El Paso Bishop Seitz: I’m down with whatever the Synod comes up with on “gays/lesbians”! October 14, 2014
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disconcerting, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society, SOD, the return.comments closed
You know there will be a very large number of bishops who feel and act this way, whatever their motivation. It could be due to that very prevalent hyper-montanism present in the Church today, due to their own preferences, or simply because they constitutionally simply cannot be seen as somehow in “opposition” to the Pope, even if the Pope makes no direct statement on this subject and continues to work through underlings at the Synod. Nevertheless, this is probably something we’ll see quite a bit of. My general impression of the episcopate today is that there are a few solid orthodox types who are strongly attached to the perennial belief and practice of the Church, there are probably even more wildly heterodox bishops, there are the career climbers who don’t care a whit for doctrine, and you have those who are happy where they’re at and just generally go with whatever they perceive to be the flow. I fear that perhaps a majority fall into that latter category, but I, of course, am not one to judge our ecclesiastical superiors (umm…..).
Nevertheless, Bishop Mark Seitz, formerly of Dallas and now ordinary of El Paso, has made his statement. By the way, you should also see how the secular media is playing this story, just as many feared: that the “bishops” have decided to embrace sodomy, adultery, and all the rest, with nary a peep of challenge to these sinful acts. This is totally false, the “Relatio” was produced in advance and didn’t represent the views of the Synod at large at all, but it was certainly a danged neat trick by the wolves, wasn’t it? As for Bishop Seitz, he’ll blow with the wind:
Catholic bishops showed unprecedented openness Monday to accepting the real lives of many Catholics today, saying gays had gifts to offer the church and should be accepted and that there were “positive” aspects to a couple living together without being married. [Right off the bat, the “Relatio” has done its work. What a travesty. This is of course probably not at all what the majority of bishops at the Synod believe, at least according to the few reports we’ve had, and there is no way on earth a 6,000 word document was developed and translated into several languages in a day, but these critical factors are ignored by the media, who want to turn the Church into another toothless, useless, unthreatening-to-the-leftist-agenda body like the episcopalians.]
A two-week meeting of bishops on family issues arrived at its halfway point with a document summarizing the closed-door debate so far. No decisions were announced, but the tone of the report was one of almost-revolutionary acceptance, rather than condemnation, with the aim of guiding Catholics toward the ideal of a lasting marriage. [And many individual bishops, and even some national conferences, have already said the “Relatio” is utterly unacceptable.]
Bishops clearly took into account the views of Pope Francis, whose “Who am I to judge?” comment about gays signaled a new tone of welcome for the church. Their report also reflected the views of ordinary Catholics who, in responses to Vatican questionnaires in the run-up to the synod, rejected church teaching on birth control and homosexuality as outdated and irrelevant. [I want to throw up. The Synod members are going to have to have cast iron you know whats to keep from caving on this coup executed by the heretics in mitred hats]
The bishops said gays had “gifts and qualities” to offer and asked rhetorically if the church was ready to provide them a welcoming place, “accepting and valuing their sexual orientation without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony.” [As Rorate has noted, it appears this addition to the document was written by one man, a man known for his extreme leftism and his comfort around the perverse]
[Now for the truly disturbing part] El Paso Catholic Bishop Mark Seitz did not seem shocked that the church could shift its its approach to gays and lesbians.
“I think Pope Francis from the very beginning has signaled that he wants to reset the button a little bit and help people to see the church, not just as a place where there are certain knows [“knows?” I think they mean “no’s] – thou shalt not,” Seitz said. “But as a place of love and welcome and mercy and that applies to every person. … It applies to people who struggle with same-sex attractions, with homosexuality. That is what the church is all about. And it’s our task to walk with people in whatever situation they find themselves.” [Lord have mercy! And so it’s “love” to tell people in the gravest of sins that they are fine, that they don’t need to change, that everything is just wonderful, even as they walk their way to hell! Do you even believe in hell anymore, Bishop Seitz, or that anyone actually goes there?]
A bishop who is a part of the Roman Catholic Church does not have leeway to not follow the new doctrine toward homosexuals if the bishop disagrees with the doctrine. [WAIT! I THOUGHT THE SYNOD WAS ALL ABOUT “PASTORAL” APPROACHES, AND NOT DOCTRINE! WHAT IS THIS?!? Do you not see what will happen? No matter how “pastoral” the Synod will claim to be, it will be turned into another danged super-dogma by the media and many willing collaborators in the Church! We have been reassured again and again that Doctrine would not be touched – just as it wasn’t “touched” at Vatican II. And how has that worked out for us?]
“I’m a member of the church and a disciple of Jesus. And I trust that the guidance I receive from the teaching authority of the church – of which I am a part – is something that will be consistent with our constant teaching and something that I have resolved to follow whether I fully understand it or not,” Seitz said. “So, I have no problem saying whatever conclusion that the church comes to is something that I will gladly support.”
————End Quote———–
To be charitable to Bishop Seitz, in some sense, that is what a bishop has to say, I suppose. Although I think it a very dangerous and sad sort of excuse. What if, just supposing, the Synod “pastorally” declared that Jesus Christ – only for the purposes of “outreach” to those outside the Church, of course – was just a man? Would Bishop Seitz go along with that? I don’t think the old cop-out of “Oh, but that’s impossible, it would never happen!” holds anymore. Who among us 2 years ago would have imagine a Synod document proclaiming that the Church should accept active sodomites as is, without any conversion or repentance, or toying around with admitting adulterers to the Blessed Sacrament? Oh……. But hopefully you get my point. And from this potential cave on such a hugely important topic, how else can ANY remaining Doctrine of the Faith be taken seriously?
Not to mention the fact that I think it wrong to assign some kind of huge doctrinal significance – which Bishop Seitz seems to do – to a novel new body that consists of only a tiny fraction of all the bishops in the Church and has no authority to craft doctrine, anyway. But he’ll go along with whatever they say, anyway?
Look, if these left wing Synod members and the rest of the crew want to chuck Church Doctrine, you have to chuck all of it. That means many of their pet projects they love to beat people over the head about must be chucked, too. Things like opposing “corporate greed,” capitalism in general, gerbal worming, having corporal charity for others, helping the poor, visiting the sick, engaging in their cherished “social justice,” etc., etc. If we can chuck 2000 years of Doctrine and the literal, direct Word of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity on one subject, why can we not chuck the rest? And you know, that is exactly what will happen – the Church will have absolutely no moral authority on ANY subject, not just the ones in which the media and their leftist fellow-travelers would like to see the Church change.
I mean it! How on earth could the Church be welcoming to sodomites, of all people, not chastising or criticizing their behavior in the slightest, inviting them to blaspheme the Holy Spirit by receiving the Most Precious Body and Blood of Our Savior in the Blessed Sacrament while in a state of wretched sin, and not welcome corporate raiders, abortionists, the most corrupt politicians, or even mafiosos? Or is the Church, then, to be just what our Pope ostensibly opposes – just another worldly NGO? Because that is precisely what it will be if the direction outlined in the “Relatio” is adopted.
Cardinal Burke: Pope must make statement defending Doctrine on marriage, family October 14, 2014
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, SOD, the return.comments closed
Good Cardinal Burke gave a long interview yesterday in which he expressed his frustration at the doctrinal chaos Pope Francis has encouraged in the Church and called on the Pope to makes statements reaffirming the constant belief and practice of the Church. Some highlights via LSN, then Burke’s recent interview on EWTN (a different one from the one quoted below) in its entirety:
In a candid interview Monday, Cardinal Raymond Burke voiced the concerns of many of his brothers in the Synod hall and lay Catholic activists throughout the world that the public presentation of the Synod has been manipulated by the organizers in the General Secretariat. [Hmmm……who appointed and controls the General Secretariat?]
He strongly criticized yesterday’s Relatio post disceptationem, or “report after the debate,” which the Catholic lay group Voice of the Family had called a “betrayal,” saying it proposes views that “faithful shepherds … cannot accept,” and betrays an approach that is “not of the Church.” He called on Pope Francis to issue a statement defending Catholic teaching. [It was also not a “report” of the actual Synod debate – which has been dominated by more faithful views – but was a pre-prepared document that advanced the radical secularist viewpoint. Thus, this Synod appears even less a true debate and more an exercise in providing cover for……something. Someone apparently wants the appearance of cherished “collegiality,” but that’s too messy and unpredictable. Better to manipulate the process to arrive at a pre-determined result?]
“In my judgment, such a statement is long overdue,” he told Catholic World Report’s Carl Olsen. “The debate on these questions has been going forward now for almost nine months, especially in the secular media but also through the speeches and interviews of Cardinal Walter Kasper and others who support his position.” [Good for you Cardinal Burke, calling a spade a spade. May God protect and support you.]
“The faithful and their good shepherds are looking to the Vicar of Christ for the confirmation of the Catholic faith and practice regarding marriage which is the first cell of the life of the Church,” he added.
The relatio, he said, proposes views that many Synod fathers “cannot accept,” and that they “as faithful shepherds of the flock cannot accept.” [So now we see a difference in Cardinal Burke’s mind, between faithful and unfaithful shepherds. Otherwise, he would not have used the term. It is not often we hear such language from prelates in this age.]
The document, among its most controversial propositions, asks whether “accepting and valuing [homosexuals’] sexual orientation” could align with Catholic doctrine; proposes allowing Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics on a “case-by-case basis”; [which “reviews” you know will be a sham and quickly deteriorate to mass indifference and acceptance of even more bizarrely immoral situations as posing no problem in the reception of the Blessed Sacrament] and says pastors should emphasize the “positive aspects” of lifestyles the Church considers gravely sinful, including civil remarriage after divorce and premarital cohabitation. [Yes, like how sodomites practice chronic promiscuity, have rates of sexual diseases many times (and often orders of magnitude) higher than others, have stratospheric rates of addiction, severe psychological problems, rampant violent relationships, rampant child abuse in relationships where children are present, extraordinarily high rates of suicide. Yes, there are just SO MANY POSITIVE ASPECTS!]
“Clearly, the response to the document in the discussion which immediately followed its presentation manifested that a great number of the Synod Fathers found it objectionable,” Burke told Olsen.
“The document lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium.[Boy that’s an understatement. This document is so extreme it is almost devoid of references to Scripture and Tradition, and get this, can hardly even point back to Vatican II except occasionally, and sometimes in an abusive way, applying the most radical interpretations of Vatican II possible – which is saying something, for the most nebulous Council in history] In a matter on which the Church has a very rich and clear teaching, it gives the impression of inventing a totally new, what one Synod Father called ‘revolutionary’, teaching on marriage and the family. It invokes repeatedly and in a confused manner principles which are not defined, for example, the law of graduality.”
Now, Cardinal Burke’s EWTN interview, which I will not elaborate on:
Friend of blog Kevin Lents publishes strong apologetics book October 14, 2014
Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, catachesis, Ecumenism, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Society, true leadership, Virtue.comments closed
Occasional reader Kevin Lents has published a book entitled Language of Dissent: Answering Those Who Distort the Catholic Faith. The book is an apology for many topics of the Faith where there is great misunderstanding both within and outside the Church. I have only read an excerpt of the book, but it looks promising. I know Kevin a little through e-mail and comments on the blog and he’s a very solid orthodox Catholic. I think this book could be valuable to many: those with non-Catholic family, those who fight error within the Church, those who evangelize protestants and/or Orthodox with erroneous understandings of the Faith, liberals, leftists, new agers…….I think you understand.
Kevin Lents, author of The Language of Dissent, does a tremendous job in answering those who distort the Catholic faith. In The Language of Dissent, Mr. Lents takes up issues such as:
+Jesus did not know He was God.
+There are errors and contradictions in the Bible.
+Adam and Eve are merely legends and myth.
+Jesus really did not multiply the fishes and loaves.
+The Catholic Church no longer teaches the doctrines of purgatory and Indulgences.
+We do not know if Jesus actually performed any miracles.
And many more. You can see a chapter of the book here (this is the homepage of one of my friends who helped me – Michael Lofton):
http://consolamini.org/2014/10/09/the-language-of-dissent/
In addition, Kevin has provided a most generous “look inside” at Amazon. You can see quite a fair overview of the book.
Like I said, it looks quite promising. I encourage you to check it out. It might make a pretty good book for those wavering in the Faith, or who have gotten most of their catechesis (seemingly a huge majority today) from the “mainstream” media. I know sometimes reaching those folks – the invincibly convinced of liberal error types – can be most difficult of all. Perhaps this book may help.
God bless Kevin for his efforts. Oh, and discount the “number remaining” on Amazon, there are plenty in stock.
As I’ve said many times before, efforts like this are the kind of ecumenism I can get behind. Congratulations to Kevin on his new book.
Cardinal Kasper’s incredible anti-Catholic beliefs October 14, 2014
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, disconcerting, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, SOD, the return.comments closed
My wife sent me the following over the weekend. Unfortunately, during this most critical of weeks for faithful Catholics, my work would naturally be crazy. So, I haven’t had much time to blog. I’ve had zero until now, today. Please consider in the following, for those who are wont to go apoplectic over such things, simply quoting a source should not be taken as an endorsement – or a denouncement- of that source. It simply is what it is, a handy resource that contains much information on the man “driving” this Synod, or, at least, serving as the implement of another, higher authority. Find below, courtesy of the SSPX, some of Cardinal Kasper’s more egregious errors and, yes, even heresies (I pick a few highlights, or lowlights, you can read the entire panoply of ugliness at the link):
In his book Introduction to the Faith, he opines that dogmas can “be thoroughly one-sided, superficial, obstinate, dumb and rash.”
In his study Jesus der Christus he writes with regard to accounts of miracles in the New Testament:
From a literary-critical standpoint, we can observe the tendency to heighten the importance of, exaggerate and multiply miracles…. Thus the material of the miraculous accounts is substantially reduced. [Perfect representative of modernist sentiment, which is really just new age Gnosticism and Arianism – Christ was just a man, “secret” knowledge available only to the elites is necessary for “salvation,” you have to have 10 years of post-doctoral work in theology to even begin to “understand” (re: twist unto meaninglessness) doctrine, miracles are impossible, etc., etc]
About the oldest Gospel account of the Resurrection of Christ (Mk 16:1-8), he comments: “that these are not historical features, but rather stylistic devices that are meant to grab attention and create suspense.”[7] Not only faith in the resurrection of the Lord but the whole Christological dogma is dissolved by Kasper. He writes:
According to the synoptic Gospels Jesus never designates himself the Son of God. Consequently the Son of God himself is clearly proved to be a profession of faith by the Church [Because Christ was just a super-duper man, arguing for social justice and the first revolutionary, right, comrade?!?]
In another passage he says: “Therefore he probably called himself neither Messiah nor servant or Son of God, and probably not Son of man, either.”[9] The dogma that Jesus “is fully man and fully God” is “something that can be overhauled.” [Straight up unequivocal heresy. The fact that Kasper has never had to retract this statement is a sign of the glaring failure of ecclesiastical discipline. See, there is NO Dogma these guys won’t touch, even though the definition of Jesus Christ as fully man and fully God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, is something the Church fought and struggled over for more than two centuries. Several Ecumenical Councils, numerous popes, and an unspeakable number of Saints and Fathers all attested to Christ’s dual nature as God and man. There is probably no more clearly defined DOGMA in the entire catalogue of Church belief. Simply incredible. As I said, this poor sick lost infinitely egotistical creature is nothing but a modernist, and an exceedingly well developed instance of the breed]
The previous comments were from various of Cardinal Kasper’s books. The following comes from his tirade before the consistory in February of this year:
We find ourselves today in a situation similar to that of the last Council, when they discussed the question of ecumenism or religious liberty. Then, too, there were encyclicals and decisions of the Holy Office that seemed to block the way forward. Nevertheless, without questioning the binding dogmatic tradition, the Council opened doors. [Ahem. Which perhaps says much more than the Cardinal intended to say.]
This is really just a very small selection of many of Cardinal Kasper’s amazingly destructive beliefs. How this man was made bishop and then a cardinal is simply beyond me. But such is the state of the Church today.
All you really need to know about Cardinal Kasper is this: this man is Hans Kung’s best, most promising protege’. And I must wonder, given the manifest and declared heresies of Kung, would one not think that his best student would have absorbed no small part of his errors? How can it be, then, that this man – retired, too (we see once again the liberals break their own rules when it serves their interests) – is the intellectual lodestar of this Synod? It is his ideas that are discussed, his errors that are being challenged, his disastrous proposals that must be fought. And yet, we are told that his theology is “serene.”
Please. This “serene” man has waged an unprecedented PR campaign over the past two months, attacking and calumniating opponents – men of far better faith and good will than him – left and right. That is “serene?” That is “theology that comes from time spent on the knees?”
Something tells me that Cardinal Kasper does not have callouses on his knees like Saint Anne and some others have had. But who am I to judge?
A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics 