Fort Worth Bishop Michael Olson has announced that the FSSP personal parish of Saint Benedict will be effective as of Saturday, August 1. It is unknown at this time when formal operation will begin with offering of the Sacraments. I have no details on that as of yet. I am not even certain the location of the parish has been announced. The rumor is the “former” Saint Thomas the Apostle in NW Fort Worth, about halfway between Meacham Airport and Carswell?
The deal regarding Saint Thomas is that they have purchased new land to move the parish, and have plans in place to do so. So the Fraternity may be taking over this vacating parish? Not sure how the timing works out. I’m not sure the new facility for Saint Thomas the Apostle is ready.
If Saint Thomas will become Saint Benedict, FSSP, here’s what it looks like:
I couldn’t find any clear shots of the interior, but there are stained glass windows along the side. I don’t know if the church itself will require modifications to make it suitable for the TLM.
I suppose I should shut up and wait for the forma announcement? Seems like they are cutting things pretty close before doing so, given that the parish stands up, officially, this Saturday.
Formal act of creation here.
UPDATE: A lot more from North Texas Catholic, the official news organ of the Diocese of Fort Worth:
Two priests from Fraternity of St. Peter will pastor new St. Benedict Parish// //
The parish will celebrate weekly Mass at 5:30 p.m. in the Extraordinary Form at St. Mary of the Assumption Church, 509 W. Magnolia Ave., on the near South Side of Fort Worth. [OK, Sunday Mass stays at St. Mary’s for now] Two priests from the Fraternity of St. Peter will lead the church community. Father Karl Pikus, FSSP, has been appointed pastor of the new parish, effective July 23. Father Peter Bryne, FSSP, whose appointment becomes effective August 10, will serve as parochial vicar.
Daily Mass will be celebrated on the campus of St. Thomas the Apostle Parish, 2920 Azle Ave., at a time yet to be announced. St. Thomas Church is located in Northwest Fort Worth. The new St. Benedict Parish will also have its offices on the property of St. Thomas Parish until St. Thomas completes the building of its new church just north of Loop 820. [What I presumed is confirmed. Still no date of beginning the new Mass, nor times]
The name for the new parish was chosen by Bishop Olson after consulting members of the community already celebrating the Latin Mass at St. Mary of the Assumption Parish.
………with more than a little help from the USCCB predecessor organization National Catholic Welfare Conference (NCWC).
In 1928, the Cristeros controlled most of Jalisco and significant parts of four other provinces. They more or less controlled 3 provinces. Under General Gorostieta, and in spite of US policy which armed Calles’ forces while blockading arms to the Cristeros, more and more victories were obtained. 1929 opened similarly well.
Morally, Archbishops Mora and Diaz continued to advocate that it was impossible to negotiate with leftist Masonic Church-haters who had broken every agreement they had made. But after the death of Mora in 1928, the NCWC and the Coolidge administration put strong pressure on his successor Archbishop Ruiz to make some kind of peace. The Mexican bishops were assured they would receive strong intervention from US ambassador Dwight Morrow and the US government generally.
However, as we shall see, treaties negotiated between Church leadership and hateful, persecuting governments are rarely worth the paper they are written on. There is much to consider below as the Church in this country seems fated to enter into a similar period of persecution.
From this point, I will take up from No God Next Door, pp. 137 – (my emphasis and comments):
Negotiations were opened by the Rev. John J. Burke, CSP, who, according to the “The Church in Mexico,” pamphlet of his NCWC, had no official warrant from the United States administration, but merely the informal statement of President Coolidge’s pleasure, could Mr. Morrow, also informally, arrange a conference between the Mexican government and the Catholic authorities.
Father Burke held conferences with Calles on April 4 and May 17 1928, when an agreement was reached, but this was not ratified until more than a year later, June 4, 1929, when it was signed……. [follows description of the “concessions” made by the Mexican government, which were essentially none. The only modification was to promise to only “register” priests approved by the hierarchy, a promise soon broken.]
On the strength of the good will implied in these concessions, if concessions they be, Archbishop Ruiz announced, as Apostolic Delegate, that “the Mexican clergy will resume religious services pursuant to the laws in force.” Churches were reopened, but “in accordance with the number of priests allowed by the different state governments.” There was further agreement that the bishops would call off the Cristero insurrection, and the government would grant complete amnesty to all the insurrectionists.
The settlement met with general distrust and gravely alarmed the League of Liberty Leaders and their most eminent supporters, lay and cleric…….
The outstanding leaders insisted that submission to the government registration of priests and limitation of their numbers m and to the exclusion of religious teachings from even their own schools, would put them in a worse position that before; and the suppression of the Cristero movement would leave Catholics defenseless against the absolute and unhindered power that this agreement was conferring on the persecutors. [And that is exactly what happened. Just as they were forcing Calles to consider making real concessions, they jumped at the first deal offered, which only regularized and institutionalized the unjust, persecutorial relationship between Church and state. Once the Cristeros were suppressed, the Catholics only bargaining chip would be gone, and there would be nothing to hinder the government. That is exactly what happened.]
No trust could be put in the alleged security for future betterment unless they themselves retained the physical power to enact it; for they were convinced that Mr. Morrow would stand with the Calles gang as he had consistently been doing, and there was no hope of United States support. The promised amnesty would be but a sentence of death for Cristero leaders, for the pledges of the Calles faction were worthless; and thus the Church they were defending, in leaving them helpless, would be doing for Calles what he and his armies had been unable to effect.
In opposing all treaties with faithless and unprincipled persecutors they were able to cite one of the negotiators in support. Bishop Diaz had made several such pronouncements in the United States, and in his final statement to the American people as executive secretary of the Mexican Hierarchy, April 7, 1927, he covers admirably the present situation……[Quote from Diaz’ statement follows]
….No settlement is possible between any right thinking people and an irresponsible tyranny. The government of Mexico is a ruthless bloodstained tyranny against which thousands of its people are in arms; and its Constitution, which was never submitted to the people, is an instrument fashioned by a selfish oligarchy the robbery…….of their own.” It can authorize theft or tyranny; hence there could be no settlement until that doctrine of persecution and thievery is repudiated……
…..”The Church led no armed rebellion; but it was good Catholic Doctrine as it was good American doctrine that forcible resistance to an unjust tyranny is the righteous duty of every citizen; and he was proud to say that his people in Mexico are true to the right and are justifying their faith by the blood of martyrs.”……[But the treaty was enacted nonetheless, due to concerns that the lack of regular religious life was a grave threat to the Faith of all Catholics in Mexico. They chose to be blinded by Calles’ false rhetoric rather than continue in the path of armed resistance. And what came of that?]
……..No peace resulted. Within a week President Portes Gil [a Calles puppet] declared at a Masonic banquet that he would see to it that the Constitution and laws were entirely and strictly enforced; and that as a Mason and as President he had yielded nothing. This was in fact true of the substance of the compact; but now he had publicly repudiated in word the good will he had expressed in signing it; and he and his fellows began at once to repudiate in deeds the amnesty he had definitely pledged.
Within a month five hundred surrendered Cristeros were shot, or murdered in their homes, their property seized, and their persecuted families left destitute; and altogether five thousand Cristeros and hundreds of priests shared the same fate. [This was written in early 1935. The number steadily increased for some years to come. The last Cristero is believed to have been murdered in retribution by the government in 1946] This, with the expulsion of the episcopate and clergy and sisterhoods, leaving but some two hundred registered priests for over fifteen million people, and the stamping of the Moscow brand of atheizing communism on every school and office in the land, are now blazoned to the world the cost of compromise with irresponsible tyranny; and, therewith the lesson, that no compact of liberty is possible unless tyranny should first be uprooted………
And so the Catholic Church in Mexico languished, with barely 300 priests – including 200 “registered priests – to service that population for fifteen million for a decade or more. Almost half the states of Mexico had no priest at all. Even after President Cardenas began to back off the pressure of the persecution, onerous restrictions remained for decades. Some of them survive to this day. The Church did recover after a fashion from this persecution, but never fully. It was a much weaker Church that was then rocked by the revolution which afflicted the entire Church Universal from the late 50s onwards. And now even though Catholicism remains the default, professed religion of about 80% of Mexicans, the large majority of these are weak, superstitious, and frequently given over to all manner of dangerous and destructive practices like “santa muerte.”
This whole episode is instructive for American Catholics. It gives a modern example of an episcopate willing, at the very least, to make disastrous decisions based on what many feel were misguided and exaggerated pastoral concerns. At worst, it shows a hierarchy willing to do anything to cut a deal and resume at least some of their accustomed perquisites. There is a good deal of evidence that it was the bishops who gained most from this “deal.” They were at least allowed to return to the episcopal palaces and resume their pre-persecution lifestyles, for the most part (or is that too harsh an assessment? Fr. Kenny was surprisingly critical of the hierarchy, especially given the time).
Possibly a for instance: the driving force behind the Calles deal that fatally undermined the Cristeros was Archbishop Ruiz. Upon signing the deal, he was elevated Archbishop of Mexico City and Primate of Mexico, or what was left of the Church in Mexico.
A final, brief PS to the excerpt above. In 1933 President Cardenas – the man who ultimately relaxed the persecution – declared the following before the Masonic Anti-Clerical Convention held in Guadalajara – the heart of Catholic Mexico to this day – in 1933: “God is a myth; religion is a fable; the clergy are bureaucrats of a theological farce, and on this basis they wold operate for the emancipation of human thought.”
………not to worry, because Synods carry very little doctrinal weight (if any), and there is precedent for synodal error in the past. I agree completely with the prediction and the lack of doctrinal authority in the Synod itself, which, like a national conference, is simply a meeting of a small sub-set of the world’s bishops and very far from an ecumenical conference. But what I am concerned about is the encyclical which will follow the Synod, and the degree to which enemies of the Faith/modernist Katholycs will use the Synod to lure still more souls into perdition. I am also concerned about the shut up and pray sentiment Father Nix seems to close his article with.
One of the surprising things I have seen among priests and the faithful under the Pontificate of Pope Francis is that certain people who used to hate the word “obedience,” maybe five years ago, now go on quoting obedience like they were St. John of the Cross!………
……..There is excitement and concern, from the left and right respectively, that the October 2015 “Synod on the Family” will change Church teaching on divorced and remarried receiving Holy Communion as well as those in homosexual unions being allowed to receive Holy Communion. You might imagine that I don’t participate in the excitement of “the left” that doctrine might change, but did you know that I don’t participate in the concern to “the right” either?……[I get what he’s trying to say, but I disagree with common attempts to portray faithful/traditional/orthodox Catholicism as being a phenomenon of the right. It is true that much of the Doctrine of the Faith is embraced by modern conservatives, but that Doctrine both long predates the liberal/conservative divide (something that did not exist until the late 17th century) and stands above political concerns. And certain aspects of the Faith are embraced by the left (though in totality, the right has adopted far more than the left, at least until very recently). But the main thing is this, which is the ultimate trick modernists have managed to fool people with: that Catholicism as always understood and practiced is now some weird phenomenon of “integrists” and “traditionalists,” creatures of the “right” who are simply manipulating the Faith in the same way that modernist sexular pagans do. There probably exist examples of people who do, in actuality, do this, but it is false to smear the entire remnant of Catholics with these labels. And having concerns over the Synod and/or Pope Francis is hardly something that puts a Catholic’s credibility or faithfulness in doubt. Anyway, moving on….]
……..However, a synod does not only not have the weight of infallibility, but there is precedent for error in a synod! This synod was the 18th century Synod of Pistoia where Jansenism was promoted. It’s crafty that Satan may be tempting the Church nowadays more towards presumption of God’s mercy, than the despair of God’s mercy within the Jansenism of the 18th century. He’s tricky with that pendulum swing! [There have been other problematic synods, as well. That is one reason why they fell out of fashion. There were synods in 18th century France that also embraced Jansenism to varying degrees, and synods before that which seemed to find much to like in other errors.]
I hope I’m wrong, but I predict error coming in the October 2015 Synod of the Family, followed by Divine Intervention. This is not because I’m a Savonorola prophet of doom, but on a very natural level, because of the manifest and public, shameless teaching of the Cardinals who have been recently promoted in these matters, as reported byLife Site News: [Father then lists many statements from cardinals and bishops appointed to the Synod – by Pope Francis himself – which are highly disconcerting.]
……Let me (Fr. Nix, now) be very clear that I am obedient to Rome and the Bishops, [why feel compelled to make this statement?] but no Bishop can change the words of Jesus Christ and what He said about divorce or what the Holy Spirit has said through the Apostle Paul on acting out any sexual sin (heterosexual or homosexual.) Pray hard that I’m wrong about error coming down the pipes of this October Synod, but if I’m not, just remember that a synod can not change the words of Jesus Christ. This is not a Protestant who believes in Sola Scriptura.………. [Huh? Where did that come from? Am I wrong in detecting a bit of a slight against the Society of Saint Pius X in that statement?]
I hope I’m wrong, but if I’m right and the synod disseminates error, “the right” will frenzy on how to explain the doctrinal confusion and “the left” will frenzy on how to rejoice over the doctrinal confusion.Either approach would be both unnecessary and superfluous. As I wrote above, there is precedent in history for error to be found in a synod, and no synod can change the articulated faith and morals of Holy Mother Church, especially as found in Scripture, Councils, Creeds, Patristics and Ex-Cathedral statements. A synod is none of these. [So Father seems to be saying that we should not worry ourselves over the promotion of rank error from the highest levels of the Church, under the direct supervision of the Bishop of Rome?!?! Goodness, if this is not something to get concerned over, what is? I can tell you, having read a bit of history, that there was great consternation and “frenzy” over the outcome of the Synod of Pistoia. It was a huge international controversy. Is it “frenzy” to denounce any errors that come forth from the Synod and remind souls of Catholic Truth? Is it “frenzy” to be scandalized by error emanating from the highest echelons of the Church?]
As Padre Pio said, “Pray, Hope and Don’t worry.” God will straighten it out and we’ll all be fine. Chilax, as the niños say, even if things go down bad in October.
I wish I could be as blissfully confident as Father Nix is as to the outcome of this Synod. My concern is that souls will fall away in great numbers (and not only in the fallen West, but in places where the Faith is still relatively vigorous), either through the adoption of immoral acts “pastorally” made “moral” through a Synodal sleight of hand, or through scandal and wind up in one of the sects. Pope Francis’ popularity is plummeting, especially among conservatives. More and more Catholics are becoming even further confused and scandalized. While you and I and other souls may be blessed to stay faithful, what of those who won’t? Absolutely prayer should be the bedrock of our faith, and excessive worry is unhealthful, but when the likelihood exists that errors promoted will lead to catastrophic consequences for potentially millions of souls, I’m afraid I cannot simply “chillax.” If that makes me a bad, frenzied Catholic of the right, may God have mercy on me, but I doubt that’s the case.
I get that Father is probably trying to prevent souls being scandalized out of the Faith through his advice to calmly ignore the results of the Synod, but I think he takes his prescription a bit too far, and has fallen into common traps in slapping political labels onto what, up until recent decades, was simply Catholicism.
Well this is a most positive development. The Transalpine Redemptorists/Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer from Papa Stronsay, Scotland and Christchurch, NZ, have, under the sponsorship of Bishop Basil Meeking, DD, founded the Knights of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus. This is an organization dedicated to providing solid formation for boys and men who wish to serve Our Blessed Lord at His altar. More:
The Knights of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus is an organization which has been formed by the Congregation of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer. Its object is to provide a solid formation for boys and men who wish to serve Our Blessed Lord at His altar. It has been created in response to the need to train boys and men worthy of the duty of serving at the Traditional Rite of Holy Mass. A society called Knights of the Altar was begun under St John Bosco in 1858, and this name was used in the United States of America by a Fr Benz in 1939, who formed an Altar serving society. Our Society is largely based on the Knights of the Altar.
Medieval Knighthood, in the service of manor lords, calls forth such ideals as honour, loyalty, justice, chivalry, and respect for all. In the use of the term knight, the Altar Server is reminded of his duty to serve the Lord of lords with fidelity and honour, to treat others with respect and justice, and to live an upright personal life, defending always the rights of God and His Holy Church. In the names page and squire, the server is reminded again of the years of practice and study that went into the training of a knight and should consider with what devotion and perseverance he should attend to his own training in the service of the Altar. The chevalierwas a travelling knight, which should remind the server that he should be ever travelling toward his heavenly goal.
Purpose of the Society
(1) To form a worthy guard of honour to our Divine Eucharistic King in whose service we willingly assume the dignity and honour of becoming Knights of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus;
(2) To render faithful, reverent and edifying service to God by assisting His visible representatives, the Bishops and Priests, in offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and in all other liturgical and devotional functions;
(3) To enkindle in the hearts of the faithful whom we represent at the altar, greater piety and devotion by reverently performing the duties of our holy office and by giving good example in our daily lives;
(4) Finally, to ensure the continued and efficient function of the Knights of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus as a society by attending meetings and giving of our service to the Church.
The young men inducted into this society made the following pledge:
“We, the Knights of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, pledge allegiance to our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, to His representatives on earth, and to Mary, our Queen Immaculate, whom we will serve faithfully until we attain eternal triumph in heaven. We pledge ourselves to form a worthy guard of honour to our Divine Eucharistic King in whose service we willingly assume the dignity and honour of becoming Knights of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus; to render faithful, reverent and edifying service to God by assisting His visible representatives, the Bishops and Priests, in offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and in all other liturgical and devotional functions; to enkindle in the hearts of the faithful, whom we represent at the altar, greater piety and devotion by reverently performing the duties of our holy office and by giving good example in our daily lives.”
Pics of the solemn event:
I’m not sure how this society is intended to grow. Perhaps contact the Transalpine Redemptorists to see how this society could be expanded to your locale, and what is involved. Note that they did have a bishop emeritus mark the formal entrance of some 14 young men into this society. It seems very formal, but I have little idea of the ceremony – or the commitment – involved. Is it much beyond regular service at the altar in a traditional parish?
Perhaps a Transalpine Redemptorist would be kind enough to provide some elucidation?
Irrespective, more like this.
This video below from American Life League got me thinking: given the sweeping condemnations that popes and bishops in times past have issued against avowed enemies of the Church like freemasons, Nazis, and communists, when will the US bishops excommunicate all Planned Barrenhood staff, members and financial supporters? Bishop Bruskewitz did so two decades ago in Lincoln. And that wasn’t the first time Planned Barrenhood staff had been so treated.
But, then again, most of the blanket excommunications (very rightfully made) were well before the unleashing of modernist secular humanism in the Church starting in 1958. It is widely believed that the USCCB presently has a secret, unpublished policy to ostracize any member who enforces Canon 915 against a Catholic politician, for instance. I would tend to imagine there are also blanket “prohibitions” against interdicting other anti-Catholic organizations – just like Banned Parenthood.
So we have gone from a Church – or at least its human hierarchy – that took very seriously its mission to oppose evil, avoid scandal, and protect the faithful throughout almost the entirety of her long history, to where we have today an emasculated leadership who seem terrified to act, when they aren’t actively promoting things always held to be antithetical to the Faith.
What could have happened?
How often have we heard in the past 50 years that the Church must now be reasonable, that to exhort souls to follow the Faith as it was practiced for so many centuries is now unreasonable and too bizarre for the world to bear? We don’t want to be fanatical “integrists,” right?
Sorry, I’m taking off on a tangent from the video below but there is a reason why Planned Barrenhood has so much freedom to conduct its hateful, diabolical campaign. It is due to lack of resistance from the Church. And need I remind that Cardinal Cushing collaborated with Planned Barrenhood of Greater Boston to overcome Catholic legislative resistance (from lay Catholic legislators) and get contraception legalized in Massachusetts!? Very similar occurred in Connecticut and Rhode Island.
And where is the mass resistance and constant exhortations from the leadership against the latest descent into hedonist debauchery via pretended “same-sex marriage?”
Anyway, the video:
Mind you, that is public sinners: as in those who, in some way, publicly proclaim their sin, in this case, rejection of Catholic Doctrine, i.e., heresy.
A case – likely to be increasingly frequent in the near future – developed in the Diocese of Baton Rouge, LA. A man publicly known to be lost in sins of sodomy and even to have a pretended “marriage” to another man, presented for Communion. This man was publicly unrepentant of his sin. The priest, aware of this man’s condition, quite rightly protected the sanctity of the Blessed Sacrament and defended the sinner’s soul (in great charity) by refusing to allow him to blaspheme the Blessed Sacrament. The man, naturally in this day and age, complained publicly over this act of kindness (which he took to be a cruel abuse), and the bishop, equally naturally, promptly caved, issuing a scandalous apology.
Just another day in the American Catholic Church, I suppose (my emphasis and comments):
Tim Ardillo, an avowed aberrosexual “married” to another man, [public declaration of which in and of itself is grounds for excommunication and denial of the Blessed Sacrament] is claiming that he was denied Communion at the funeral of his dead mother on July 10 in St. Helena’s Church in the Diocese of Baton Rouge (Louisiana). Ardillo wanted to receive the Body of Christ in Communion, however, he was denied by Pastor Mark Beard.
The magazine The Advocate stated that the Diocese of Baton Rouge has since apologized to Ardillo for the incident, personally from the archbishop of New Orleans himself, Msgr. Gregory Aymond. [This has been widely reported, but was it confirmed?]
According to Ardillo, pastor Beard had justified his refusal by saying it was because he was “not married in church.” The presumed reason, according to the aberrosexual, was that he had previously said in the obituary for his mother he was described as being “married” to a man. [There we go, very public declaration of unrepentant grave sin. The pastor, being apparently aware of the man’s identity and status, should have, in charity, approached him before Mass and addressed the matter, making clear his intent, but perhaps that was impossible for any of a number of reasons.]
The Secretariat of Archbishop Aymond declined to comment. The apology was neither confirmed nor denied. No one from the parish wanted to take a position……..
……..What this meant in practice, at least in the Diocese of Baton Rouge, said the diocesan press officer, Donna Carville, a communion assistant (Eucharistic Minister): The diocese will not tolerate refusal of Communion to Catholics, “just because they are gay.” [This is a very dangerous and unfortunate statement. Would she say the same of some other, less culturally popular sin? Being possessed of strong attraction for people of the same sex is profoundly disordered. It may or may not be sufficient grounds for denial of the Blessed Sacrament (it depends how it is acted upon). But this was not the case here. This was the case of a man making a public declaration of grave sin! Canon Law is exceedingly clear on this point.]
It was “very surprising that Communion was denied. This does not work … We do not have people refuse communion. Who are we to judge whether they believe [the Church’s teaching on Communion] or not? This is a matter between them and God,” said Donna Carville. [Well we can certainly see the rhetoric of the current pontificate in this statement. But she’s completely, totally wrong. Once again, we don’t have to peer into anyone’s soul, the man made a public declaration of which the priest became aware. That’s perfect grounds for the priest’s action. In addition, Canon Law stipulates very clearly, contrary to this bonehead quoted below, that public sin requires public retraction and penance PRIOR to amelioration of the sin and an ability to return to the Blessed Sacrament. That is why the continued reception of grave public heretic politicians is such an enormous scandal, they have never publicly retracted their heresy.]
It should not be used to deny the Eucharist, because someone is not married in Church, seconded the canon lawyer, Roger Keeler, coordinator of the Canon Law Society of America, and a priest of the Archdiocese of Edmonton in Alberta State (Canada). “The Communion is not a weapon. It is not a reward for good behavior. It is food for tired souls,” said Keeler. [Once again, direct quotes of Pope Francis, and very damaging ones] The priest could not know the marital status of those who come forward for Communion. [WRONG. In this case, he did. And that was manifest sufficient grounds for his actions. He should be commended by all involved, starting with his bishop, but also the man who attempted to receive, piling sacrilege on top of his other sins.]
Let’s see what Canon Law really says:
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.
Of course Canon 915 is perfectly clear. “Others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin – like an open declaration of no just sodomy but pseudo-sodo-marriage – are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” That seems very clear to me, and indeed was, for about the first 1950 years of the Church’s existence. But now its a matter for apologies and groveling worries about “weaponizing” the Blessed Sacrament.
In all this mass abrogation of duty, it is the souls who ultimately pay the price. The souls of laity falling into hell like snowflakes, and the souls of bishops, too, paving the floor of hell.
German Church implosion accelerates under Pope Francis July 22, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, Papa, scandals, secularism, self-serving, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
I’ve been meaning to post on this for days, but never got around to it. Rorate has a post alluding to the rapidly accelerating decline in Church membership in Germany. But Eponymous Flower had even more details days before, and it is to that post that I will mostly refer:
The German Bishops’ Conference (DBK) are in the midst of silly season this Friday and the dioceses have reported the Church statistics in 2014 and again this is explosive, because the number of leaving the Church has risen significantly again. After 178,805 people left in 2013, 217,716 people have left the church in 2014. That’s an increase of about 20 percent. Church attendance has risen with an increase of 0.1 percent to 10.9 percent. The total number of priests is 12,219 (2013 12,336)……
……..The numbers leaving the Catholic Church are still comfortably topped by the Protestant church. There 410,000 people have left.
The numbers leaving the Church in Germany are at present the highest ever. The numbers on Mass attendance are misleading, raw numbers of attendees has dropped, even if the ratio of those who remain in the Church attending Mass increased very slightly.
Meanwhile, the German Church took in $6.3 billion from the Church tax and remains the largest employer in Germany after government at all levels with 1.3 million employees. Those who refuse to pay the Church tax are automatically excommunicated in Germany, while those professing rank heresy and even apostasy are given a pass, so long as they pay that almighty tax.
According to Rorate, Mass attendance in Germany in 1990 was 22%. It has fallen by over half in one quarter century.
Msgr. Ganswein, Prefect of the Papal Household and private secretary to Pope Benedict XVI gave reasons for why the German episcopate continues to promote radical, seemingly heretical “pastoral” approaches even as souls flee the Church in unprecedented numbers:
I do not know. Maybe they give in to the Zeitgeist, perhaps they can be led by the applause of the people, which is made by the media … to be critical of the mass media, is certainly less enjoyable. A shepherd must not decide on the basis of whether the media applauds or not. The benchmark is the Gospel, the Faith, sound doctrine, Tradition.
Meanwhile, in the US, Pope Francis’ favorability rating has dropped precipitously in the past year, especially among those who identify as conservative. Overall, his favorability dropped from 75% to 59% overall, but from 72% to 45% among self-described conservatives. One wonders what the numbers would say were the survey broken down by those who assist at Mass weekly – the bare minimum to count as a Catholic, no? 71% of self-described Catholics in the survey view the Pope favorably – a stupefyingly generic term – whereas 89% did so last year. For whatever that means.
No, the Church is not a popularity contest, and being unpopular is not a sign of being a bad shepherd of the faithful. To the contrary, a truly good and Catholic shepherd would probably have much lower approval ratings, as Pope Benedict did for most of his pontificate. But our Blessed Lord told us the world would hate and persecute us, and that we would be blessed when they did so, because it meant we would be living lives contrary to the world and its master. Nevertheless, I think the visibly leftward turn of this pontificate is dismaying a good number of people.
I think the broader point is this: contrary to expectations and what certainly seems to be a deliberate plan of action, positing a very progressive/modernist view of the Faith – whether this is Francis’ intent or not, that is certainly the mass perception – with seeming attempts to gravely undermine moral doctrine held since the Church’s inception, is, once again, not convincing great numbers of souls to enter the Church and is almost certainly precipitating even greater numbers of departures. Caving on doctrine – or appearing to – only convinces people that you had nothing worthwhile to say in the first place,and confirms them in their error. We have over 50 years of clear, concrete evidence of this
phenomenon fact. Doctrinal revolution under the cover of pastoral changes will scandalize millions out of the Church but won’t bring more than a handful of wild-eyed revolutionaries in. But maybe that’s the point, after all.
I have seen two kinds of reactions to Fr. Barron’s appointment as auxiliary bishop of Los Angeles. Reaction one is that this will hurt Chicago’s Mundelien Seminary’s orthodoxy and demonstrates an advancing modernization (in the heretical sense) of the Archdiocese by new ordinary Blaise Cupich. The other reaction says this is really bad for LA, as now a man who advances noxious notions regarding the reality of hell, Christ’s self-awareness of His divinity, and Original Sin will be unleashed on poor, suffering LA.
I wonder: can’t both be right? While Barron is very troubling in some of his beliefs, truth be told, there are a lot worse choices one could make for seminary rector. Instead of having a rector that held several errors, he might well be replaced with one who holds dozens or more. That’s damning with faint praise, and adherence to heresy in one area is surely grounds for excommunication/damnation and much else, but, in this time of unprecedented crisis, there have been and are men even more divorced from the Faith than he in charge of priestly formation in many dioceses (including this one).
And now LA will get a very high profile bishop with a major media apostolate who just happens to err from divine revelation and Catholic Dogma on several matters:
This morning, Pope Francis formally announced Father Robert Barron’s appointment as auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
Bishop-Elect Barron is the founder of Word on Fire Catholic Ministries, host of the award-winning CATHOLICISM film series, and since 2012 has served as the Rector/President of the University of Saint Mary of the Lake/Mundelein Seminary outside of Chicago, IL.
Barron’s whopper on hell (I provide this as an example of what NOT to believe, as in what is contrary to our Blessed Lord’s own words):
Some past posts excoriating Barron’s faulty beliefs. Note that belief that Adam and Eve are “theological poetry” is a near-admission of belief in evolution of the species as well as feeding directly into the idea of universal salvation. If there was no Original Sin, no Fall of Man, then Christ died for nothing, and we are all the most foolish of men for having believed in Him. But Adam and Eve did sin, man did fall, and Christ’s suffering and death was the only possible sacrifice of sufficient magnitude to atone for the infinite evil of sin. Those who reject Christ and/or die in their sins, unconfessed and unrepentant, will spend all eternity in hell, and I hold that to be a dogmatic belief of the Church.
I guess I’ll never be fit material for a bishop, then, huh?
PS – The positive spin is that this is good to help de-Mahoneyize LA, and maybe it will be beneficial in that regard, but I just can’t get past Barron’s really scandalous statements, statements, it must be said, he has stood by in the face of strong criticism.
+Brandmuller blasts indifference in episcopate, but he (and we) face an incredible struggle- UPDATED July 21, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, different religion, disaster, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
Reader “Camper” sent me a link to this article on LifeSiteNews, which translates an op-ed written by Cardinal Brandmuller in Germany recently. Brandmuller’s editorial is one of the most thorough, damning condemnations of the state of the Church and the blithe indifference of the episcopate in the midst of collapse I’ve read in some time – at least from a leading figure of the Church. His analysis of the Church stands in near total contrast to the runaway giddiness of the aging, declining progressive faction, which, according to a new post at Rorate (quoting a National Geographic article on the Pope), now believe that all their cherished, long-frustrated hopes and dreams of remaking the Church in their own fallen image are about to be fulfilled.
I don’t think it any exaggeration to say that the Church stands at a great crossroads, which may well dictate the path she takes for the next 50-100 years: more modernist embrace of the world and doctrinal indifference, leading to further collapse, or the start, one may hope, of a return to sanity.
First, Cardinal Brandmuller:
The cardinal sees in certain circles in the Church almost a “perverse lust for self-destruction,” for example, “by undermining the procreation of life in different ways and in putting into question the natural sexual identity of man and woman.” [I’d say, dead on. Of course, as St. Pius X made very clear, modernism is the death of faith. That modernist beliefs would lead to a cultural death spiral through mass refusal of openness to life is hardly surprising.]
Cardinal Brandmueller describes the danger of adapting to “political correctness,” admitting that violating it entails “risking execution by the Media.” [The media is dominated by progressives, who have always hated the Church! Even 150 years ago Blessed Pius IX recognized in the media an inveterate hostility to the Faith and the good of souls. This tendency has only grown since then. Trying to please the media is a sure path towards destruction.]
He decries the “dynamic of silence into which the majority” of bishops have slipped “and thus silently watch the execution.” No one can claim “such conduct is worthy of a Christian,” he adds, “especially when dealing with fundamental questions concerning the teaching of Faith and Morals of the Gospel of Christ.”
“For what purpose did we receive the Sacrament of Confirmation?” he asks. “And, did not the bishops at their consecration promise that they would proclaim faithfully the Gospel of Christ and would preserve, pure and entire, the Deposit of the Faith according to the Tradition as held by the Church, always and everywhere?” [One must wonder how often this promise was not made in good faith. Judging from the behavior of the large majority of bishops over the past 50 years, it would seem, far, far too often. The thing is, apparently many bishops are convinced – or pretend to be convinced – that the practice of the Church can be radically changed while Doctrine is left supposedly untouched. This is impossible, and reveals a revolutionary mindset (one that apparently thinks the faithful and even many good priests are none too bright) intent on trying to “sneak” changes to doctrine through the backdoor. We’ve seen the game plan laid out by Vatican favorite Fr. Tom Rosica – doctrine will be changed by changing Church-wide practice, first, and then once those changes have been implemented and practiced for a long time, maybe many decades, “doctrine will be changed” to catch up. Talk about a death wish, that’s it, right there, the death of the Church, a la episcopalianism.]
The cardinal calls for a “de-secularization” of the Church, meaning a form of thinking which does not follow earthly principles and calculations but “follows the Truth of the Faith.” Instead of “preaching ‘Christianity light,’” he said, “we should have the courage to demand a program which is in firm contrast to the societal mainstream of today and lives out fully” the commandments. [I agree, but those who believe as we do are apparently in the distinct minority.]
“The Church can and must proclaim the Natural Moral Law which has been perfected by the Gospels and which is understandable for the man of good will,” he says. “Thereby, the Church should not allow herself to be deflected by the [growing] resistance against her message.” [I agree again. But apparently, not enough even in the episcopate do. They seem to fear the world more than God. They seem to believe, in spite of the mountainous evidence of the past 50 years, that the problem is that the Church has not changed enough to please the world and her master, and must bow down to both still more. They are apparently totally blind to the effects of their own Doctrine either in the Church, or in the sects which have followed a similar path. The only people rejoicing over this latest push for the revolution are the Pope’s evangelical buddies, who will pick up scads of disaffected Catholics, and more importantly, their money.]
Now, what we are up against, once again via Rorate, quoting sources ostensibly close to Pope Francis. All of this is hearsay, but given its consistency with so much of what we’ve been able to observe over the past 2 years, I certainly would not discount it out of hand:
Similarly, Saracco, the Pentecostal pastor, discussed with the pope the possibility of removing celibacy as a requirement for priests. “If he can survive the pressures of the church today and the results of the Synod on the Family in October,” he says, “I think after that he will be ready to talk about celibacy.” When I ask if the pope had told him this or if he was relying on intuition, Saracco smiles slyly and says, “It’s more than intuition.”
This would appear to be the pope’s mission: to ignite a revolution inside the Vatican and beyond its walls, without overturning a host of long-held precepts. “He won’t change doctrine,” insists de la Serna, his Argentine friend. “What he will do is return the church to its true doctrine—the one it has forgotten, the one that puts man back in the center.[Do you see the lie?!? “He won’t change doctrine,” but will “return the Church to its true doctrine!” So what you are calling for is……a change in Doctrine! Also note the revolutionary, anthropocentric viewpoint, the quintessence of the post-conciliar mentality – “man is the center of the Church.”] For too long, the church put sin in the center. By putting the suffering of man, and his relationship with God, back in the center, these harsh attitudes toward homosexuality, divorce, and other things will start to change.”
You get the juxtaposition, right: the Church’s very loving approach toward souls – please don’t sin for your own good, for the sake of your eternal soul! – is now a “harsh attitude.” This is modernism 101, pure and clear. Just as after VII, the this revolutionary cabal – speaking of Pope Francis as one of their own, I pray they are wrong – plans to advance their worldly revolution while pretending Doctrine is unchanged. It’s untenable and laughable, and will only harm souls, but it provides them with the kind of cover they need to keep many Catholics from seeing reality. This is the kind of fig leaf that those often derided as “neo-Catholics” or “neo-conservatives” cling to as they argue that “doctrine hasn’t changed.” That makes recognizing and exploding these kinds of claims all the more important.
Another important point, made by a commenter: just where in the Church is there any focus on sin? What a laugh! In most places sin is virtually never mentioned, and even if it rarely is, it is generally fake “corporate sins” like capitalism and not loving mother Gaia enough. There is a repository of condemnation of sin, however, and this is most important: IT IS IN THE DOCTRINE! Only in doctrine is sin generally firmly condemned in the Church today. That makes clear what they are really going after: doctrinal change, made first by stealth, and then, once they feel strong/bold enough, to try to change it formally.
It is amazing that anyone could claim that the Church has not put man’s relationship with God at the center of her focus. I’d say the only time that has been true has been in the last 50 years, when man’s relationship with God has often been a sideshow to far more earthly concerns. You know, things like environmentalism, progressive activism, funding abortion and contraception through Catholic charities, etc., etc. That is, the same old same old which has veritably brought the Church to her knees. Like all good progressives, those quoted above look at the failure of their program and can only exclaim: it’s because we didn’t go far enough! We didn’t cave enough on core doctrine! Once we jettison that last, final bit of doctrine – say, the Divinity of Christ, or the Resurrection (don’t laugh, look at the Unitarians and other more liberal “mainline” sects) – then the souls will just come pouring in.
The real religion of Katholycs is leftism…….they simply adopt a Catholic patina as they march through one more institution.
Another Cardinal takes part in pagan/animist worship July 20, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
But then again, why not, when since 1986 on three major occasions (and a number of “minor” occasions in between), even Roman pontiffs have taken part, or at least permitted, all manner of pagan and animist worship even within the hallowed halls of Saint Francis of Assisi. I do wonder though, just how many cardinals (and bishops) there are in the Church who, while perfectly happy to take part in even the feeblest, most pathetic pagan-native worship, would never, ever be caught dead in a Traditional Latin Mass?
Gianfranco Cardinal Ravasi, President of the Pontifical Council for Culture actively took part in the Argentine city of San Marcos Sierras a Pachamama cult ceremony. The goddess Pachamama means in the Quechua language “Mother Earth” or “mother cosmos”. It is a relic of pre-Christian, pagan times, which has been preserved in parts by the Quechua and Aymara Indians of the Andean countries.
Sacrifices will be made to the goddess Pachamama, which is “omnipotent” in the indigenous imagination, especially “Coca leaves”, “talismans, herbs, llama fetuses”, “little dolls” as the Neue Zürcher Zeitung wrote. “On the witches’ market in La Paz” there are traded “the ingredients for the burnt offering in honor of Pachamama” and “faith as business,” said the NZZ……..
……….The Pachamama cult action was in November 2014 under Ravasis Initiative, “Court of peoples”, which appeared at that time on Argentinan stations, but is only now becoming available through the publication of a video. The organized idolatry was organized by Foro Ecumenico Social (Ecumenical Social Forum). The most prominent attendee of the “Mother Earth” was Cardinal Ravasi -Kultes, “which was cultivated” (ORF) by the curial cardinal. The cardinal was not only an observer but an active participant (see video). With him Theresa Varela, who was vice president of the Foro Social Ecumenico and president of the Foundation Mision Esperanza to San Marcos Sierras came “along with the indigenous peoples”.
And here is the Cardinal, making a grand fool of himself and given horrific scandal:
Cardinal Ravasi is known as one of the disciples of Cardinal Martini and his “School of Bologna.” He is thus generally seen as a great progressive. He did once, in an Italian publication “(when Benedict was still Pope) give a nod towards the TLM, but I do not believe he’s ever offered one. But he’s perfectly happy doing this.
Look, this sect is adhered to by perhaps a few hundred souls in Argentina. It is a revival of a pre-Christian pagan/animist sect that literally looks to worship mother earth. It has grown a bit in popularity in recent weeks as part of the general trends towards enviro-hippy Gaia earth mother goddess worship. A cardinal of the Church taking part in this act thus gives great scandal by giving approval towards a false religion, and one that is tied into a great heresy that is afflicting millions of souls worldwide (new agism/environutism). It is gravely scandalous.
But, once again, given the tacit (or full-bore) approval such utterly false and destructive religions (all the gods of the gentiles are devils, said Saint Paul) have received from the highest levels of the Church over the past 30 years, is Cardinal Ravasi really out of line?
Once again, are we seeing a different religion from that which existed more or less universally for the 1917 years prior to AD 1950 play out? We see souls in their millions falling away from the Faith, and yet we have cardinals seeming to encourage that falling away. How are actions like this not putting the approval of men, the concerns of men (and a tiny minority at that) above the greater glory of God and His Truth?
This to me is the core of the scandal of the new, post-conciliar Church. It’s not simply dereliction of duty on a mass scale, it is direct support and encouragement towards patently false and discredited groups and sects that is at the heart of the crisis in the Church. And that all has to stem from a widespread disbelief in real judgment and damnation. There is no other explanation for this kind of inexplicable behavior so contrary to right faith and the good of souls.