+Schneider Likens Church to Soviet Regime December 7, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, persecution, Restoration, scandals, secularism, the struggle for the Church, true leadership, Virtue.
Well, one leftist cohort tends to resemble another. They are all predicated on the exaltation of man above God and the state (or institution) above all, to the extent that humans are crushed for the “greater good,” which really means the good of the tiny cabal that actually holds the reigns of power.
Before a packed room in Rome’s Centro Lepanto on Monday, Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan urged the faithful to ardently hold on to the Church’s Magisterium on the indissolubility of marriage within the current state of ongoing ambiguities.
“When Christ preached 2,000 years ago, the culture and reigning spirit were radically opposed to Him. Concretely religious syncretism ruled, also Gnosticism among the intelligent leaders, as well as permissibilism among the masses — especially regarding the institution of matrimony. […] The sole purpose of the Son of God was to reveal the truth to the world.”……
……..“The formulation of dubia, as the Cardinals here have expressed in their own terms, has been a common practice in the Church,” he explained. “We need to be able to ask questions openly without being afraid of repressions.” [Progressives are all about “dialogue” and “debate” when they perceive themselves out of power, but when they believe they have power, such quaint notions go out the window. It’s all about whatever serves their perceived interests, that’s all.]
Bishop Schneider referred to the numerous attacks that the four Princes of the Church have suffered after their dubia was published. The questions still remain unanswered by Pope Francis.
“The reaction to the dubia is a proof of the climate in which we actually live in the Church right now,” Bishop Schneider said. “We live in a climate of threats and of denial of dialogue towards a specific group.”
Schneider went to say that “dialogue seems to be accepted only if you think like everyone else – that is practically like a regime.” [Leftists be leftists, wherever they are. Power is the only end they care about, and will use any means to gain it. Once they have it, they have few scruples in using it in cruel and unjust ways]
Schneider brought up his experience in Russia, where he was born in the time of the Soviet Union. His parents were sent by Stalin to work camps, or “Gulags,” after the Second World War. “If you didn’t follow the line of the party, or you questioned it, you couldn’t even ask. That is for me a very clear parallel to what is happening now in the reactions to the dubia — questions — of the Cardinals.”
“This is a very sad experience especially since everybody is speaking about a ‘culture of dialogue’ after the Second Vatican Council. While bishops openly teach heresies and nothing happens to them, that is truly a grave injustice and very sad,” Bishop Schneider added. [Sure. “Dialogue” for the progressives, which really means promotion of the worst errors, and persecution for everyone else]
“If the Pope does not answer, the next step will be recourse to prayer, to supernatural means,” Schneider said, “to pray for the enlightenment of the Pope and that he will gain courage.” [Prayer is the basis of everything. It’s a foregone conclusion. But I hope Burke and his allies are prepared to do more in the material realm, if need be. As in starting formal proceedings of inquiry into the orthodoxy of Francis’ beliefs.]
Schneider speculated about what might happen in the near future. “In Church history, we say that in an extreme case in which the bonum commune of the faith is threatened, then the bishops as members of the college of bishops, and in a truly collegial relation to the Pope with a brotherly obedience to him, must ask him publicly to renounce the misdeed of giving Communion to remarried divorced Catholics, as it is already being done in many dioceses.” [That’s very specific. But in a general council, Burke and those like him would be in the distinct minority, would they not? What then?]
Rebutting the attacks of various persons against the Cardinals, he defended the four. “This situation has already had precedences in saints — not in schismatics or heretics. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Catherine of Siena, and I think this should be possible in the Church without the person being called a schismatic.” [Absolutely. As I say, leftists always project. When they call someone schismatic, it’s because they themselves have schismatic intent. Thus the recent article in L’Osservatore Romano by the Patriarch of Constantinople, certainly the most liberal patriarch of the Orthodox Church.]
Cardinal Burke has said a “formal correction” might be in order to resolve the situation of uncertainty. “In the language of moral theology, fraternal correction is an act of love — if it is given in obedience and with reason,” Schneider commented. “We have to return to this familiar way of dealing with it.”
Absolutely true. I pray that not only does Cardinal Burke have the wherewithal to continue pursuing this matter – he is increasingly becoming the obvious leader of the opposition to Francis’ Reign of Error – but that he can be sufficiently persuasive to get at least 30% or so of prelates on his side. He may not ever be able to convince a majority of spineless, careerist prelates to join him in condemning Francis’ promotion of error, but even a good 25-30% would be an enormous rebuke and a sign of pending schism. It would gravely undermine Francis’ ability to govern the Church, and, more importantly, pursue his agenda.
Schneider is correct, however, in assessing that prayer is the basis for whatever strength Burke and his allies will have. Please devote Novenas, Rosaries, and many other prayers to him and all like him who are willing to oppose this most egregiously destructive of popes.
As an addendum, Cardinal Turkson has been, for the most part, firmly in the Franciscan camp (which is how he got a plum new assignment), but one wonders if he is wavering, given his recent statements seemingly supportive of the pointed questioning of the dubia? Turkson is a wholly political animal, a man who plastered Rome with images of himself during the conclave of 2013, so if he is shifting, even a bit, it might be revealing of general trends within the episcopate. Or he could simply be playing both sides of the fence.
Scorcese Flick “Silence” Looks Like Another Assault on the Faith November 30, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, damnable blasphemy, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.
Martin Scorsese is a man capable of bringing prodigious gifts to bear, though he has used them most often toward prurient interests and the denigration, as opposed to the uplifting, of the human spirit. Almost all of his films are charnel-houses of violence, hedonism, unbounded lusts of all kinds, and the glorification of extremely seedy characters on the silver screen. Of course, his “Last Temptation of Christ,”rumored for years to have been at least partially financed by the Mafia, is blasphemous from beginning to end. It’s a shame, as he has such talents as to make even the most gruesome acts strangely mesmerizing, even beautiful in a way, but he has manifestly refused to use the gifts he has been given for more virtuous purposes.
So it should come as no surprise that Scorsese would be willing to produce a new movie based on a 1966 Japanese fiction book that depicted the supposed apostasy of numerous Jesuit missionaries in 17th century Japan. And, equally unsurprising is the fact that the film has already been lauded by many worldlings who have seen advance showings, and has tragically even been embraced by the Bishop of Rome himself. In fact, the Vatican hosted the glitzy world premiere, and there has been effusive praise for this work from many Vatican officials already.
Now, the book on which the movie is based supposedly has a good deal of merit until it veers wildly off course at the end, showing collapse of faith and total despondency, and it is unknown how faithfully Scorsese has followed the book in his movie, but given the fact that the arch-progressive James Martin, SJ, was principle advisor, I don’t think we can expect a ringing endorsement of the virtues of faith, patience, joyfully accepted suffering, and steadfastness in this upcoming epic. Rorate provides further details, while noting the extreme differences between this new movie, and the wonderful A Man for All Seasons, which is celebrating the 50th anniversary of its original release:
In 1966 the movie “A Man for All Seasons” was released in the U.S., the same year Japanese author Shūsaku Endō wrote the historical fiction novel “Silence.”Last night, the Vatican hosted the world premiere of the movie version of “Silence,” which will be released next month. Shown at the Pontifical Oriental Institute, administered by the Jesuits, approximately 400 priests and others attended. Rorate’s invitation to the screening may have been lost in the mail, so we have not seen the movie. But based on the novel, the endings for the two 1966 works could not be more opposite. One concludes with heroism and martyrdom, the other with indifference and apostasy.The adaption of “Silence” for the big screen was done by Mr. Martin Scorsese, a former seminarian (Cathedral College minor seminary in New York) who is now a self-proclaimed “lapsed Catholic.” One may remember his scandalous and sacrilegious 1988 movie, “The Last Temptation of Christ.” [Saw bits of it way back in the way back when I was a blase’ protestant teen, and even then I thought it contrived, sacrilegious, and deliberately conceived to offend as many Christians as possible. I also thought it chicken-s–t, as Scorsese would never have the cajones to make a similar film about buddhism, let alone islam.]To make “Silence,” Scorsese chose James Martin, S.J., as a consultant for the movie…….[Which almost certainly tells us all we need to know about this production]Before last night’s Vatican screening, Scorsese and Mexican producer Gaston Pavlovich met with Pope Francis. According to a Variety reporter in attendance: “The private papal audience, held in the Apostolic Palace, was announced by the Vatican press office Tuesday in a clear show of support for ‘Silence,’ Scorsese’s passion project.” [“Last Temptation” was another “passion project,” which few studios were willing to release, let alone fund, due to its deliberately hateful content. Thus, the recourse to unconventional sources of funding. Consider which movie he made next]Now, perhaps the ending to the movie “Silence” is completely different from the ending to the novel “Silence.” We sure hope so. If not, the world will soon witness a $50 million renouncement of the Catholic Church by members of the Society of Jesus, as tacitly endorsed by the current (Jesuit) pope. The novel, which was absolutely terrific up until the end, has a clear message to leave with readers — the opposite of Saint Thomas More’s example to England and the world.Apostasy should not be celebrated by the Vatican. These Jesuits are men for no seasons.
Indeed, and have been for decades. At this point, sad though it may be, I wait for their hastening extinction while they refuse conversion and reform. Though with this pontiff, they appear committed to hastening headlong along the same road they have been on since the arch-heretics Tyrell and Loisy corrupted their ranks.
As for the movie, there is no chance I will ever see it. The book’s ending is very provocative and the choice the “protagonist” makes will thrill worldlings, who will now have a powerful new weapon (a whole new mythology, powered by indelible images) with which to attack Christians who hold that adherence to the Doctrine of the Faith is the sine qua non of being a Christian, in spite of all suffering and persecution. Literally hundreds of glorious, edifying movies based on lives of real martyrs could have been made, but they would not stroke the world’s ego as this book does, telling the world, pretty much, what it wants to hear from “God.”
Burke, et. al., Threatened With Loss of Cardinalate Over Dubia November 30, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
The reasoning, as always with FrancisChurch, is absolutely atrocious. Coming as it does from the Dean of the Roman Rota – the very man Francis sacked Cardinal Burke to replace with – is all the more disheartening. Via LifeSiteNews:
While the dubia of four Cardinals concerning clarification of Amoris Laetitia spreads wider and wider ripples in the Vatican and worldwide, the dean of the Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota, the highest appeals court of the Church, says that they might lose their Cardinalate.
“The action of the Holy Spirit cannot be doubted,” he says. “[The Cardinals] question not one synod but two! The ordinary and the extraordinary,” Mons. Vito Pinto explained during a conference in the Ecclesiastical University of San Dámaso in Madrid, Spain. [OK. Whether or not the exhortation following the Synods – Amoris Laetitia – is Magisterial (normally it would be, but how can it be where it plainly intends – via Francis’ own implementation/interpretation – to contradict the Sacred Deposit of Faith!), the Synods WERE NOT. Tiny subsets of bishops do not equate to an ecumenical council, whether they meet one time or forty times. Not even 5% of the world’s bishops were invited to attend, and the deck was stacked with as many friendly to revolution as possible, particularly in the second synod. This is specious, circular reasoning at its lowest]
The four Cardinals, Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner, asked Pope Francis for clarification on September 19, and then went public with their concerns earlier this month when Francis failed to answer.
“Which Church do these Cardinals defend?” Pinto reproaches. “The Pope is faithful to the doctrine of Christ.” [The boundless effrontery of it all is simply amazing. So now that they have a progressive pope, the Left in the Church decrees that the Faith = whatever the pope says it is today. They weren’t quite so ultramontanist when Benedict was in the Chair of Peter!]
“What they have done is a very serious scandal that could lead the Holy Father to remove them from the Cardinalate, as it has sometimes happened in Church history,” Pinto expounds. [I think if Francis did that, he would both be making a very big mistake, and also telling us a very great deal about his conception of mercy. These men, after all, only asked questions, questions which permitted no wiggle room, no diabolical “shades of grey,” which Francis, apparently, has either preferred – or is unable – to answer. Who is introducing the novel doctrines here? It is not the four cardinals, and their numerous allies. It is Jesuit Francis.]
The Cardinalate – unlike the deaconate, priestly, or bishop’s ordination – does not entail an ontological change in the individual, but is an office conferred by the Pope. Therefore the Church speaks of “creating” Cardinals who join the College of Cardinals. They serve principally as helpers – in Latin, “hinges” (cardines) – to the Pope in ruling the Church. Therefore, they could theoretically be removed from their positions and return to being “simple” bishops or archbishops.
Mons. Vito Pinto affirms that the Pope has not directly answered their dubia but “indirectly he has told them that they only see in white or black, when in the Church there are shades of colors.” Pinto referred to multiple instances in which Pope Francis stated that life is not black and white but grey.
In the same conference, Mons. Pinto recalls, referring to Catholic “remarried” divorcees, how the center of Francis’ message is that the Church needs to accept the injured and fallen: “A nun told me that there are people divorced or living together who are communicating. And what should the Church do, say ‘yes, you may’ and ‘no, you may not’? Pope Francis wants a Church that is very close to the people.” [Which, if you note, does not address the supposed nun’s supposed concern at all. It’s meaningless blather. In reality, the message is being conveyed, but in the typical passive-aggressive, cowardly leftist way. They won’t straight up publicly proclaim heresy, but they hint at it, give it a wink and a nod, and basically encourage people to go that way, while in private communiques, the clear message is sent: give Communion to adulterers. I guess Christ, then, was not up to Francis’ exceedingly high standards of closeness to the people, when he said that manifest sinners who refuse the intervention of the Church should be anathematized?]
For Mons. Pinto the only solution – and the key to Francis’ pontificate – is acceptance, what he calls “mercy.” “In our time the Bride of Christ prefers to use the medicine of mercy and not wield the weapons of severity. The Catholic Church wishes to show herself to be a kind mother to all, patient and full of mercy to the children separated from her.”
Even while they fall into hell? So did Our Blessed Lord tell the Truth, or not? Is remarrying after a civil divorce adultery? Is adultery not a grievous sin? Did not St. Paul inform us that those who receive unworthily eat and drink condemnation on themselves? And what did St. Peter tell us about false prophets and blind guides who try to soothe the itching ears of the world by telling them happy lies, lies that smell of sulfur and brimstone? St. Paul told us that anyone who tries to bring a Gospel other than the one Christ preached must be anathematized. Does Vio Pinto represent Christ, or Francis?
I am willing to bet Cardinal Burke will be willing to lose much more than a red hat than to fold on this matter of permitting this radical change – this insidious attack – on the Church’s moral Doctrine.
War of Words: Chaput Fires Back at Farrell November 18, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, different religion, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
I’ll take practical schism for $400, Alex.
Yesterday, we saw the unfortunate comments of former Bishop of Dallas, and now Cardinal-Elect, Kevin Farrell, singing the Francis tune for all its worth. In the same interview, he also dropped some none-too-subtle criticisms of American prelates like Chaput who have made clear they will not be implementing false mercy for manifest adulterers, admitting them to reception of the Blessed Sacrament. Farrell made clear he had wished Chaput and similar conservativish bishops had waited until the USCCB – a locus of administrative bureaucracy to the point of killing faith if I’ve ever seen one – had reached some common, watered down, soul-numbing policy all could agree to.
Well, Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia has now fired back, wondering if Farrell even read his archdiocesan policy, claiming Farrell’s concerns were very far from the mark. Given what I know of Farrell’s lack of what you might call thoroughness and intellectual persistence, and near total acceptance of the cultural conventional wisdom, I’d say it’s a fairly safe bet to conclude he not only hadn’t read the policy, but couldn’t care less. Let’s see what Chaput had to say in rebuttal (my emphasis and comments):
Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput has fired back at Cardinal-designate Kevin Farrell’s suggestion that his guidelines for implementing Pope Francis’ controversial Exhortation Amoris Laetitia are causing “division.”
“I wonder if Cardinal-designate Farrell actually read and understood the Philadelphia guidelines he seems to be questioning. The guidelines have a clear emphasis on mercy and compassion,” the archbishop stated in comments emailed to LifeSiteNews.
Earlier this week, Farrell — one of Pope Francis’ most outspoken American supporters — said that he disagreed with Chaput issuing his own guidelines in his own diocese, stating that implementing the pope’s exhortation should be done “in communion” with all U.S. bishops. [Well. So did Farrell similarly complain when the bishops of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires chose to implement Amoris Laetitia according to Francis’ revolutionary intent, instead of waiting for a joint decision of all the bishops of Argentina? Yeah…….we’ll see that about a month after hell freezes over]
But at the center of Farrell’s criticism appears to be Chaput’s insistence that the document be interpreted, as Chaput has previously stated, “within the tradition of the Church’s teaching and life.” Chaput’s guidelines unequivocally state that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics may not receive Holy Communion unless they “refrain from sexual intimacy.”
For Farrell, this is problematic.
“I don’t share the view of what Archbishop Chaput did, no,” the cardinal-designate told Catholic News Service on Tuesday. “I think there are all kinds of different circumstances and situations that we have to look at — each case as it is presented to us,” he said. “I think that is what our Holy Father is speaking about, is when we talk about accompanying, it is not a decision that is made irrespective of the couple.” [This is nothing but an apologia for excusing and ultimately ignoring sin. This is exactly – I mean precisely, even to the use of the exact same words – the same argument put forth by the Currans and Drinans with regard to use of contraception in the late 60s and early 70s. Contraception would only be for married persons, after a period of discernment and accompaniment, under the watchful eye of a priest. Yeah……how has that worked out. Exactly as they intended, that’s how, with Catholic use of contraception completely indistinguishable from that of the general population, and souls likely – almost certainly – falling into hell like snowflakes]
But Chaput called Farrell’s criticism of his guidelines, and the fact that he issued the guidelines as a bishop acting in his own diocese, “puzzling.”
“Why would a bishop delay interpreting and applying Amoris Laetitia for the benefit of his people? On a matter as vital as sacramental marriage, hesitation and ambiguity are neither wise nor charitable,” Chaput said. [That’s the least of what could be said in rebuttal]
“I think every bishop in the United States feels a special fidelity to Pope Francis as Holy Father. We live that fidelity by doing the work we were ordained to do as bishops. Under canon law — not to mention common sense — governance of a diocese belongs to the local bishop as a successor of the apostles, not to a conference, though bishops’ conferences can often provide a valuable forum for discussion. [Whatever] As a former resident bishop, the cardinal-designate surely knows this, which makes his comments all the more puzzling in the light of our commitment to fraternal collegiality,” he added. [Maybe they aren’t so puzzling after all. Maybe the message is, you will comply, or else. Perhaps not today, perhaps not tomorrow, but soon, there will be repercussions for “dissent”]
Chaput doubled down on his key for interpreting the exhortation, stating that any implementation that contradicts not only Sacred Scripture but the Church’s previous magisterial teaching is contrary to the mission of the Church given to her by Christ.
“Life is messy. But mercy and compassion cannot be separated from truth and remain legitimate virtues. The Church cannot contradict or circumvent Scripture and her own magisterium without invalidating her mission. This should be obvious. The words of Jesus himself are very direct and radical on the matter of divorce,” he said.
Dang right. Good for Chaput. I’d rather it be said with a bit more emphasis, that the veil of false episcopal decorum be dropped entirely, but so be it. He still made a very effective rebuttal. Farrell can hardly respond save for appeal to authority – “bu- bu- but the pope said!” That used to be all one had to say, but who knows what the future may hold.
Pure Politics: Cardinal-Elect Farrell Continues Singing Whatever Tune Francis Calls November 17, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Dallas Diocese, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, suicide, the struggle for the Church.
An interview with CNS of former Dallas Bishop and now Cardinal-elect Farrell raised quite a bit of well-earned ire with quotes like “perhaps we have emphasized rules and regulations to excess” and “focus on Jesus, not rules.” First of all, the Church isn’t obsessed with “rules and regulations,” but with teaching the Truth that is required of souls in order to be saved. If you want rules and regulations for their own sake, go work for a Roman dicastery, they have tons of them. When prelates like Farrell reduce the Sacred Truth Jesus Christ has revealed through His Church to “rules and regulations,” they are revealing that they are fundamentally disconnected with the Church and Her role as the vehicle of salvation for all men, and are subordinated the Sacred Deposit of Faith for the preferences of fallen men and a sick, dying culture.
There’s a lot in here to unpack, I’ll only pick a few gems:
Right from the get-go, Farrell announces that “My training for this job was pastoral work. Forget all the administrative part, that’s the least important.” Really, Bishop Farrell? When was that? You only ever served in a parish for about 18 months. You’ve held administrative positions for the last 30 years solid. Yes, a bishop should certainly have a major pastoral role, but you were known throughout this diocese as an unreachable man who was rarely in town and who viewed duties like visiting parishes a hassle to be endured. You were generally escorted in and out of parish events as quickly as possible. But apparently you said all the right things in your interview, you’re now “a man of the people.”
In using the parable of the prodigal son to make his point about the Church embracing sinners without question or call to conversion – one must assume, because that’s what we’ve heard from Francis since Day 1 – Farrell completely misconstrues the parable, which conversion and embrace by the Father was based on the son’s contrition and conversion. But that is not what Francis wants to do in handing out the Sacred Species of Our Blessed Lord in the Flesh without any visible sign of avoiding mortal sin, repentance, and conversion.
Doctrinal indifference has never attracted souls to the Church. The last 50 years is hideous testimony to that fact. The Church has grown and been most vibrant when Doctrine has been preached with clearly and with fervor, and when the corruption and laxity in the priesthood and other areas of the Church has been at a minimum. That’s exactly what the Counter-Reformation was about. And, no, Francis is not drawing crowds larger or more fervent than his predecessors. In fact, in many cases, they are far smaller than they have been in the past.
“We need a more loving, a more caring Church.” Consigning souls to hell because of doctrinal laxity and even the promotion of heresy is the complete, total inversion of love. It is a diabolical inversion of that, to be frank.
“We keep pushing rules and regulations all the time. Well, none of us are good at following rules. And perhaps we have emphasized rules and regulations to excess.” I think the Cardinal-elect may have revealed a great deal more than he intended.
I’m out of time, but I covered most of what Farrell said. He certainly knows exactly what to say to achieve his career objectives. I grow less and less convinced, however, that those objectives have much at all to do with the good of souls. Being charitable, perhaps he thinks he is willing the good of the Church as a material, worldly construct, but it’s not an approach to ecclesiology I think any of the Apostles would have recognized, or shared. What comes through to me throughout – and this is a view shared by most prelates, that large majority heavily influenced by neo-modernism – is that the eternal destiny of souls is hardly considered, or, to the extent it is, Farrell believes virtually all souls are saved, and thus Doctrine really shouldn’t matter much. Unfortunately, 2000 years of belief and practice, not to mention the clear guidance of Sacred Scripture, say he, and those many, many like him, are not just wrong, but damnably so.
I’m out of time, or I’d say more. I don’t know who will replace Farrell in Dallas, I think we’ll be waiting for quite some time to come, but he’d have to be quite liberal indeed to surpass where Farrell is at right now.
h/t reader Richard Malcolm. Thanks.
Burke: If Francis Won’t “Clarify Serious Error,” Cardinals Must Take Corrective Action November 16, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.
Put another, less diplomatic way, what Cardinal Burke is essentially saying is that, if Francis will not abjure the errors, or, at the very least, extremely dubious assertions, of Amoris Laetitia, Burke and others will move to try to correct him according to canon law, which could include the convoking of a general council to make a judgment of the pope’s adherence to the Sacred Deposit of Faith. I can’t imagine how that would play out in any way that would lead to a negative judgment against Francis, given the state of the Church today and with so many prelates clearly given over to his view of things, but it’s most definitely a very serious warning. I can’t really even see a sufficient number of prelates to be in agreement with Burke and other more faithful bishops – which are not inconsiderable in number, but I would think far short of a majority – to even call a general council against the will of the pope. The last time such a thing occurred there were kings and princes with the ability to summon councils, but such do not exist any more.
After joining a group of four cardinals in releasing a call for Pope Francis to clarify grave errors in his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, Cardinal Raymond Burke has now indicated the cardinals are contemplating a “formal correction” should the pope fail to address their concerns.
The cardinals had written to the pope with their concerns on September 19, but after failing to receive a response for nearly two months, they released the letter publicly on Monday morning.
Now, in an interview with the National Catholic Register’s Ed Pentin, Burke discusses the next steps should the pope fail to address the cardinals’ concerns. Here is Pentin’s question and the cardinal’s response:
What happens if the Holy Father does not respond to your act of justice and charity and fails to give the clarification of the Church’s teaching that you hope to achieve?
Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the Tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error. [So, Burke is claiming that Amoris Laetitia contains more than mere vague or confusing statements, but actually promotes and contains serious error. In the history of the Church, there is only one means for dealing with those who persist in manifest, obdurate error (heresy) – and that is a declaration that they are outside the Church. But such has never been formally declared of a reigning pontiff in the history of the Church, has it?]
Burke goes on to insist that in a case of conflict between the pope and Church Tradition, the Tradition is binding. “Ecclesial authority exists only in service of the Tradition,” Burke explains. “I think of that passage of St. Paul in the [Letter to the] Galatians (1:8), that if ‘even an angel should preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.’”
Historically, in the rare cases where popes have taught heresy, Burke explains, “It is the duty…, and historically it has happened, of cardinals and bishops to make clear that the Pope is teaching error and to ask him to correct it.” [And on the rare instances this has occurred, the popes in question have, to a man, I believe, had the decency to abjure any errors they professed, or even contemplated, well before the issue got to the level of a formal rebuke. Will such be the case with Francis? The evidence we have to date is not terribly hopeful.]
The September 19 letter, signed by Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner, asked the pope 5 short questions which call for ‘yes or no’ answers that would immediately clarify the meaning of the confusion-plagued document on precisely those points where theologians, priests and even bishops have offered contradicting interpretations. [Hey, want to know some other documents where precisely the same confusion reigns, with even prelates taking completely contradictory stands?!? How about Guadium Et Spes, Dignitatis Humanae, Nostra Aetate, etc.]
In the interview, Burke emphasizes that the cardinals have sought to act for “the good of the Church,” which, he says, “is suffering from a tremendous confusion” on the points they have raised especially. He notes, for example, that priests in different dioceses are being given contradictory directions on how to handle the question of access to Communion for those in adulterous unions. [Thus, does a practical schism not exist in the Church today?]
“We, as cardinals, judged it our responsibility to request a clarification with regard to these questions, in order to put an end to this spread of confusion that is actually leading people into error,” he says.
Again, I am heartened to see this, and it will be quite revealing to see this situation unfold. Burke is getting very, very close to stating Francis formally promotes error. Amazing. I pray that the Lord will give abundant strength to Burke, Meisner, Caffara, Brandmuller, and their allies. It is interesting that Cardinal Muller at the increasingly marginalized CDF has not responded, either. For all those who have steadfastly maintained for years that Francis hasn’t promoted any error, nor even made any significant failings of prudential judgment, I must wonder what they are thinking now?
I have been praying for some time that, should push ever come to shove like this, Francis would turn away from his seeming errors and return to the constant belief and practice of the Faith. It’s a longshot, I know, but hope springs eternal. The damage to the Church of a public trial of the pope’s belief – which, again, I can hardly believe would actually happen – would be immense. But what alternative is there, if he keeps on this same course he has been pursuing for nearly 4 years?
It is truly heart-breaking that it has come to this. What a nightmare, for the entire world.
……..that is to say, using the dumbest form of social media, through a surrogate, and with a tone of smug superiority and total disdain for the very real concerns raised.
Four cardinals, including Cardinal Burke, submitted a detailed dubium to Francis, requesting he clarify or correct what these cardinals rightly perceive as very problematic, even erroneous (or inviting error) statements within Francis’ post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which was, surprise!, written before the second session of the synod on marriage and the family had even begun. You can read the cardinal’s submission, and much related coverage, here. While some may find this action late, it is important to remember that the Church always moves slowly, that this dubium was sent months ago, and that Amoris Laetitia only came out this year. I am personally very gratified to see this official communication of resistance – it is really a not so veiled assertion of heresy within Amoris Laetitia, and calls upon Francis to, more or less, retract his erroneous propositions by clarifying them along orthodox lines – but I am left wondering where all this will lead.
Now, this dubium was submitted months ago, but was only publicized recently by the cardinals, since Francis has chosen not to respond to their charitable and quite appropriate submission. However, his hand-picked court theologian, and author of Amoris Laetitia and a number of other papal statements, Anthony Spadaro, SJ, has responded, almost certainly with the knowledge and approval of Francis himself. His reply, in the form of “tweets,” are as rude as they are dismissive of very real concerns shared not only by these four cardinals but by millions of other Catholics. Via VoxCantoris:
Very much a “my way or the highway” approach – just what one would naturally expect from a man who constantly appeals to charity, compassion, and understanding. I am being sarcastic, of course, those appeals are naught but means to an end for this most revolutionary pontiff.
I am not surprised to see this response in the least. It is exactly the kind of response I expect to see from any kind of left-wing ideologue, whether they cover themselves in the trappings of Catholicism or if they are out n’ proud denizens of the Castro Street Fair – not a mutually exclusive crowd, to say the least. It’s the same kind of completely uncomprehending, dismissive attitude we see from the leftists trying to “re-litigate” the presidential election in the streets of the US.
The only question is, will Burke or other leaders of the Church realize that this man, Francis, is not playing by any of the old rules, and will not respond with anything but sneering derision to any of the standard means of trying to check error? If this is all the response they get, will they go further? What else can they, or should they, do, as leaders holding to a more orthodox approach to the Faith Christ gave us? What should we be doing, if anything, beyond the constant recourse to prayer and penance? Is it even possible to conceive that a general council could be conceived, and that it would judge Francis to be a manifest and obdurate heretic? I can’t conceive of it, but that’s where Steve Skojec thinks Burke may be headed.
The thing is, this man will never stop. Amoris Laetitia is just the first major salvo. There will be many more, unless God intervenes in dramatic or mundane fashion. Indeed, his liberal allies of the St. Gallen mafia are calling for him to do much more. The intent is clear, to undermine and eventually overturn, along progressive-modernist lines, the entire moral edifice of the Faith, and to dare people to oppose him. The few remaining institutional checks on wayward papal power are wholly ineffective against an ideologue of this sort, and, even more, the massive cult of personality that has surrounded the papacy over the past century or so has left Catholics ill-equipped to stand in opposition (which is at is should be?). He is unreachable by logic or persuasion.
I don’t have a lot of answers, other than, as I said, doing still more prayer and penance. Prayer gave this country another chance to avoid the abyss, I pray God will be still more generous with regard to His Church. The fox is in the henhouse. We are deep into the passion of the Church. I don’t know what the future holds, but I fear things will get much worse before they get better. I guess one final question might be, is schism, at this point, inevitable (by human means)? Steve Skojec seems to think it is.
Francis Re-Instituting Inquisition Along Progressive Lines? November 15, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, episcopate, error, family, Francis, General Catholic, horror, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, the struggle for the Church.
That’s what this report from Rorate sounds like. A new group with a more than slightly Orwellian name (and redolent of the personalism/cult of personality that has been distorting Catholicism for over a century) – the Observatory for the Implementation of the Church Reform of Pope Francis (OARCPF) – has sent out letters to Catholic professors at pontifically-recognized colleges around the world, telling them they will be judged as to whether or not they “teach” Amoris Laetitia according to Francis’ intent, which means, allowing adulterers and fornicators to receive the Blessed Sacrament without contrition or confession. This sounds disturbingly me like an inquisition being stood up along progressive lines, forcing the promulgation of opinions – which many view as heresies – contrary to the direct will of Jesus Christ and as revealed throughout Sacred Scripture by both Our Lord and St. Paul.
A bit of explanatory text from Rorate, and then a copy of the letter which has been sent to Roman institutions with threatening tone:
You will not believe the ridiculousness of it all, but Bergoglioland has finally reached full Banana Republic status. Pope Francis, the Anastasio Somoza of Adultery, the Papa Doc of Sinful Cohabitation, has under him now a Secret “Police”, the Osservatorio per l’Attuazione della Riforma della Chiesa di Papa Francesco (OARCPF – Observatory for the Implementation of the Church Reform of Pope Francis) sending out e-mail letters of official tone to professors in Roman institutions demanding them to teach Amoris Laetitia according to the mind of the Pope (that is, Holy Communion to public adulterers and fornicators) — or (the threat is obviously implied) to face expulsion………
……….Magister transcribes the letter received by faculty in the Pontifical Institute John Paul II for Studies on Marriage and the Family (linked to the Lateran University). The threats contained in it are not hollow, because Francis himself intervened earlier this year to completely subject the board of the Institute to HIS new view of marriage (as opposed to Jesus Christ’s and John Paul II’s), putting strong henchmen in their place. Men who would not mind following orders, even if absurd.
The text of the communique, with my emphasis and comments:
Subject: Monitoring of studies and teaching in the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and FamilyDear Mr/Ms ProfessorPontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and FamilyPontifical Lateran UniversityVatican CityAs has already happened and is happening for other pastoral, academic, and cultural Catholic institutions, our Observatory for the Implementation of the Church Reform of Pope Francis (OARCPF) – an initiative of a group of Catholuc lay people in support of the pontificate of Pope Francis – has begun in the current academic year the monitoring of the contents of publications of faculty and the teachings imparted [in class] in the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family in order to make clear the adaptations or eventual disagreements regarding the address made by Pope Francis on the occasion of the opening of the new academic year of your Institute (Sala Clementina, October 28, 2016), in which you were called “to support the necessary opening of the intelligence of the faith in the service of the pastoral solicitude of the Successor of Peter.” [We are truly living through unprecedented times. There may have been disastrous popes, even popes that held personal errors, but never has a pontiff not only held personal errors but tried to inflict them on the entire Church as a substitute for the Truth, as some kind of benign and holy reform! Never in modern history have multiple cardinals submitted dubia to the reigning pontiff demanding he clarify his doctrinal errors in light of Tradition/Catholic belief. Incredibly, and contrary to all precedent, Francis has ignored this request for clarification/correction. It’s been 40 years since large numbers of Catholic intellectuals have risen up in opposition – some privately, others publicly – against the destructive “reforms” being foisted upon the Church by the Bishop of Rome. I would wager that never in history has a pope more publicly challenged, undermined, and even directly attacked the Sacred Deposit of faith. Unbelievable.]In particular, the contents of published works and the imparted classes will be taken into consideration in reference to what is expressed in the apostolic Exhortation “Amoris laetitia”, according to the image “of the Church that is, not of a Church thought in one’s own image and likeness,” orienting research and teaching not anymore towards “a too abstract theological ideal of matrimony, almost artificially built, far from the concrete situation and from the effective possibilities of families as they are” (Pope Francis, mentioned address, October 28, 2016). [TFrancis has declared repeatedly, both directly and by inference, that Grace is not all-powerful, that “concrete situations” and “effective possibilities” overwhelm individuals and make them powerless to act – “powerless” to stop sinning. This is a heresy in and of itself, that God does not provide souls with all the tools they need to avoid sin, especially mortal sins like fornication and adultery. This is a totally toxic and endlessly destructive notion, revealing the schizophrenia that results from trying to marry Catholicism with leftism. The destruction this ideology will wreak is unimaginable, and yet this man may remain in office for years more, for reasons known only to God]To this end, we will make use of the analytical and critical reading of the studies published by the faculty, of the theses of graduation and doctorate approved by the Institute, of the syllabus of classes of of their bibliographies, as well as interviews of students made after classes, in the square in front of the Lateran University. [Incredible. Doctrine turned on its head. Doctrinal conformity will be enforced, but along lines hostile to the constant belief and practice of the Faith. We see yet again that liberality of thought and “freedom of inquiry” are nothing but tools used by modernist-progressives to gain power – once they seize it, they squash dissent]Certain that we are doing a useful task to improve the service that you perform with dedication to the Church and to the Holy Father, we keep you up to date on the results of our observational study.Observatory for the Implementation of the Church Reform of Pope Francis (OARCPF) – Section for Rome
Francis Had Himself a Busy Week November 14, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, disaster, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Latin Mass, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, suicide, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
Goodness, it just never stops. And almost always towards the end of the week.
In a presser for the release of a new Vatican-sponsored book containing many of Jorge Bergoglio’s homilies as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, the subject of the Sacred Liturgy came up, and Francis opined very negatively on those younger folks who have an attachment for the TLM:
Asked about the liturgy, Pope Francis insisted the Mass reformed after the Second Vatican Council is here to stay and “to speak of a ‘reform of the reform’ is an error.”
In authorizing regular use of the older Mass, now referred to as the “extraordinary form,” now-retired Pope Benedict XVI was “magnanimous” toward those attached to the old liturgy, he said. “But it is an exception.”
Pope Francis told Father Spadaro he wonders why some young people, who were not raised with the old Latin Mass, nevertheless prefer it.
“And I ask myself: Why so much rigidity? Dig, dig, this rigidity always hides something, insecurity or even something else. Rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid.”
There is so much to unpack here, so many errors, both of logic and with regard to the Sacred Deposit of Faith. One must ask, was the entire pre-conciliar Church similarly rigid and defective, in the Bishop of Rome’s mind? I think the answer to that is clear, Francis has always, always reserved his most feverish invective towards those in the Church who hold to a different, more traditional practice of the Faith than him.
But that wasn’t all. In another strange, one might even say scandalously disastrous interview with the noted Italian communist Eugenio Scalfari, Francis let go this whopper:
You told me some time ago that the precept, “Love your neighbour as thyself” had to change, given the dark times that we are going through, and become “more than thyself.” So you yearn for a society where equality dominates. This, as you know, is the programme of Marxist socialism and then of communism. Are you therefore thinking of a Marxist type of society?
“It it has been said many times and my response has always been that, if anything, it is the communists who think like Christians. Christ spoke of a society where the poor, the weak and the marginalized have the right to decide. Not demagogues, not Barabbas, but the people, the poor, whether they have faith in a transcendent God or not. It is they who must help to achieve equality and freedom”. [emphasis added]
Apparently, being a Christian is now about being a control freak totalitarian mass-murderer. How many tens of millions have died as a direct result of communism around the world, and continue to do so to this day? At least one hundred million, and that is quite frankly a conservative estimate. If one takes communism as simply leftism taken to its logical, inevitable conclusion, and notes that leftism has been the driving force behind the legalization of abortion worldwide and the mass use of contraception, the total number of deaths attributable to communism must run way into the billions. Leftism cannot exist anywhere as a ruling force/ideology without inflicting mass suffering on the populations under its rule. This has been the case from the French Revolution straight through to today, where thousands are starving in Venezuela and North Korea and are mired in abject poverty in Cuba -among other places.
But to Jorge Bergoglio cum Francis the Ideologue, who as a young man waited expectantly for the arrival of communist broadsheets in 50s Argentina and has always been a fervent Peronist, communists think like Christians. This is very close to saying that communism is the apotheosis of Christianity. Can anyone imagine both a more perverse, and a more materalist, conception of the Faith?
I know these catalogs I make from time to time of Francis’ derangement from the Faith, and his, it must be said, incessant attacks upon both Faith and faithful, are disturbing to some. But this stuff is incredibly important, and deserves at least a cursory review and rebuttal. Burying our heads in the sand will not make Francis go away, as much as we might like that (and as much, at times, as it may even feel necessary to maintain our own faith, which I completely understand).
Inadvertently, however, Francis himself has identified the source that drives so many to seek out the TLM, at least in major part. Just as the extremes of the Left in the United States played a huge role in Trump’s election as a reaction against and rejection of those extremes, it is the extreme errors of the left wing of the Church -of which Francis is most certainly a part – and the extreme destruction they have wrought both on souls and on the Church at large that is a driving factor in leading people to search out and find often not terribly convenient TLMs. And once they do, these souls find, almost always (though a few do not), that not only is the TLM and the entire traditional liturgical/sacramental practice of the Faith infinitely more efficacious for them in helping them grow in the Faith, it is almost always associated with far more rigorous and traditional (orthodox/faithful/just plain Catholic) catechesis that is equally of enormous benefit to souls. THAT, and not some secret psychological deficiency, are some of the major reasons why young people like me and my children adore the TLM and find so much fruit therein, both because of its innate goodness, and as an escape from the “communists make the best Christians” garbage (among many, many other errors) the permeates so much of the Novus Ordo establishment Church.
I know for my family, fleeing error was at least as big an attraction in seeking out the ONE parish that makes the TLM available in this Diocese as was our desire for sound catechesis and beautiful, God-given Liturgy (God-given because of the inspiration so many Saints acted under in guiding the organic development of the Mass over centuries). What Franky George Bergoglio really means by “rigidity or something else” is he finds these people – us – antagonistic ideologically. Much the same as the Left in this country is now calling everyone – even blacks, hispanics, and women – who voted for Trump racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. – every dirty name they can think of – what they are really saying is “enemy.”
Bearing in mind that projection is an inseparable part of being left-wing, Francis is saying much more about himself than he is those “young” people who “inexplicably” find great solace and sustenance in the TLM. He is such a child of the 60s and so provincial he is incapable -again, the parallels to the behavior of factions in this country are amazing – of imagining anyone with true humanity (and not some sad, pathetic holdover from the time of the Council who simply never got on board) that could believe differently.
There are a thousand ways to pic these two latest egregious statements apart. I have only chosen to focus on a couple of criticisms for brevity’s sake. I’m sure you can come up with many more.
A final note: Francis’ attitude towards the TLM being simply a magnanimous gesture to those old enough to have been around prior to VII to still have an attachment to the TLM implies an expiration date for Summorum Pontificum, does it not, since eventually those folks will die off?
Thought for the Day: Could the Growing Worldwide Backlash Against Elites Extend into the Church? UPDATED November 10, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Christendom, different religion, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, Restoration, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
I’m out of time, but a quick thought – could what seems to be a growing worldwide rejection of the transnational global elites extend into the Church? There is of course evidence of a steadily increasing opposition to Francis’ attempt at radically changing the Church, and political parallels often do not apply to the Church, but could this general repudiation of elite authority on many levels have portents for the Church, just as the coalescing of conservative opposition to decades of liberal rule in England, the US, and the Vatican hastened the end of the Cold War and a Church which backed away from the excesses of the 60s and 70s, if there was not, unfortunately, a serious effort to roll them back? That this opposition was much less effective in reality than it may have appeared at the time, both politically and ecclesiastically, is important to note: while there were significant achievements in this period of the late 70s – early 00s, the conservative reaction both in politics and the Church in many ways continued to accept the liberal paradigms and institutionalize them.
Could this time be different? Could this be the start of a genuine reaction/restoration movement?
Sorry I can’t flesh this out more, discuss, if you feel so moved.
UPDATE: A little data that maybe lends some weight to my hypothesis? Catholics voted for the less morally offensive candidate for the first time since 1988:
A national exit poll is showing President-elect Donald Trump won the Catholic vote Tuesday, 52 percent to Hillary Clinton’s 45 percent.
The poll, published by CNN, shows 23 percent of Americans who voted this election season identified themselves as Catholic, while 27 percent said they were Protestant, 24 percent “Other Christian,” 15 percent “No Religion,” and three percent “Jewish.” Of the Catholics who voted, 52 percent voted for Trump and 45 percent voted for Clinton.
In April of 2015, Clinton criticized the beliefs of traditional faith groups, asserting that these beliefs would have to be “changed” to accommodate abortion.
“Far too many women are still denied access to reproductive health care… deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed,” she said.
In 2008, Catholics made up 27% of the voting electorate. That might be the more important factor than who they voted for: are Catholics becoming more faithful as a great number continue to fall away at a quickening pace (a pace likely accelerated by Francis’ shredding of Doctrine in all practical senses?).
Just a bit more grist for the mill. It is not insignificant both that Catholics have voted for the less moral candidate every chance they’ve had for nearly 30 years, and that THIS is the man they would choose to get behind, who pushed social conservative issues to the back burner for the most part. So perhaps this isn’t as hopeful as I thought. Then again, evangelicals gave more support to Trump than they did to Romney, McCain, or Bush. I think in this election, a desire to stop illegal immigration and send a clear rebuke to the self-proclaimed ruling class dominated all other considerations.