Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, huh?, priests, the struggle for the Church.
And the influence of the Diocese of Dallas – once a relative backwater – continues to grow. I think this makes the 7th or 8th diocese with a bishop with strong ties to the Diocese of Dallas. That weren’t the case even a few years ago, when Dallas used to be the kind of diocese that received bishops from elsewhere, rather than being a “breeding ground” for them. Perhaps this is yet another of the effects of Bishop Farrell’s rather short tenure, a significant increase in the Diocese of Dallas’ profile.
At any rate, Msgr. Robert Coerver of Saint Rite parish in Dallas has been named by Francis as the third Bishop of Lubbock, TX, replacing retiring Bishop Palacido Rodriguez:
Pope Francis has named the pastor of St. Rita Catholic Church in Dallas, Reverend Monsignor (pronounced Mon-senior) Robert Coerver (pronounced curve-er), to serve as the new Bishop of Lubbock. The appointment was announced today in Washington, D.C. by the papal nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Christophe Pierre, followed by the announcement in the Diocese of Lubbock.
With the appointment, Reverend Monsignor Coerver will become the third bishop of the Diocese of Lubbock. Monsignor Coerver says he was very surprised by the news but grateful to the Holy Father for his confidence in him. He says that while he looks forward to serving Lubbock, he will miss Dallas. “I was born and raised here in Dallas; my family roots are here and my ancestors were among Dallas’ first Catholics. I have developed so many fantastic relationships over the years and it will be difficult to have them take on a different nature. I have cherished my work among my brother priests and upon hearing of my appointment a slight pang of sadness came upon me. But, as a priest, I have always known that I must follow wherever the Lord leads me, and so when asked if I would accept the appointment I did so immediately because I have promised to serve wherever the Church needs me. I happily look forward to this new role as chief shepherd of the Catholic faithful in Lubbock and pray that God will assist me in leading the Catholic people there. I ask the prayers of the people of the Diocese of Dallas as I prepare to assume my new responsibilities.”………
………Bishop-elect Coerver has served at numerous parishes in the Diocese of Dallas, including St. Elizabeth of Hungary, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, and as pastor at Our Lady of the Lake in Rockwall, and since 2010 at St. Rita in North Dallas. He will be ordained Bishop of the Diocese of Lubbock at a special Mass of Ordination on November 21, 2016 at 2 p.m. at Christ the King Cathedral in Lubbock.
Is it just me, or does Bishop-elect Coerver seem a little less than thrilled to be headed to the dry, flat plains of West Texas? I much prefer Amarillo, myself.
No, I don’t know anything about Bishop-elect Coerver. I’m all ears if people have some knowledge of his liturgical, doctrinal, and pastoral sensibilities. Saint Rita is one of the larger, more prosperous parishes in the Diocese, for whatever that’s worth.
Well, good luck and God speed to both Bishop-elect Coerver and the people of the Diocese of Lubbock.
Here’s a video showing the official press conference introducing Bishop-elect Coerver to the Diocese of Lubbock:
His episcopal motto: “Suscipe Domine” – the beginning of Saint Ignatius Loyola’s famous prayer on self-surrender to the Grace of Jesus Christ. Perhaps a good sign?
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, different religion, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, the struggle for the Church.
……..silent support for sodomy and transgenderism, Church official praises pseudo-sodo-union, Jesuit James Martin awarded for his role in attacking the Faith, meanwhile, protestants make major inroads in Iran in spite of horrific persecution:
My doctor is an evangelical pastor and he has been to Iran and made a lot of converts. The lady who used to cut my hair is one of them. Her entire family is now Christian. This is a growing, silent threat to the mullah’s satanic regime, but they have been unable to do much to stop it.
Of course, the Church leadership would never want to do anything so crass as proselytize an infidel country. They’d rather pretend their false religion is equal to or superior to our own. Interestingly, left-wingers feel the same way generally, that exotic third world “others” are purer, better, more noble people than anyone in the benighted, Christian-based West. It’s almost as if most Church leaders are far more convicted left-wingers than they are Catholics.
h/t reader TT
Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, the struggle for the Church.
Pretty much just a link and a copy paste job, but look how he uses the very disconcerting new sex-ed standards Francis pushed last summer to justify his assault on the innocence of the children in his charge. Innocence is infinitely precious – once lost, it can never be regained. Anything that shatters the innocence of a child is gravely offensive to the moral order and should be fought tooth and nail. Parents have objected vociferously, but the bad bishop has basically told them to stuff it.
Look folks, while a bare handful of exceptions exist, if you want your child to keep the Faith for their entire life, Catholic schools are the last place you want to send them. Even 40 years ago Bishop Sheen declared that Catholic schools were the worst places to send your kids if you wanted them to grow up to be pious, devout, observant souls. I mean, if you’re going to instill a different religion, you kind of have to seize control of the education system at the start, haven’t you? And nothing insures indifference in religion than deep attachment to the sins against the 6th and 9th Commandments, which are what prompted Luther’s original revolt, after all. If you want someone to have a lifelong attachment to vice, it’s best to get at them when they’re young, no?
Bishop Choby has always been a disastrously liberal prelate. Misery loves company. Capiche?
A U.S. Catholic bishop has explicitly refused to allow parents to opt their kids out of a diocesan-run school’s sex-ed program deemed by parents to be “erotic” and “salacious,” calling the program a “legitimate requirement” for graduation.
Instead of listening to the parents’ concerns, the bishop has cited the Vatican’s newly minted and problematic sex-ed curriculum as a way to evaluate the school’s program.
In a letter dated September 2, Bishop David Choby of the Catholic Diocese of Nashville, Tennessee, told parents opposing the sex-ed program that while he “wholeheartedly support[s]” their right as “primary educator,” nevertheless, when they send their children to school, they no longer exercise that right when it comes to school “requirements.”………..
……….The “Human Sexuality” course taught as part of the Father Ryan High School’s theology course offers graphic images and erotic sexual details concerning male and female body parts, including highlighting the pleasure points of the male and female reproductive organs and describing the lengths of an “aroused” clitoris and penis. Students learn 10 different forms of contraception. An outline of the course’s problematic content as well as a link to the program can be found in LifeSiteNews’ previous coverage here. [On the basis of the promotion of contraception use alone, the course is contrary to the Doctrine of the Faith. There is no need to discuss different types of contraception unless there is a desire for people to avail themselves of them. To oppose contraception, you don’t need to discuss the different types, especially not in a class taught to teens who are still children]
Parents say the course could be spiritually harmful to their children, calling it a “near occasion of sin.” [Could be? It sounds like a certainty to me] James Bowman, whose stepdaughter [umm…] attends the school, has joined a coalition of parents opposing the program, telling LifeSiteNews that some of the material present in the sex-ed gives too much detail for so young an audience……….
………..Canon law expert Fr. Gerald Murray told LifeSiteNews in an earlier report on the matter that “any sex education program that is not in accord with the convictions of a child’s parents cannot be made mandatory without violating ‘the right and duty’ of the parents to control what their children are taught in this delicate and sensitive matter.”
Canon lawyer Philip Gray, president of the St. Joseph Foundation, also told LifeSiteNews in a previous report on the matter that competent authorities are “not in line with Church teaching” when they refuse to allow parents to opt their kids out of school programs that parents find objectionable.
Rather than listening to the serious objections to the sex-ed course raised by the parents, Bishop Choby in his letter instead pointed to the Vatican’s recently released sex-ed program, telling parents that it shall be used as an “instrument to evaluate” the school’s own course.
Hichborn noticed the implications of the bishop’s reference to the Vatican sex-ed in relation to parental rights.
“It seems that the publication of the Vatican’s new sex education is emboldening a radical departure from traditional means of educating children where parents played the part of primary educator. It appears that the Vatican sex ed is now being used to trump those rights,” he said. [Different religion, anyone?]
The Vatican sex ed, released in July during World Youth day in Poland, has been criticized by international life and family organizations and leaders for being contrary to previous Church teaching, for subverting parents, and for corrupting children…….
……….Bishop Choby concluded his letter by chastising the parents for raising their concerns and gaining “notoriety,” stating that it puts their children attending the school in an “awkward position.”
“Students, I am sure, will or have already seen news stories on television and the Internet about all of this. They will undoubtedly make the connection and conclude who among them is at the heart of this controversy. That will be unfortunate,” he wrote. [What is he, a mafioso? He’s pretty much saying, it’ll be a shame if something happens to the children of you rabble-rousing parents. Sheesh.]
The bishop suggested that parents standing up for their rights could have the “unintended consequences” of compromising the “spiritual, academic, and social formation” of their children in the school. He also suggested that if parents could not agree to let their children take the sex-ed course that they could choose to opt out of the school. [SAVE YOUR MONEY. Homeschool. If 100 kids dropped out over this policy tomorrow, I can guarantee there would be major panic and he would fold. But few, it seems, have the gumption for such bold action in today’s Church.]
Hichborn called the bishop’s closing words to the parents “disturbing.”
“He suggests that the parents will be to blame for causing difficulties for their children by fighting against the school’s mandatory sex-ed program when, in fact, it is quite the opposite: It is the school backed by the bishop which is forcing parents to either violate their consciences or to leave the school. The parents are not being the bullies here.”
The revolutionaries in the Church have always been the bullies, since they seized power in a bloodless coup 50 years ago. No one is more enamored of his power, more willing to use it, nor more annoyed at having in questioned, than a progressive churchman. Having encountered more than a few of these guys, they are all the same: bullies. But like a lot of bullies they are not nearly so strong or powerful as they like to pretend. They’re rather like cheap Chinese vases, one good blow will cause them to shatter.
Well, I guess I’ll go home and look forward to another evening’s entertainment of rioting and looting.
How much do you want to bet that both the Black Lives Matter’s movement, and all these riots and uprisings, will come to a screeching halt the day after the election. Like the “war on women” in 2012, this has always had the smell of a demonrat electoral tactic.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, shocking, Society, the struggle for the Church, Virtue.
……but, apparently – at least publicly, which is really what matters – it is.
The Remnant and Catholic Family News have published what promises to be the first installment in a lengthy accusation and denunciation of Francis and his pontificate. It was published Monday, but unfortunately I only saw it today. I am also about out of time, but may cover this more tomorrow.
As Steve Skojec noted, when one starts to catalog Francis’ apparently heterodox statements, dubious pronouncements, grave prudential errors, and general assault against the Faith all in one place, it quickly becomes stupefying. Even with a first installment of 2300 words, so much more could have been said, which is all the more terrifying. On almost a daily basis, Francis says or does something to cause grave scandal and undermine the Faith as practiced for centuries. In terms of undermining of Doctrine and giving scandal to millions, Francis is, most likely, the single most damaging pope in the history of the Church.
One particularly revealing portion of the accusation, which may be its most important part, was the noting of the manifest failure of the Catholic episcopacy to publicly challenge some of the more egregious actions of this pontificate and the effect they are having on Holy Mother Church. We seem sheep without shepherds, a crew adrift in a raging hurricane with all the officers not only distracted and incompetent, but with many in a deranged lunacy deep in the bowels of the ship pulling out the scuttlecocks! I excerpt a few bits from the introduction to the accusation below, but the whole thing is worth reading. If you’ve do read it, or already have, bear in mind so very much more could have been included. That fact alone gives us a very clear idea of just what we are dealing with.
The following narrative, written in our desperation as lowly members of the laity, is what we must call an accusation concerning your pontificate, which has been a calamity for the Church in proportion to which it delights the powers of this world. The culminating event that impelled us to take this step was the revelation of your “confidential” letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires authorizing them, solely on the basis of your own views as expressed in Amoris Laetitia, to admit certain public adulterers in “second marriages” to the sacraments of Confession and Holy Communion without any firm purpose of amending their lives by ceasing their adulterous sexual relations.
You have thus defied the very words of Our Lord Himself condemning divorce and “remarriage” as adultery per se without exception, the admonition of Saint Paul on the divine penalty for unworthy reception of the Blessed Sacrament, the teaching of your two immediate predecessors in line with the bimillennial moral doctrine and Eucharistic discipline of the Church rooted in divine revelation, the Code of Canon Law and all of Tradition.
You have already provoked a fracturing of the Church’s universal discipline, with some bishops maintaining it despite Amoris Laetitia while others, including those in Buenos Aires, are announcing a change based solely on the authority of your scandalous “apostolic exhortation.” Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of the Church. [Not even the protestant revolt cum heresy or the Arian heresy were this severe. Never before in the 2000 year history of the Church has a reigning pontiff so publicly, so repeatedly attacked and undermined the Sacred Deposit of Faith in anything remotely like so comprehensive and relentless a manner]
……….Yet, almost without exception, the conservative members of the hierarchy observe a politic silence while the liberals exult publicly over their triumph thanks to you. Almost no one in the hierarchy stands in opposition to your reckless disregard of sound doctrine and practice, even though many murmur privately against your depredations. Thus, as it was during the Arian crisis, it falls to the laity to defend the Faith in the midst of a near-universal defection from duty on the part of the hierarchs.
Of course we are nothing in the scheme of things, and yet as baptized lay members of the Mystical Body we are endowed with the God-given right and the correlative duty, enshrined in Church law (cf. CIC can. 212), to communicate with you and with our fellow Catholics concerning the acute crisis your governance of the Church has provoked amidst an already chronic state of ecclesial crisis following the Second Vatican Council.
Private entreaties having proven utterly useless, as we note below, we have published this document to discharge our burden of conscience in the face of the grave harm you have inflicted, and threaten to inflict, upon souls and the ecclesial commonwealth, and to exhort our fellow Catholics to stand in principled opposition to your continuing abuse of the papal office, particularly where it concerns the Church’s infallible teaching against adultery and profanation of the Holy Eucharist.
This cry of the heart has raised great umbrage in certain quarters (the typical ones). Whether there have been interventions from the episcopate against Francis privately, with more and more scandals developing weekly, and especially the “interpretation” of Amoris Laetitia that was leaked, it’s a pretty sad state of affairs that virtually the only condemnations – or challenges – to the direction of this pontificate being made public are coming from laity and a few, mostly anonymous, priests. Yes there have been some scattered statements from individual bishops but they have been few and far between, and nothing the kind of categorical “reply” that the situation so desperately merits. Even if – and it’s not an if I think can be fairly granted – but even if, somehow, everyone of Francis’ scandalous actions, statements, and pronouncements could be reconciled with the Deposit of Faith, could somehow be shown to be within the bounds of prudence, there is still the issue of the mass confusion and pain he is causing. Should not that, at least, merit more public response from those given the great grace, and terrible duty, to shepherd the souls in their charge?
What do you think of this accusation? Is it the laity’s place to lay such charges? If the laity doesn’t do it, who will? Should we simply pray and do penance, imploring God to free us from this man?
I do believe people of good will and solid observance of the Faith can come down differently on these questions. I tend to support such interventions due to the desperation in which we are mired,as I think someone has to call a spade a spade, and if the bishops are failing in their duty, then it is up to the laity to stand forth and do their best. I can, however, comprehend how some could disagree
I am truly out of time. We’ll see what, if any, discussion this sparks.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Christendom, disaster, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, paganism, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
I guess it’s throwback Tuesday on the blog, I’m hitting a lot of subjects I covered in depth in the past but sort of moved on from.
Probably many of you know about Saul Alinsky and his influence on the current president, the Catholic Church (especially the Archdiocese of Chicago), and the advance of cultural marxism in the US generally. True to his paramour, satan, he has been a one man wrecking crew. Coupled with the Frankfurt School penetration of the federalized education industrial complex, Alinskyite “social justice” warriors have probably done more to advance the creeping socialization of the United States than any other group.
Someone at EWTN apparently recently figured this out, because there is a new movie coming out on 09/22 that features much EWTN talent, like Fr. Mitch Pacwa, Fr. Andrew Apostoli, etc., discussing the baleful influence of Saul Alinsky and his Rules of Radicals. I’m sure it’s a well done production and a great message to get out, but, ummm………where were you in 2008?
Well, the reason is, there is always a steady stream of folks who have advanced to a point where a message like what I expect from this movie will have a significant impact on them. So while perhaps quite a bit late to stop the fundamental transformation of our nation, perhaps it will help prepare a few souls for the future that awaits us:
Summary from the website:
From the producers of the Gabriel Award winning television series “SAINTS ALIVE!” on EWTN, comes “A WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING”, a new feature docudrama on Saul Alinsky, the father of community organizing and author of “Rules for Radicals”. The film is a lens into America’s cultural Marxism euphemistically called ‘progressivism.’
With all the radical transformations of America and its religious freedoms, politics, economy, education, healthcare, courts, media, cinema, music, art, architecture; the film will help Catholics and all Christians understand “how we’ve gotten to where we are today” and “what’s behind” the amorality, sexual revolution, political correctness, gender confusion that is destroying our families and culture.
This is no conspiracy theory! It’s the real story of Alinsky and his movement. It’s the classic teachings of the Church with insights from philosopher Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J. (who as a Jesuit scholastic was trained in Alinskyian organizing), Fathers Glenn Sudano & Andrew Apostoli (co-founders with Fr. Benedict Groeschel of Franciscan Friars of the Renewal), Stephanie Block (who wrote the definitive 4 volume study of Alinskyian organizing) [Stephanie’s great. She’s always worth a listen]. Actors play Alinsky, Popes St. John Paul II & Leo XIII, Blessed Jerzy Popieluszko & others.
Most interesting to contemplate is the degree to which leftists and left-leaners within the Church were eager to provide the Alinskyite movement with its first big success at penetrating a church for the much sought after money and moral credibility. It’s been no stopping for them ever since, which is also how we have gotten such poisonous doctrines as the “seamless garment.”
But perhaps most interesting of all is the correlation between the present pontificate and the beliefs, methods, and techniques of personal destruction honed and Saul Alinsky. I’m sure that won’t be part of this movie, but you can ruminate on that as an extra credit assignment to work on at home.
Remember to show your work.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, different religion, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, Restoration, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
It’s been a while, but I wrote extensively in the past about how 90+% of the budget of Catholic Charities and Catholic Relief Services comes from the federal government, and how that federal funding has caused inevitable compromises in the Catholic mission and identity of these erstwhile charities (is it a charity if the money is taken by force?).
Many wonder why so few bishops have any backbone to oppose the culture or even the very public moral failings of their flock. Why do they always seem to cave? Well, the main reason is, they belong to a different religion, but many also wonder whether fear of losing their tax-exempt status might not have a big part to do with it. Didn’t Nancy Pelosi threated to strip it if the bishops ever got out of line and started, totally contrary to their personal inclinations, really opposing democrat candidates?
But the tax-exempt issue, while large, is probably less significant compared to the loss of the billions of dollars of forced donations taken from the American public at large and given to the USCCB’s charities by the federal government every year, so long as the bishops continue to play their part in the big, always left-turning machine of our culture.
That’s the theory proposed by Philip De Vous below, and I think he’s pretty much spot on, if you leave out the whole different religion aspect (my comments):
Every time I hear an American Bishop or some apparatchik at the USCCB give some fake warning about being careful what we say, or write, or what pro-life literature we hand out concerning the election because “we could lose our tax exempt status, I laugh and think, “so what and let the bastards try it.” [Fight through. Move along…….]
Why are so many prelates and priests so unmanly and afraid of a confrontation and a fight? Surely one of the reasons men only are called to the priesthood has something to do with a man’s capacity to fight and protect what he loves? Testicular fortitude should be thing for men–Christ’s own men especially!!!
“What doth it profit a man to gain his tax exempt status and lose his soul?” [Well, what if these men are actually fervent devotees, high priests even, of a different and implacably competing religion, a religion of man, by men, and for men, a religion dreamed up by Montesquieu and Voltaire and Hegel and all the other prophets of the sexular pagan left? What if they held a vision of “catholicism” that reduced it to a simple appendage, a sort of god-modded version, of the “greater” religion of sexular pagan leftism? Mr. De Vous is completely right in his analysis, insofar as it goes, but there is much more beneath the surface of prurient interest and Pharisaical wealth- and influence-seeking.]
As I see it, given the number of people who regularly go to Mass, confession, and actually support the Church, and given that Catholics contracept and divorce at the same rates as the pagan population [slightly higher!], we have too much land, too many parishes, and too many schools for the number of Catholics who actually practice their faith, so a tax paying forced reorganization might be beneficial to properly slim down to productive and believing ecclesiastical assets. [Great point]
Why do Bishops pretend as if they would have no public leverage, influence, or legal recourse should the government actually and improbably move to revoke the Church’s tax exempt status? Why do they and their apparatchiks tell this ridiculous, very public lie of the potential revocation of exemption every election season? How many African-American congregations have suffered a revocation of their exemption when they regularly have candidates preaching from their pulpits? NONE. [Maybe, just maybe, many if not most of those bishops don’t WANT to stand against the dominant culture and the evils it promotes, because they predominately agree with them? You’re asking them to inveigh against their most deeply held spiritual beliefs – the horror!]
When are we going to confront the real truth at the root of what the Bishops and their apparatchiks fear: That they have made the Catholic Church in the United States a subcontractor for the anti-Catholic, secularized welfare state and have grown dependent on government money to prop up the Church’s charities and social welfare programs, partly due to the fact that the faithful aren’t so faithful anymore and don’t support the Church and her works much anymore. [But which came first, chicken or egg? The faithful and bishops both started abandoning the faith en masse in the mid-20th century, but a fair argument can be made that the elites (bishops) went first. So, stop teaching the Faith, make massive changes in the very core of people’s lived religious experience (the Mass), and experience a decrease in conviction and involvement. So the USCCB sucked up to the gov’t to make up for the lack of conviction (read: donations) their own mishandling of the Faith had encouraged, which sucking up is what they wanted to do all along for deeply held cultural and ideological reasons. Sound like a self-fulfilling prophecy?]
We’ve been corrupted by government money and have made it hard for ourselves to speak the truth about things that matter most, the millions in government dollars prop up school lunch programs, family aid programs, Catholic charities programs, refugee aid, etc. “Helping people” viewed as a quantity, at the cost of muting our integral witness on moral non-negotiables is surely a highway to Hell paved with greenbacks. [But may have been viewed as much more of a feature than a bug]
It’s not our tax exempt status we’re afraid of losing by speaking the truths that frankly most comfortable, semi-practicing Catholics don’t much want to hear, it’s because we’re afraid of losing the money(concupiscence of the eyes) and the public prestige that administering these big programs (the pride of life) brings to episcopal and meta-episcopal administrations, such as the various organs of the USCCB.
Again, I don’t mean to sound critical, it’s great analysis as far as it goes, and mirrors almost exactly where I was, say, in 2011 or so. Even then, however, it was evident to me that something was seriously off in the episcopate beyond the love of easily obtained governmental money, something much more to do with ideology and a repugnance for the Bad Old Church.
Nevertheless, it’s always refreshing to see people seeing through the bureaucratic smokescreens of the USCCB/chanceries and starting to figure things out for themselves. Don’t stop digging, Mr. De Vous! The truth is out there…….
Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, pr stunts, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
Viz yesterday’s post, I don’t think there is any doubt that Francis’ “private letter” to the bishops of Buenos Aires has had the desired effect. The “leak” was far from accidental, I’m sure. How else do you get awesome coverage like this, without a good leak?:
All according to the plan. This pontificate has operated almost exclusively by Clintonian media techniques like trial balloons, floated comments, intentional leaks, and purposeful disinformation. Franky isn’t bold enough to directly contradict Doctrine in an directly doctrinal statement himself, so he’s settled on a strategy of deception and attacks around the margins. The letter of the law may (barely) remain intact, but the spirit is shredded like Hillary’s central nervous system.
Are you guys generally very concerned about whether Francis is an antipope or not, per Barnhardt, or do you think this is simply a matter beyond our (the laity’s) ascertaining, per Skojec? I like Ann, but I think sometimes she gets too wrapped up in proving herself right. I do agree with Hilary White and Steve Skojec that Francis’ pontificate may be a necessary emetic (great choice of words) to get many of us former happily conservative Catholics to realize that comfortable conservatism of the Ratzinger-Wojtyla papacies was an ineffective poultice covering up a horrible, festering wound (Vatican II/modernist revolution) that was killing the body of the Church. Is that enough metaphors for one sentence?
I am loathe to think such evil could be “necessary,” but I also don’t know what else could have shaken up the Church enough to finally look at Vatican II and say – uh, no.
I think the most important aspect to keep in mind is that Our Blessed Lord is, ultimately, in charge. May He purify His Church soon.
PS – the photo caption for the large photo center right should actually read “Giving thanks for the only folks who still bother with church in Ireland.”
Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, different religion, episcopate, General Catholic, history, reading, Restoration, Saints, Spiritual Warfare, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.
Several of the chief complaints against the Society of Saint Pius X is that they have been involved in the illicit (not papal-approved) consecration of bishops, that they “invade” other dioceses without permission of the ordinary, and refute beliefs held by the great majority of bishops and priests in the Church today, even to the point of being excommunicated for certain acts. These are frequently trotted out to “prove” the SSPX’s persistence in disobedience/error/schism/etc.
However, Michael Davies – certainly one who was very friendly towards the SSPX, and a frequent apologist for them – claims, citing Blessed John Henry Newman as his principle source, that there is a very strong precedent for exactly the types of behaviors that have earned the SSPX so much ire, from the Church’s Tradition, and that they involve the only crisis/mass heresy that comes close to emulating that in which we are currently embroiled, the Arian heresy. During this period, Saint Athanasius, among others, based on history reported by Blessed John Henry Newman (citing more ancient sources), routinely consecrated bishops and ordained priests while he was enduring his enforced exile, even doing so outside the normal realm of papal approval and against the wishes of the local bishops. He did this to preserve orthodox Catholicism when almost the entire Church went over to this most noxious heresy. He was not alone, either. Several other bishops, all Saints, also did so, as attested by Saint Basil and others, who apologized for these acts, and for the “illicit” country Masses offered by orthodox priests, because the faithful could not be expected to worship with heretics, and the heresy was so widespread that even the Roman Pontiff briefly fell into it, though under severe duress.
The similarities to the situation in the Church today are certainly marked, are they not?
Davies summarizes his argument below, from pp. 42-3 of his book Saint Athanasius: Defender of the Faith:
What the history of this period proves is that, during a time of general apostasy, Christians who remain true to their traditional faith may have to worship outside the official churches, the churches of priests in communion with their diocesan bishop, in order not to compromise that traditional faith; and that such Christians may have to look for truly Catholic teaching, leadership, and inspiration not to the bishops of their country as a body, not tot he bishops of the world, not even to the Roman Pontiff, but to one heroic confessor whom the other bishops and even the Roman Pontiff may have repudiated and even excommunicated. And who would they recognize that the solitary confessor was right, and the Roman Pontiff and the body of the episcopate (not teaching infallibly) were wrong?
The answer is that they would recognize in the teaching of this confessor what the faithful of the fourth century recognized in the teaching of Athanasius, the one true faith into which they had been baptized, in which they had been catechized, and which their confirmation gave them the obligation of upholding. In no sense whatsoever can such fidelity to Tradition be compared with the protestant practice of private judgment. The fourth century traditionalists upheld Athanasius in his defense of the faith that had been handed down; the protestant uses his private judgment to justify a breach with the traditional faith.
In The Development of Christian Doctrine, Newman refutes the opinion that interference by one bishop in the diocese of another necessarily constitutes schism. Faithful Catholics have a duty to divide themselves from schismatic or heretical bishops, and where division is a duty it is not a sin. An orthodox bishop does not sin by interfering in a diocese where the bishop is guilty of separation from the faith by heresy or even de facto schism. “If interference is a sin,” wrote the Cardinal, “division which is the cause of it is a greater; but where division is a duty, there can be no sin interference.”
[The key evidence……] St. Athanasius did not cause division when he entered the dioceses of Arian bishops. He was interfering in order to uphold tradition and sustain the faith of true Catholics as a legitimate response to the division caused by the schism of these bishops. The first loyalty of every bishop must be to the Church as a whole. During a period of schism and heresy, their duty to defend the integrity of tradition extends beyond any single diocese. Cardinal Newman illustrates this by pointing out that Saint Athanasius, St. Epiphanius of Salamis, and St. Eusebius of Samosata, all fierce opponents of Arianism, had ordained outside their dioceses, and in the case of St. Eusebius it is certain that he consecrated bishops. “St. Athanasius,” wrote Card. Newman, “driven from his Church, makes all Christendom his home, from Trier to Ethiopia.” This was an indubitably legitimate response to a state of emergency or necessity within the Church.
OK, at the end there, using some obviously “Lefebrvrist” language. But the book does demonstrate both that “illicit” Masses were held to escape Arian bishops and their errors, and that priests were ordained and bishops consecrated outside the normal line of authority in the Church.
On both sides of this issue of whether the SSPX acts/has acted rightly or wrongly, there are numerous supports. Whether the stack of evidence on one side or the other is slightly taller or shorter I really don’t know. From my experience, one’s tendency to accept evidence for or against the SSPX tends to align almost precisely with whatever pre-existing notions one has held on the subject. I have long occupied the muddled middle, neither fully embracing the SSPX nor holding any hostility towards it, while being thankful that it exists so that I, among many, can enjoy the benefits its existence has brought (like the return of the TLM in numerous dioceses, the existence of the FSSP and other groups, etc). I have to say, though, that this latest book has swayed me somewhat in a pro-SSPX direction.
I can also say that my own independent research has shown that there certainly was a reaction against Arian dominance in the 4th century and that several Saints report that a certain number of souls did stop going to their local parish and started worshiping out in the country, often in abysmal weather, under the tutelage of faithful priests in unofficial or impromptu Masses. That much at least did occur, and was at least somewhat widespread. I tend to believe that priests were ordained in an “unofficial” or “independent” manner, and probably a few bishops, too.
It is interesting to note that every time he had an opportunity (that is, the heretical emperors allowed him to do so), he would return to his diocese and to a “regular” position in the Church, while fervently maintaining his orthodox beliefs. When the persecution would start up again and he would be exiled, he would go back to doing what he was doing, keeping the Faith and spreading it to as many as possible.
Perhaps, in this last bit, there is some encouragement for those who fear the impact of a reconciliation between the SSPX and the Roman authorities.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, awesomeness, Basics, contraception, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, It's all about the $$$, pr stunts, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church.
Oh dear, there must be a presidential election coming up, because the pro-abort pretend Catholics have surfaced again, flush with George Soros’ money, to try to justify their heresy and suck others into the diabolical cult of baby-murder. Seriously, we almost never hear from these people save for a few months prior to a presidential election.
At any rate, they’ve spent a bundle of Soros’ cash to buy ads in newspapers across the country. In San Antonio, I will say the archdiocese reacted with unusual, if welcome, vigor to this direct assault on the integrity of the Faith:
The Catholic Archdiocese of San Antonio strongly and swiftly condemned a full-page Catholics for Choice advertisement in the San Antonio Express-News that claimed “public funding for abortion is a Catholic social justice value.” [A perfectly diabolical inversion of the Truth. One thing that is rather happy to see is the steady aging of this cohort that pretends one can hold heretical views on all manner of subjects and still claim to be “Catholic. This perverse generation that holds that Doctrine is totally unimportant and one can believe in whatever moral atrocity they choose is simply not replacing itself. The few children they’ve had simply don’t even bother with a religion their parents so firmly claim believes nothing, and many others have been convinced of this dread error besides. The future will be a much smaller, but a much more faithful Church, if we can get past the terror of the present pontificate]
Catholics for Choice’s ad contained “inaccurate information which must be corrected, since it misrepresents the truth and what the Catholic Church believes and teaches,” the Archdiocese of San Antonio posted on its website the same day the ad appeared.
“This misrepresentation is demonstrated by their statement that ‘Public funding for abortion is a Catholic social justice value,’” the statement continued. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”
The Archdiocese stressed that the dissident group, which is funded by leftist billionaire George Soros, “does not speak for the Catholic Church.” When it undertook a similar media campaign in Colorado two years ago, the state’s bishops opposed it.
“For more than 2,000 years, the Church has steadfastly proclaimed that respect for all human life at every stage is foundational to the Catholic faith,” the Archdiocese explained. “Abortion from the earliest tradition of the Church has been considered immoral.” The statement pointed to the magisterial document Donum Vitae (“The Gift of Life”) as one example of this.
“It is our hope that one day Catholics for Choice will take the time to acquaint themselves with basic Catholic teachings, and acknowledge the truth of the Catholic faith, and not choose to misrepresent her teachings with false and inaccurate information and ads that only work to confuse and mislead the public,” the statement concluded…….[No kidding. No matter the attempts to resurrect the discredited “seamless garment,” anyone who not only finds nothing morally offensive in abortion, but feels that everyone should have to pay for it through their taxes, is simply outside the Faith. Period, end of sentence.]
Gustavo García-Siller, M.Sp.S., is the Archbishop of San Antonio.
Houston-based Bishop Steven J. Lopes of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, a group of Anglicans who were brought into full Communion with the Catholic Church while being allowed to retain some of their customs, said, “The biggest falsehood in these advertisements is the statement that ‘as a Catholic’ a person can respect and support a decision to kill an unborn person. The insinuation that Catholic faith can lead a person to sanction something which is always and everywhere a moral evil is fraudulent, deceitful, and simply wrong.” [Agreed. But why not call a spade a spade and let them know they are at least manifest, if not formal (because, c’mon, who really wonders if child murder might be OK with God?) heretics?]
……. For the first time in history, the 2016 Democratic party platform supports repealing the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits public funding of abortions. Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Senator Tim Kaine, who claims to be a “devout Catholic” yet has a 100 percent voting record in the senate and supports same-sex “marriage,” and the Clinton campaign have made conflicting statements about whether Kaine supports repealing the Hyde Amendment.
As good as the above is, until the Church starts to really severely condemn contraception as it still, at least for the most part, in this country, does abortion, we’ll never even begin to be rid of it. Contraception is the fuel that keeps the natural and supernatural conflagration of abortion burning.
The party of death is rapidly transitioning into a party of naked leftist evil. As they are wont to do. And yet the powers that be in the culture, like the NFL and NCAA, which are really infuriating me, are pretending as if things like killing cops and allowing sexual predators into little girls’ bathrooms is not only acceptable, but such a moral imperative that they will go to great lengths to punish anyone who disagrees, like the state of North Carolina. Even two years ago allowing men to use women’s restrooms in public wasn’t even on the radar of national debate and now it’s a moral imperative, a “settled issue” like supposed climate change?!? Who is pulling the NCAA’s (and Atlantic Coast Conference, and NBA, and……..) strings on this?!?
We are witnessing a revolution in end game, and people like Catholics for Choice are just willing dupes to political puppet masters like George Soros.
h/t reader TT
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, damnable blasphemy, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, shocking, the struggle for the Church.
I know I’m way late on this, being away always at the wrong time, but an explosive development came out late last week, and you can tell how important it is by the backflips the usual papolotrists are doing trying to explain it away. Heck, Jeff Mirus reduced adultery to a venial sin to try to make this an inconsequential development!
So, the bishops of the Buenos Aires developed a document explaining to priests how to implement the infamous chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia, doing so along plainly literal lines, taking the document at its word and just going from there, giving free reign to priests to give Communion to divorced people who have remarried without obtaining an annulment. They submitted this interpretation to Franky George Bergoglio for his approval and he granted it, with great vigor. In fact, he says the plainly heterodox “interpretation” of the document is the only one possible/permissible. Which, duh, but a lot of folks have egg on their faces now, and they’d rather turn the Catholic Faith into a meaningless mishmash of pretzel logic than be wrong (Mirus, for one, has done this for years, even well before Francis).
Summary via LifeSite/Rorate below:
In a letter reportedly leaked by a priest in Argentina, Pope Francis writes that there is “no other interpretation” of Amoris Laetitia other than one admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Holy Communion in some cases. The letter, dated September 5, comes in response to a confidential document by the bishops of the Buenos Aires pastoral region to priests instructing them on the application of the Pope’s controversial apostolic exhortation. LifeSite has acquired copies of both original documents and has provided professional side-by-side translation……..
LifeSiteNews’ translation of the Pope’s letter is here
LifeSiteNews’ translation of the bishops’ directive is here
The bishops’ directive called “Basic Criteria for the Application of Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia” says that in “complex circumstances” when the remarried couple could not “obtain a declaration of nullity,” the priests can nevertheless move forward to grant them access to Holy Communion. If the priest recognizes that “in a particular case there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union,” says the directive, “Amoris Laetitia opens the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351).”
The Pope’s letter affirms this path with effusive praise for the bishops’ work. Writing to the delegate of the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region, Monsignor Sergío Alfredo Fenoy, the Pope says, “I thank you for the work they have done on this: a true example of accompaniment for the priests.”
Pope Francis adds: “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations. And I am certain that it will do much good. May the Lord reward this effort of pastoral charity.”……..
………The leaked document is the first time there is explicit confirmation that Pope Francis interprets Amoris Laetitia as allowing communion for divorced and remarried Catholics without the condition that the couple in the irregular situation live as brother and sister without sexual relations, as was always required by the Church.
Is anyone surprised? Did anyone think Francis would repudiate the plain meaning of Amoris Laetitia? How many demonstrations of radicalism and even heterodoxy must we have before some people will accept the idea that we have not just a bad pope, an incautious pope, but one that is openly promoting things directly contrary to the constant belief and practice of the Faith and the very Word of Life Himself?!? I mean for crying out loud when will you get over your manifest error that Church = pope and pope = Church?!?
I just, totally coincidentally, completed some reading on the fall of Pope Liberius to the Arians. That, at least, was done under extreme duress, but fall he did. He did most definitely sign onto at least a semi-Arian formulation. Then we have the subsequent “problems” of Honorius/Formusus and John XXII. The point being, popes have on several occasions promoted dubious doctrinal beliefs, including two of the three most recent occupants of the See of Peter. But Francis is stressing the machine well beyond its limits, we either have to admit that we have a pope who is endorsing error – I pray God innocently – or we have to basically pretend that the entire moral edifice of the Church means nothing.
Am I over-reacting? Can there be an over-reaction to this development, the first solemn confirmation that Amoris Laetitia was no mistake, no inadvertant claim, that the positions contained therein express the true will of the pope made with complete deliberation? This is really unprecedented. All previous such instances were much more vague, more minor, or on far more inconsequential matters than what we see now. As Rorate noted in a subsequent post, we’re now down to a very clear situation – within the Church herself – of standing with Christ, or standing with satan. Is that too much? I don’t think so, at all, but perhaps this can be your place to vent on the subject, if you haven’t, already.
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.