Francis versus the Church, or Francis versus Jesus Christ? October 20, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, SOD, the return.
The writer at That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill (a sublime bit of Scripture, but I’m not so sure as a blog name) has two excellent posts up on the aftermath of the Synod and Pope Francis. I will quote extensively from one, you can go read the other.
First, is it really in the “God of surprises” to contradict Himself and change eternal Truth? How can we reconcile this belief with the idea that one is “a loyal son of the Church?” The post below starts out with an excerpt from Pope Francis’ “media via,” or “middle way” approach in his closing speech to the Synod, in which the Holy Father posits a path between the “extremes” of adherence to the Faith handed down to us and rank apostasy:
“And since it is a journey of human beings, with the consolations there were also moments of desolation, of tensions and temptations, of which a few possibilities could be mentioned:
One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve.
From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.”
In his speech at the close of the Synod it is true that Francis talked of other temptations, but it is noteworthy that ‘traditionalists’ were first in the line of fire. So I guess that before the ‘liberals and progressives’ (Cardinals Kasper, Madriaga, Schoenborn etc) are punished, we can assume Cardinals Mueller and Napier as well as the already demoted Burke will be first for the chop. [It is the actions that speak much more loudly than words. Pope Francis may proclaim the need for a "middle way" in the Church, but his actions show that he sees the middle far, far more to the modernist/progressive side than any of his predecessors. The modernists are promoted and given influential sinecures, while the more faithful prelates are railroaded out of office and banished to the hinterlands. So the "middle way" seems a farce, a rhetorical tool at most, a hypocrisy at worst.]
…… It is only in the reign of Francis that to hold fast to the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church, to defend with one’s speech the Church’s teaching, as Cardinal Burke has done, on the Sacrament of Marriage and the institution of the family, that it has been posited, by the Pope himself, that to do so is a ‘temptation’. The Church, in her teachings and her law has never been ‘flexible’ with sin. It has always shown leniency to repentant sinners. [Repentant being the key word, meaning recognizing one's actions as evil, having true contrition for them (meaning willing to remove oneself from the occasion of sin and do one's utmost to avoid that sin in future), and having a firm purpose of amendment. Remaining in your adulterous situation with your third "spouse" indicates none of the above. I know those situations are very difficult, there are probably a few souls who have been divorced and remarried w/o annulment who now have happy relationships, possibly even with children, and who would like to be faithful Catholics. But they remain in sin, and by endorsing their sin, permitting the Blessed Sacrament to be blasphemed, would be only to further encourage more such terrible situations. We must also recognize, at the same time, that many divorces are made simply for convenience or due to a great deal of flippancy. The basic problem with the Pope's position, however, is that it is no charity to permit people to add sin upon sin, that no matter what he says or what disastrous "pastoral" approach is adopted, the sin will remain, and these souls will be judged accordingly. It is truly frightening to contemplate how far von Balthasar's destructive errors regarding Hell: Population Zero have reached into the minds of even great prelates.]
In his condemnation of the ‘temptation’ to uphold marriage, the moral law, and the sanctity of marriage, presumably Pope Francis is also rather annoyed with Jesus Christ Who said, “Anyone who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery” and Who said to the woman caught in adultery, “Go and sin no more.”……. [And that is the point of this equally important post. This second post notes that it is not Francis versus the Church, by which secularists mean the "rigid hierarchy," but it is Francis versus Jesus Christ, the Bridegroom espoused for all eternity to His Church. And then we get back to all the false mercy which just happens to accord perfectly with what the world - or the self-anointed elites - demand from the Church. I do not think anyone, even a Pope, can trust themselves to be truly unbiased or uninfluenced by this utterly dominant worldly view, unless they know without doubt they are clinging with all their might to the Doctrine of the Faith. Anything else carries the greatest danger, if not the moral certainty, or worldly self-seeking.]
Clearly, once Francis has purged the episcopate and Roman Curia of liberals, progressives and traditionalists, he will be there, all alone, because he alone can embody the Holy Faith of Christ! Nobody else gets it but him!
And that’s a pretty funny point, which I think is true in the sense that I have increasingly felt over the past year or more that Pope Francis seems to think nobody quite understands the Church like he does, that all of the rest of us – perhaps excluding Kardinal Kasper – are deficient to various degrees in our understanding and practice of the Faith.
So often Pope Francis’ rhetoric is very negative. He has castigated almost every variation in the practice of the Faith imaginable. He very rarely seems positive and uplifting when describing the efforts of millions of pious souls. He seems much more comfortable with those outside the Church, than within. He seems to think, especially, that those of us who adhere to the traditional practice of the Faith are the worst enemies the “Church” – or his reductive vision of the same – has. It is interesting to contemplate how that mentality has seeped into those now leading the Franciscans of the Immaculate. Or maybe it was there all along.
I do bear in mind that I think the rhetoric in Pope Francis’ closing address regarding the errors of progressives/modernists was pretty much just that – he criticized faithful Catholics, and probably felt obliged to throw those pious souls a bone by criticizing the other side. But as I said above, actions speak much louder than words, and Pope Francis’ actions have all been of one kind – advancing and aiding the most egregious modernists, and punishing and inhibiting the more faithful - in proportion to their faithfulness! And that says a lot.
It reminds me of our own leftist President’s dictum to reward his friends and punish his enemies.
I want to maintain that in spite of the criticism and the increasing clarity of my comments I do have a strong filial love for Pope Francis. He remains my father in the Faith. He is the Pope. I find much of what he does and believes disconcerting and destructive, I pray he changes many of his beliefs and practices, but I am in union with him as the Vicar of Christ. God permitted him to be elected Pope, probably to remind us all how short we fall in our practice of the Faith. I am a Catholic, he is my father, and I love and pray for him, even if I disagree with him. But that does not mean I am blind to reality, or have to behave as a sycophant and pretend everything he does or says is just wonderful and the very embodiment of Catholicity.
That kind of hyper-montanism, on even the most trivial of prudential issues, is how we have gotten into this mess. God could be chastising the Church and bishops for turning the Holy See into a cult of personality over the past 120 years or so.
Now I’m just spitballing. I’ll stop.
Helpful tips for our times…….. October 20, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, catachesis, episcopate, error, foolishness, fun, General Catholic, Grace, Holy suffering, manhood, Papa, persecution, scandals, secularism, sickness, silliness, Society.
…….I thought at least the male readers might find this useful:
Maybe it’s just better to wear pants.
This is more romantic:
Whatever the motivation, we’ve got to keep up the fight. The Synod, whatever it was – minor setback, major defeat, or pre-planned retrenchment after the introduction of soul-destroying novelties – will be back next year. We’ll see much more that is disturbing and upsetting between now and then. So keep ‘em girt, strap on your armor, or whatever you need to do to be ready to fight.
That didn’t take long – Idaho preachers threatened with jail if they don’t perform sodo-weddings October 20, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
A federal court just last week overturned Idaho’s law defining marriage as it has always been understood (can we even comprehend anymore how INSANE it is that such laws were even necessary, but not only that, are now being overturned by judicial fiat!?!). We denizens of the 5th Circuit Court are now, I believe, the only part of the nation that have not had sodo-marriage foisted on them, yet. But it’s only a matter of time.
OK, so a judge contradicts probably the teachings of his own “faith” and 10,000 years of human civilization and decides that Idaho must allow sodomites and lesbians to pretend marry, and then recognize that pretension as actual marriage. But we’ve always been assured that our “religious freedom” enshrined in the 1st Amendment would mean that Christian churches would have an out.
Ha! That’s so yesterday, bible-humper! Get with the program! They will force themselves on the churches, just wait and see:
City officials in Coeur d’Alene Idaho have told a married couple who are both ordained ministers that they will go to jail if they refuse to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples.
The Alliance for Defending Freedom has filed suit against the city and asked for a temporary restraining order to prevent officials from carrying out their threat…..
……City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
The couple would face 180 days in jail and up to $1000 in fines per day if they dared to adhere to their religious beliefs………
….This is a law that manifestly violates the Constitution so I wouldn’t expect any court in America to uphold the city statutue.
Oh please! 20 years ago not a judge in the country would have found a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman UNconstitutional, so don’t tell us how much protection that piece of paper gives us now! It gives none! It fact, it is often used as a pacifier to lull us to sleep, believing the Constitution really will protect religious believers, the family, etc, etc, until one day, like magic, it doesn’t. That’s another damnable aspect of this so-called representative democracy.
According to the state of Idaho, if a person or church marries anyone, it must “marry” these people who define themselves according to their perversion. How long will the Church herself be able to refuse?
This ludicrous redefinition of marriage will be the law of the land in all 50 states within 6 months. Then what? It won’t be five minutes before the Catholic Church is sued for refusing/failing to “marry” these poor lost souls. And how many parishes/dioceses will cave without a fight?
I know a large number of nominal conservative Christians who think this issue is no big deal. They think it doesn’t really affect them, so they don’t really care. Well, guess what? They will be made to care? This sodo-lobby will not stop until they receive unending adulation from everyone, or at the very least have the obvious ability to bend whomever they desire to their will. Resistance will be crushed. Disagreement will not be tolerated.
Thus, the vehicle of the persecution. With how many agents already not just in the Church, but serving as Her priests and prelates?
Post-Synod Notes: Kasper’s “Replacement” and reward, the German’s motivation, and the punishments will continue until morale improves October 20, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, shocking, Society, SOD, the return.
There has been copious coverage since Friday on the Synod and its after-effects. I’m sure we will still be processing this most disconcerting and tempestuous of fortnights for some time to come. I did see a few notes I wanted to bring to your attention. Some may be old news. Taken together they do start to reveal a certain picture, if you will.
First, while Cardinal Kasper’s reputation seems badly damaged publicly (one would hope, in fact, he would be finished), it seems the Germans are ready to continue advancing “his” errors to the end. In fact, the head of the German bishop’s conference, Cardinal Marx, seems to have happily taken the mantle of revolution upon himself (my emphasis and comments)
Speaking to reporters in Rome on October 16, Cardinal Reinhard Marx defended the interim report released by the Synod of Bishops and reiterated his early statement of support for a change in Church teaching regarding the reception of Communion by Catholics who are divorced and remarried.
“Saying that the doctrine will never change is a restrictive view of things,” the cardinal told reporters at a Vatican press office briefing. [St. Vincent of Lerins: "To announce, therefore, to Catholic Christians anything besides that which they have received has never been lawful, is lawful nowhere, and never will be lawful; and to anathematize those who announce anything besides that which has been once received has always been necessary. This being the case, is there anyone of such audacity as to teach other than that which has already been taught in the Church, or anyone of such levity as to receive anything besides that which he has once received from the Church? Sadly, Saint Vincent, there is.] Cardinal Marx, who is president of the German bishops’ conference, said that most of the country’s bishops backed the proposal by his fellow German, Cardinal Walter Kasper.
“We cannot change the Church,” Cardinal Marx said, “but we have not understood everything yet.” He stressed that the Church should serve all of the faith, not dividing them “into first class or second class or third class.” [You know, Cardinal Marx is quite right. Which is why I fail to understand why he wants to relegate those few faithful souls who do abide by all the Church's belief - or strive to do so to their utmost - to a "third class" equivalence to those who persist in manifest states of grave sin. Having a marriage fall apart is not a small "oopsie," it is a first class disaster for all involved, horribly wounds children (often irrevocably), and inflicts serious damage on the Church and the entire culture. But that is forgotten in this headlong rush to inflict leftist revolution on the Church.]
I guess I cannot say that Kardinal Kasper’s reputation is that sullied….he is being feted and awarded by the Catholic University of America. The party is Nov. 6 and all are invited. Perhaps some faithful Catholics could let this soul – in such desperate straits, whether he will acknowledge it or not – hear some charitable correction. I think it would be quite hilarious for a large number of African-American Catholics to show up and question him.
So what is up with the German bishops? Why are they so hell bent on inflicting revolution on the Church? While Pope Francis may be the ultimate author of this revolutionary push, it is the bishops of the Germanic countries that make up the core of his support and backing, intellectually, politically, and, especially, economically. So is this just more evil from that most perverse of races (apparently), which has brought us little but error for the past 500 years (Lutheranism, rationalism, modernism, Hegelianism, Heidegger, Nietzsche , Marx, Hitler, etc)? Or is it something else? Hint:
In Germany, Catholics are leaving the Church in droves, as an average of 140,000 formally abandon the Faith annually.* This is easy to track, because numbers are publicly reported in a system where Germans pay 8-9% of their income tax to receive the Sacraments. The church tax is administered by the State on behalf of the Church through a payroll deduction, for a lucrative 2-3% processing fee.
Apparently, more and more German Catholics resent this tax (and especially, the firm declaration that those who refuse to pay it WILL be denied the Sacraments, no exceptions allowed. Thus, most Germans view the Catholic Church as a cold, hard, self-interested bureaucracy that only cares for its own comfort and convenience:
First, the ordinary Germans are correct. The Catholic Church is Germany’s second-largest employer with 690,000 employees. (That’s 7 times the size of Mercedes Benz, folks.) Bishops take home between $10,000 and $15,000 per MONTH, and they don’t pay for their residence, their cars or their upkeep. You can read all about it here, but suffice to say that the German Catholic Church has been a gravy train for clerics for the last 60 years. [Think about that. 700,000 employees. That is twice as many as GM, Ford, and Chrysler - combined. Over $6 billion a year in direct income for the German bishops from the tax, much of which winds up in secular investments, with the bishops themselves the recipients of much of the windfall. The German episcopate is about the most disconnected from the Apostolic example in the entire world. But money buys lots and lots of influence.]
Second, the gravy train is about to come to an end. Fully 140,000 Germans leave the Church every year. Plus, a demographic cliff looms, and the Germans — world masters at corporate planning — can see the end coming very clearly. Estimates vary, but basically in 15-20 years the well will run dry. The old people will die. The young people won’t pay.
And so the whole “mercy” gambit is just a desperate hope that they can keep that gravy train rolling on, that they can woo people to separate with a very substantial part of their income in exchange for happily confirming them in their error and sin. I have no word for it, but disgusting. They are attacking Jesus Christ for filthy lucre.
Finally, I have held out a silent, pious hope that the events of late last week might have shocked Pope Francis out of his present……..support for novelty. I mentioned that to a few folks, who told me they thought my hope forlorn. Well, unfortunately, they were probably right. Rather than reconsider his position viz a viz the mind of the Church after the setback at the Synod, it appears the revolutionaries plan to double down on the authoritarian repression and deform the makeup of the hierarchy even more in their favor:
A couple of Italian papers have mentioned it during the weekend and also this Monday (Il Messaggero; Corriere della Sera). As a punishment for his defense of the orthodox faith against the subversive and heretical attempts of his fellow countryman Walter “A Good African is a Quiet African” Kasper and his position of firm resistance before and during the Synod, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Müller, would be sent to Siberia. Sorry, to Germany.
There are at least two major Sees available in Kirchensteuerland: Berlin, vacant, and his own hometown of Mainz, whose bishop, the Kasperite Cardinal Lehmann, is almost 79 by now.
This should open a wide path for the also widely rumored complete dismantling of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith so that it might become an inefficient ornament…….
……….Speaking of Papa Wojtyla, all reports (also in Il Messaggero this Monday) and rumors also converge in one direction: the new stage of the current purge will not stop at the Ratzingerians (such as Burke or Müller), but would now reach the Wojtylians as well. All conservative Poles in the Curia, and their allies, will be removed when the Curial reform takes place. Their offices could be simply extinguished or merged, and the new leadership would certainly be of a new (actually old liberal) kind.
Some may say “oh, it’s just a rumor!” Yeah, but on how many “rumors” has the Italian press been right in the past 6-12 months? Pretty much every one of any significance. But it’s all my fault for reporting it. Whatever.
Final final thought: Oh Father AG, is this the wagon you have hitched yourself and your order to? Is this what you expected and desired? Are you happy with the direction in which the Church is being led? Or is all this again just the fevered imaginings of us poor lost evil trads, the very worst people in the universe, according to you?
Quick post: Michael Matt on the Synod October 20, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, scandals, secularism, self-serving, shocking, Society, SOD, the return.
This came out on Thursday and I meant to post Friday but did not get to it, as usual. Some pretty good comments below. Even with the “triumph” of the “orthodox?” at the Synod and the (temporary?) blocking of the agenda of Pope Francis (from this point forward, I will attribute this synodal gambit to its obvious author), there is still much to be dismayed over the course of events this past two weeks. The disastrous relation is out there, confirming souls in error, millions have been scandalized, radical errors put forward, sin abounds, etc., etc……so perhaps we should not be too cheered that at the 11th hour the wound to the Church turned out not to be life-threatening, but only very serious. We are still in unprecedented times, the threat of schism is real, and it has become perfectly obvious that we have perhaps the most doctrinally radical Pope in the history of the Church.
That is to say, we have a very great deal to still be concerned and vigilant about.
I do think Matt may go a bit too negative at times. I’m not sure what time of day this video was recorded, I tend to think it was before the “revolt” that occurred on Thursday was clear. I am certain he was unaware of some of the vote tallies that have now been leaked on some of these matters – the scandalous comments about sodomites were opposed more than 2:1, and the admission of the divorced and remarried to the Blessed Sacrament by a large majority. So it was not just a small but vocal minority opposing these destructive novelties – it was the large preponderance of the prelates. And further commentary over the weekend implies that this papacy may be badly weakened as a result of being shown to be so distant from the mind of the Church. But we shall see.
I will add this little bit – I do not know how many people answered Cardinal Burke’s call to prayer, and specifically the Chaplet of the Holy Face, but I know we prayed it as a family intently. I am convinced that to whatever extent Doctrine has been preserved and the forces of relative orthodoxy strengthened, it was due to the prayers of the faithful, so please do not stop even though the Synod is over for now. The threat remains.
I have been as heartened as anyone to read about developments late this week at the Synod of Darkness (or Death, or Doom, or…..), when it seems an orthodox counteroffensive has made plain that at least most of the Synod Fathers are strongly opposed to the extreme, Doctrine-destroying novelties a narrow modernist-leftist cabal – centered, it must be said, on this Pope of unprecedented radicalism – and will not go along with the Kasperite (or is that Bergoglian?) gambits. However, the modernists set up this entire Synod process incredibly in their favor, there is still the matter of the final report AND the entire second session next year, and as Rorate notes, they still control all the organizational elements in the Synod through Francis-appointed Cardinal Baldiserri and other apparatchiks, and thus tremendous power to manipulate events. While I happily repeat Rorate’s translation of an Italian article on yesterday’s orthodox counter-offensive (and add some commentary), I would caution folks to keep praying intensely because this thing is far from over.
And I fear, as I stated yesterday, the final report was written weeks or months ago and will be unleashed in spite of what the Synod members do. But we’ll see:
Soon after nine yesterday morning, cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, General Secretary to the Synod, takes the floor and announces that the relationes of the circuli minores would not be made public. A reverse course from what had always happened in the past and affirmed in the previous days. In other words, only the Relatio post disceptationem, signed by Cardinal Erdo and written by Abp. Bruno Forte, would have been fed to the press. Against the novelty presented by Baldisseri, rose up Cardinal George Pell, who strongly contested the decision. After him, a long line of Fathers, from the Archbishop of Brussels, Abp. Léonard, to that of Durban, Cardinal Napier, asked for the matter to be at least put to a vote. Even the Secretary of State took the floor. And all in the atmosphere of a stadium, with standing ovation and even some booing. The Pope, seated at the presidency table, looked on, impassive. At the end, as Cardinal Christoph Schönborn would say some hours later at the press conference, “the decision to render public the relationes of the circuli was taken by large majority.” The texts are clear, and go in an opposite direction as the one upheld by Cardinal Walter Kasper. [Rorate is claiming the influence of Kasper and Forte (he of the highly questionable orientation) is finished. We'll see]
In the Church’s hour of greatest need, +Dolan fails again October 16, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, SOD, the return.
Seeing as this only has 500 views on Youtube, maybe most folks haven’t seen this, yet. Reader MFG sent this to me this morning. I find this interview disconcerting on many levels. First, his initial glad-handed chuminess is way over the top and appears just overtly insincere. Then he attempts constantly to minimize the divisions in the Synod and gives an unreserved approval of the attempt to redefine Church Doctrine with regard to the groinal issues so sacred to the modernists (adulterers receiving the Blessed Sacrament, regularizing and “solemnizing” divorce through reception of the Blessed Sacrament, gift-bearing sodomites, the whole schmeel). He says there are only some disagreements on a bit of wording. That’s not the impression more honest reports have given – and it is also quite a bit in contrast to the presentations Cardinal Burke has given. He carries himself throughout with all the gravity and sincerity of a bad used car salesman.
But perhaps the worst part to me is that when the newsreader repeats the part of the “Relatio” that has given the most scandal – the bit about sodomites bearing gifts – Dolan says, “hey, that’s great! We’re already welcoming them in New York!” And you know, he’s telling the truth! The link relays that scandalous time when Dolan nodded approvingly as people in manifest states of perverse unchastity presented to receive the Blessed Sacrament. But then when asked what he thinks about Cardinal Burke’s solemn denunciation of the entire Relatio, he says “Of course, I agree! It needs major reworking!”
The end of the interview is, if possible, even more disquieting. This guy doesn’t seem to understand at all what the Church is about – his conception seems almost entirely humanistic.
But more than anything, he’s an empty clerical suit, blowing in the windswept house:
And this is the guy
Archie Bunker Bill Donahue has thrown his reputation away for?
H-town Sappho-mayor backs down on pastor subpoena plot October 16, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, Spiritual Warfare.
That’s the way with our friends on the left, they constantly test the waters, seeing what they can get away with. Here, they tried to bully a bunch of protestant (no Catholics, naturally – that’s not merciful enough) pastors who had opposed the implementation of one of the most egregiously immoral pro-sodomite ordinances in US history and got caught out by the new media. There was a large and severe reaction. So, they backed off. The city has now apparently pulled the subpoena for retooling – but I bet they don’t go this route again, unless they find some clever and seemingly innocuous way to get what they want. What they will probably do in lieu of the direct attack method of subpoena is to wiretap, hack, and otherwise gain access to what they want but in a covert manner. I strongly doubt the sodo-leftist cabal will simply give up, they never do:
Houston Mayor Annise Parker has backed down from the subpoenas the City of Houston issued to several area pastors, Breitbart Texas has learned.
Breitbart Texas reported earlier about the controversy, stemming from litigation challenging the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance and subpoenas asking the pastors for the content of their sermons, speeches and communications with church members. Texas Senator Ted Cruz weighed in, firmly supporting the pastors in their efforts to fight the subpoenas, while Mayor Parker initially remained adamant that the city had the right to request those records. Despite posting comments on Twitter just hours before that seemed to indicate she would continue to fight this issue, she told a Houston radio station that she had changed her mind. [Well, I'm sure the lavendar mafia is displeased at that. And they must be appeased.......]
As reported by KTRH Mayor Parker admitted that the subpoenas were too broad, and that the pastors’ sermons should not have been included. “It’s not about what did you preach on last Sunday,” she said. “It should have been clarified, it will be clarified.” [What a joke that was a prime matter of interest in the original subpoena. The subpoenas were most clear on this point. So it was hardly an accidental inclusion] City Attorney David Feldman had an odd admission of his own: that he had not reviewed the subpoenas before they were issued. “When I looked at it I felt it was overly broad, I would not have worded it that way myself,” said Feldman. “It’s unfortunate that it has been construed as some effort to infringe upon religious liberty.” [Oh please. Didn't your office generate them? Your name was on them! So who directed you to word them that way, then?]
City officials told KTRH that they would narrow the scope of the subpoenas, but it is not clear how they will address the other concerns voiced by the pastors regarding their free speech and religious liberty issues with the rest of the items requested by the subpoena.
We’ll see what develops.
Another edifying interview by Cardinal Burke October 16, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, episcopate, General Catholic, scandals, secularism, Society, SOD, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
Folks, I labored for an hour and a half on a really good post tying together quotes from Rorate, Fr. Ray Blake, “Boney,” Father Carota………and then WordPress ate it. Not just ate it, but sent it to another dimension where it will never be heard from again. That stinks. And I am having another crisis day at work, so I have precious little time to post. Nevertheless, Rorate kindly uploaded another interview Cardinal Burke gave on the Synod, and I thought I would add this. My previous post was based on Rorate’s reporting of scheming manipulation and threats being used to try to coax the more orthodox prelates into embracing the Kasperite – or is that Beroglian – gambit of radical destruction of the Moral Doctrine of the Faith. It was pretty hot. Maybe it’s better it was lost.
I will just say this, as a way of conveying aspects of that previous post: there is much sturm and drang about the midway “Relatio,” and whatever the final one – to be released on Saturday, apparently! – will be. But it is obvious the midway “Relatio” was written in advance of this Synod of Darkness (the words of a local priest). That “Relatio” had nothing to do with the actual interventions, it was basically another polemic for the radically heretical crowd. Given that the final “Relatio” is due out Saturday, I suspect it is also already written. It may have been written last summer. In which case, this Synod has always been a sham, a farce, and simply an effort to give some official, “collegial” authority to something written by a small cabal of self-interested individuals.
Sorry for the light content, I do add a few brief comments, I think it important to not always look at merely the surface of Cardinal Burke’s comments, but also the deeper meanings, which are almost universally very strong denunciations of the novelties being foisted on the Church:
Q: What do we see happening at the Synod on the other side of the “media curtain”?
A: We see a worrisome skewing of the discussions, because there are some who support the possibility of adopting a practice that departs from the truth of the faith. Even if it should be evident that one cannot go down that path, many still encourage, for example, a dangerous openness to change with respect to the question of giving Holy Communion to those divorced and remarried. I do not see how it is possible to reconcile the irreformable understanding of the indissolubility of marriage with the possibility of admitting to Communion those who are living in an irregular situation. To do this is to act as if our Lord’s words were up for discussion when he taught that whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery. [Throughout all this discussion, wherein Cardinal Burke gives what I would call sterling witness to the Faith, I do wonder.....what will you do, Your Eminence, if the unthinkable does happen? I just don't feel that can be ruled out anymore. I also feel more and more strongly that Cardinal Burke is growing more and more in appreciation of Tradition and in his role as a remarkable shepherd of souls. He may have failed in the past, he may have weaknesses now, but I'm hard pressed to identify any prelate giving such witness at the Vatican]
Q: According to the “reformers” this teaching has become too harsh.
A: They forget that the Lord assures us of the help of his grace to those who are called to live in marriage. This does not mean that there will not be difficulties and suffering, but that there will always be divine assistance to face them and to be faithful to the end.
Q: It seems that you represent a minority position.
A: A few days ago I saw a statement broadcast in which Cardinal Kasper said that things were moving in the correct direction towards openings (to the change of practice). In a few words, the 5,700,000 Italians who followed that broadcast statement were led to believe the idea that the whole Synod is marching on this path, that the Church is on the point of changing her doctrine on marriage. But this is simply not possible. Many bishops have said in their speeches that changes in the doctrine of marriage are not possible. [The modernists are trying to use the media to create an unstoppable force again, as they did in 1962.]
Q: But what you say is not coming out of the daily briefing from the Vatican Press Office. Cardinal Müller has also complained about this.
A: I do not know how this “briefing” works, but it seems to me that something is not working well if the information is manipulated in a way so as to stress only one position instead of reporting faithfully the various positions that were expressed. This worries me very much, because a consistent number of bishops do not accept the idea of a break with traditional Church teaching, but few know this. They speak only of the necessity for the Church to open herself up to the clamorous urging of the world as Cardinal Kasper propounded in February. In reality, his thesis on the theme of the family and on a new form of discipline with respect to the divorced and remarried is not new. It was already discussed thirty years ago. [In reality, it has been discussed for 2000 years. It's always been one of those "hard" teachings, which means it must do great work in keeping souls from satan. Thus, he hates it and attacks it] Then from this February on it took on a new life, and it has been allowed to grow in a not innocent way. But this must stop, because it is provoking the possibility of great damage to the faith. Bishops and priests say to me that now that so many divorced and remarried men and women are asking to be admitted to Holy Communion because this is what Pope Francis wants. In reality, I take note that, to the contrary, he has not expressed himself on this subject.
Q: But it seems evident that Cardinal Kasper and those who speak in agreement with him claim that they have the support of the Pope.
A: This is true. The Pope named Cardinal Kasper to the Synod and has let the debate go along this track. But, as another Cardinal has said, the Pope has not given his pronouncement on all of this as yet. I am awaiting his pronouncement, which is able to be only in continuity with the teaching given by the Church through her whole history, a teaching that has never changed because it cannot change. [Interesting point. Cardinal Burke seems to be saying: I don't care what this Synod says, I won't accept any change in this regard unless it comes from the mouth of the Pope. And he feels very strongly the Holy Ghost will somehow prevent that from happening. I certainly pray he is right.]
Q: Some prelates who support the traditional doctrine say that if the Pope should makes changes (in that doctrine) they would support those changes. Is this not a contradiction?
A: Yes, it is a contradiction, because the Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ on earth and therefore the chief servant of the truth of the faith. Knowing the teaching of Christ, I do not see how it is possible to deviate from that teaching with a doctrinal declaration or with a pastoral practice that ignores truth. [Don't say "I don't see how," say "It ISN'T possible!"]
Q: The emphasis placed by the Pope on mercy as the most important, if not the only, idea that should guide the Church: does this not contribute to sustaining the illusion that one can advocate pastoral practice that is set loose from doctrine?
A: The idea is bandied about that there can be a Church which is merciful and that at the same time does not respect the truth. But I am offended by the abysmal idea that, until today, bishops and priests could not have been merciful………. [Yes, that's not a very humble idea, is it? In fact, it reeks of that same modernist pride which leads revolutionaries to conclude that it is only they and their ilk that have ever had true faith, true humility, true charity, etc. What a crock.]
Q: Don’t the reformers think about those Catholics who have held their families together even in very difficult situations, and in these situations who have refused to make a new life for themselves?
A: So many people who have gone through this laborious life effort ask me now if they were totally wrong in their decision. They ask if they have thrown their lives away in making sacrifices that in the end are of no use. This is not acceptable. It is an act of betrayal. [Dang right. It is unconscionable. And these a-hole modernists just don't care. They are basically saying "we prefer the sinner, the heretic to the faithful." They are saying "we prefer the adulterer to the chaste." Synod of death.]
Q: Do you not think that the crisis in morals is deeply involved with the crisis in liturgy? [Great answer below]
A: Certainly. In the post-conciliar period a collapse of the life of faith and of ecclesiastical discipline has taken place, seen especially in the liturgical crisis. The liturgy has become an anthropocentric activity. [Dang right. Elsewhere in the interview, the secular interviewer himself notes that the Eucharist has become more a matter of "social acceptance by the community" than the reception of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. That is to say, the Eucharist has been thoroughly protestantized in the minds of the vast majority of Catholics, even among our exalted eminences] It has ended up by being a reflection of the idea of man instead of the right of God to be adored as He himself asks. From here, in the moral sphere attention is focused almost exclusively on the needs and wants of men, instead of on what the Creator has written in the hearts of his creatures. [Dang right] The lex orandi is always bound to the lex credendi. If someone does not pray well, then he does not believe well and therefore he does not behave well. [So how about a statement about the derangement in the NO in general?] When I go to celebrate the Traditional Mass, for example, I see so many beautiful young families with so many children. I do not believe that these families do not have problems, but it is evident that they have more strength to confront them. [Heck yes.] This has to say something. The liturgy is the most perfect and most complete expression of our life in Christ, and when all of this is lessened or is betrayed every aspect of the life of the faithful is harmed. [How about this for a response, Your Eminence- only ever again assist at or offer the TLM, publicly or privately. I know you're already at the TLM at least a couple times a week, but how about always?]
Q: What can a pastor say to a Catholic who feels bewildered by these winds of change?
A: The faithful should take courage, because the Lord will never abandon his Church. We should think about how the Lord calmed the sea in the storm and his words to his disciples: “Why are you afraid, you men of little faith?” (Mt. 8:26). If this time of confusion seems to put their faith at risk, they have to only work even harder to live a life that is truly Catholic. But I am aware that to live in these times is a source of great suffering.
Q: It is becoming difficult not to think of this as a time of chastisement.
A: I think about this first of all concerning myself. If I am suffering at this time because of the situation in the Church, I think that the Lord is telling me that I have need of purification. And I also think that, if the suffering is so widespread, this means that the whole Church is in need of purification. But this is not because of a God who is waiting only to punish us. This is because of our own sins. If in some way we have betrayed doctrine, moral teaching or the liturgy, it follows inevitably that we will undergo a suffering that purifies us to put us back again on the narrow way. [That is a most beautiful reflection]
Long enough. God bless Cardinal Burke and his example in these times of suffering.
Who knows, what he is going through now could result in his being much more papabile in the future.
I guess I should not have been surprised, but apparently Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts (those well known Catholics in good standing) are once again having scruples about limiting the availability of abortion in this country. So, in spite of strong opposition from Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court overturned the 5th Circuit’s ruling of two weeks ago permitting the implementation of aspects of House Bill 2 that would have shuttered 80% of the abortion mills in the state. These are the aspects having to do with abortuarys – where major surgery certainly takes place, as anyone who has ever seen the blood-stained women leaving mills can attest – having to meet minimal ambulatory surgery center requirements. While the 5th Circuit had ruled that the health and safety requirements could be implemented while the final ruling was still pending at the circuit level, the Supreme Court overturned that ruling and said they could not. They also lifted the requirement that doctors have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals for mills in McAllen and El Paso.
I guess I should not have been surprised, as the Supreme Court has already noted, abortion is the vital backstop to one of the main, defining elements of the current American lifestyle, contraception, and hence cannot be made too inconvenient.
Abortion mills that have been closed for over a week are now free to reopen with this ruling. How many babies will be brutally slaughtered as a result is known only to God:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked key parts of a 2013 law in Texas that had closed all but eight facilities providing abortions in America’s second most-populous state.
In an unsigned order, the justices sided with abortion rights advocates and health care providers in suspending an Oct. 2 ruling by a panel of the New Orleans-based U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that Texas could immediately apply a rule making abortion clinics statewide spend millions of dollars on hospital-level upgrades. [No they are not "hospital level." They are the same requirements any day surgery center has to meet. Guess what, when you rip a living, growing entity intimately connected to the mother's body, that constitutes surgery! There is blood and infection and all manner of risk. This is a long, long overdue requirement, but the abortion mill hates it, because it will so cut into the abortionists bottom line that most choose to close their mills rather than meet the requirements, proving once again that abortion, for most child-murderers, is about filthy lucre, as it always has been. Only a narrow group of pro-abort ideologues like Planned Barrenhood are so committed to abortion as their dark sacrament of hate that they will take the hit and upgrade facilities to meet the requirements.]
The court also put on hold a separate provision of the law only as it applies to clinics in McAllen and El Paso that requires doctors at the facilities to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The admitting privileges remains in effect elsewhere in Texas. [The tenor of these rulings makes me suspect the Supreme Court will overturn them even if the Fifth Circuit rules in favor of HB2]
Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas said they would have ruled against the clinics in all respects.
The 5th Circuit is still considering the overall constitutionality of the sweeping measure overwhelmingly passed by the GOP-controlled Texas Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry last year. [Can you believe we live in a country where this is even a question? But this is far from the only one]
But even as it weighs the merits of the law, the appeals court said that it can be enforced in the meantime — opening the door for the emergency appeal to the Supreme Court……..
……Until the nation’s highest court intervened, only abortion facilities in the Houston, Austin, San Antonio and the Dallas-Fort Worth areas remained open. And none was left along the Texas-Mexico border or outside any of the state’s largest urban areas. [28 of 35 - 80% - were closed. Even Planned Barrenhood's new super center in South Dallas - which is supposed to meet the new requirements - was closed last week, apparently]
It will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court will allow all aspects of HB2 to stand. I am confident that the Fifth Circuit will rule favorably in all respects. I fear the “Catholic” majority on the Supreme Court is just a dice roll – we never know how they are going to rule, and they are darned clear about the fact that they never, ever allow the Faith to guide their judgments. Even Scalia declared as much. Incredible.
Pray this law remains in full effect. Yes, it is far from perfect, yes, it leaves abortion legal, but it did go very, very far in dramatically limiting the availability of abortion in this state. I am confident that if fully implemented tens of thousands of babies will be saved a year. It is one of the most effective and far-reaching abortion-limiting laws passed anywhere in the country.