan is “Amoris Laetitia” waarvoor tegengestelde interpretaties en toepassingen worden gegeven, met hele episcopaten die zich verzamelen aan de ene of de andere kant. En als de paus wordt gevraagd om verduidelijking, dan weigert hij die. Zoals hij in het geval van de vijf “dubia” die vier kardinalen hem voorlegden, zich niet verwaardigde ook maar enig antwoord te geven.

Maar wanneer een kardinaal zoals Sarah, een autoriteit door functie en verantwoordelijkheden, meent aan een pauselijk motu proprio over de liturgie de enige uitleg te geven die hij als juist ziet en dus geïmplementeerd moet worden door de Congregatie waarvan hij de prefect is, blijft Franciscus niet zwijgen maar reageert met hardheid ter verdediging van die passages van het motu proprio – die feitelijk allesbehalve duidelijk zijn – die de liberalisaties bevatten die hem na aan het hart liggen.
Dat is nu juist wat er de afgelopen dagen is gebeurd. Laten we de gebeurtenissen samenvatten.

Op 9 september publiceert Franciscus het motu proprio “Magnum Principium” over de aanpassingen en de vertalingen in de moderne talen van de liturgische teksten van de Latijnse Kerk. Als het motu proprio de rol bepaalt van de Congregatie voor de Goddelijke Eredienst ten aanzien van de aanpassingen en vertalingen van de liturgische teksten, die verzorgd zijn door de nationale bisschoppenconfrenties en ter goedkeuring voorgelegd worden aan de Heilige Stoel, maakt het onderscheid tussen “recognitio” en “confirmatio”, tussen controle en bekrachtiging. Maar het onderscheid daartussen is geenszins duidelijk uiteengezet. En in feite ontstonden er meteen twee kampen onder de experts. Er zijn er die menen dat “recognitio” betekent de voorafgaande controle door Rome en dat die alleen de aanpassingen zou betreffen, terwijl voor de vertalingen de Heilige Stoel alleen maar een eenvoudige “confirmatio” dwz een goedkeuring hoeft te geven. Er zijn er ook die in plaats daarvan menen dat Rome ook op de vertalingen een precieze controle moet uitoefenen voordat ze die goedkeuren. Dat is in feite wat vroeger al gebeurde en daarom hebben verschillende nieuwe vertalingen een moeilijke ontstaansgeschiedenis gehad – zoals die van de Verenigde Staten, Groot-Brittannië en Ierland of zoals die van Frankrijk, Italië en Duitsland die nog wachten op Romeinse goedkeuring.

Met name de nieuwe vertaling in het Duits was een voorwerp van kritiek van Benedictus XVI zelf, die in 2012 een brief schreef aan zijn de Duitse bisschoppen om hen ervan te overtuigen de woorden van Jezus bij het Laatste Avondmaal op het ogenblik van de consecratie met meer getrouwheid te vertalen (“vergoten voor velen” in plaats van “vergoten voor allen”).
Om terug te komen op het motu proprio “Magnum Principium”: dan moeten we vaststellen dat bij de redactie van het motu proprio kardinaal Sarah er volkomen buiten werd gehouden. En dit terwijl hij de prefect van de congregatie is maar het middenkader heeft hem al lang tegengewerkt.

Op 30 september schreef Sarah een dankbrief naar paus Franciscus die vergezeld ging van een gedetailleerd “Commentaar”, dat gericht was op een correcte interpretatie en toepassing van het motu proprio. Die interpretatie was tamelijk strikt als het gaat over de formuleringen die voor meerdere uitleg vatbaar zijn. Naar het oordeel van Sarah zijn “recognitio” en “confirmatio” in werkelijkheid “synoniem” of in ieder geval “onderling verwisselbaar wat de verantwoordelijkheid van de Heilige Stoel betreft”, wiens taak om de vertalingen te controleren voordat ze goedgekeurd worden blijft bestaan. Enkele weken later verscheen het “Commentaar” van de kardinaal op diverse websites en dat leidde tot de conclusie – gegeven de positie van de auteur van het “Commentaar” – dat in Rome de Congregatie voor de Goddelijke Eredienst volgens deze richtlijnen zou handelen.

En dit irriteerde paus Franciscus enorm en hij tekende op 15 oktober een brief die kardinaal Sarah botweg tegensprak. Een brief waarin de paus de nationale bisschoppenconferenties de vrijheid en het bevoegdheid geeft zelf over de vertalingen te beslissen met als enige voorwaarde een laatste “confirmatio” door de Vaticaanse Congregatie.
En in ieder geval – zo schrijft de paus – zonder “een geest waarin een bepaalde vertaling door het dicasterie wordt opgelegd” in Rome, zelfs voor “betekenisvolle” liturgische teksten zoals de “sacramentele formules, het credo, en het onzevader.”

De conclusie van de brief van de paus aan de kardinaal is venijnig: “in acht genomen dat het “Commentaar” in kwestie op tal van websites is gepubliceerd en abusievelijk aan uw persoon wordt toegeschreven, vraag ik u vriendelijk er voor te zorgen dat dit antwoord van mij op dezelfde sites worden gezet en ook naar alle bisschoppenconferenties worden verzonden en naar de leden en adviseurs van dit dicasterie.”

Er ligt een diepe afgrond tussen deze brief van Franciscus en de hartelijke woorden van achting, die uitgedrukt liggen in het schrijven van paus emeritus Benedictus XVI aan kardinaal Sarah enkele maanden geleden. Hij zei er zeker van te zijn dat bij kardinaal Sarah “de liturgie in goede handen is” en dat we daarom “paus Franciscus dankbaar moeten zijn dat hij een dergelijke spirituele leraar aan het hoofd van de congregatie heeft geplaatst die verantwoordelijk is voor de viering van de liturgie in de Kerk.”

Het is onnodig te zeggen dat het voorwerp van de botsing tussen Franciscus en kardinaal Sarah niet iets bijkomstigs is, maar raakt aan de fundamenten van het leven van de Kerk volgens het oude gezegde: “Lex orandi, lex credendi”. (De wet van het bidden is de wet van het geloven) Omdat het “proces” dat Franciscus in gang wil zetten, juist een proces is om door een decentralisatie van liturgische aanpassingen en vertalingen naar de nationale kerken, de totale structuur van de Kerk te veranderen en ze te maken tot een federatie van nationale kerken met een uitgebreide autonomie “met daarin begrepen een echt leerstellig gezag.”
Deze laatste woorden komen uit “Evangelii Gaudium”, de programmatische tekst voor het pontificaat van Franciscus. Deze woorden waren ook raadselachtig toen ze in 2013 werden gepubliceerd. Maar nu een beetje minder.

26 oktober 2017

vertaling C. Mennen pr