Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church.
The Vatican post office plans to issue a stamp this year featuring the likeness of the arch-heretic Martin Luther, the man single most responsible for the seeming-permanent rending of the unity of Christendom and, almost certainly, the man responsible for consigning literal billions to eternal damnation. Given the aid and comfort the Bishop of Rome has given protestants since his installation, this is hardly surprising, but only marks an intensification of an effort that dates back to Francis’ days in Argentina:
The Vatican office charged with issuing stamps, known as the Philatelic and Numismatic Office, confirmed Tuesday to LifeSiteNews that Luther, who broke away from the Catholic Church in a schism 500 years ago, will be celebrated with a postage stamp in 2017. The office is in charge of the annual commission of stamps, coins, and other commemorative medals.
The Vatican regularly issues such memorabilia for special events, including papal trips and holy years. Honoring Luther and the Protestant Reformation is an unlikely choice, trumping other significant events in the Catholic Church such as the 100-year anniversary of the apparition of Our Lady of Fatima and the 300-year anniversary of our Lady of Aparecida, Brazil.
Got that? Luther trumps Fatima. Will that be the tenor for the entire, momentous year 2017? I fear so.
Michael Matt posted a video last night that directly relates both the stamp issue and the broader crisis afflicting the Church of which the administration of Francis is simply the culmination so far. It features a debate he had with an ostensible Church liberal and conservative (Dale Alquist), wherin both his opponents more or less ganged up on Matt and attacked him with ad hominems throughout. According to Matt (the entire debate was not included) neither of his opponents were able to provide cogent arguments in defence of their position that, regarding violating 2000 years of sacred belief and practice and a direct command of Jesus Christ, it just doesn’t matter that much, times have changed, and the Church needs to get with the 21st century program and go all mercy all the time, even to the point of allowing constant sacrilegious reception of the Blessed Sacrament by those openly persisting in grave sin. The video is great and I recommend you watch the whole thing:
But the broader point is this, and cuts to the quick of that 50+ year argument that has been ongoing between those who accept radical changes in the Church (whether quickly a la “liberals” or more slowly a la “conservatives”), and those who find those changes a total abandonment of the Church as she lived and breathed for 1900+ years. The results of the exchange were not encouraging – there is apparently no action authority figures in Rome can take that will not be accepted by those Matt labels as “neo-Catholics.” As Matt notes, where the revolutionary program is headed is all the more obvious everyday – protestantism, and protestantism of the most ineffectual, libertine bent. We know from 150 years of history where that liberal, worldly protestantism leads: decay, destruction, and collapse, both of individual souls and church structures as a whole.
But the vast majority in the Church still refuse to see this. At some deep level, they appear psychologically unable to see it. Their conception of the Church simply does not allow that bad men might deeply infiltrate it and possibly even corrupt her teachings to the extent men can – which is not insubstantial. But the evidence that there has been a deliberate effort to alter, undermine, and destroy twenty centuries of sacred Doctrine is there for any who care to examine it, and it is overwhelmingly compelling. Nevertheless, it appears the “neo-Cats” will never be moved by it. They were not moved by the radical destruction of the Liturgy. They were not moved by the implosion of the priesthood and religious life. They were not moved by all manner of heresy and abuse being taught as solemn Catholic Doctrine. They were not moved by Assisi. A stamp won’t even elicit a tired sigh from them.
Even more, the manifest problems afflicting the Church since the 60s have had their center in the Petrine office. Francis may be the most openly radical of the post-conciliar pontiffs, but he is hardly the only one to promote massive novelty. All of his immediate predecessors have, including Benedict.
It appears the Church is to cleave into two halves, a tiny, faithful remnant, and an initially huge but constantly, rapidly shrinking majority who go along with whatever they are told this week constitutes Catholic belief and practice. I used to hold high hopes that by sharing careful, detailed analysis of the crisis in the Church – by getting the message out – that souls would naturally react similarly to me, come to see the crisis for what it is, and do what they could to impose the different religion we see being built around us. I found out very early to my dismay, however, that while there was a fraction who would come to comprehend the crisis in the Church and the inadmissibility of many of the revolutionary changes made since Vatican II (that including the vast majority of those who will read this), the vast majority would not. That, in fact, that there was nothing that would move them to do so. They were literally unable to do so.
I understand that, to a degree. We all have lines we are unwilling, even unable to cross. I am disheartened to see how many struggle to accept that the Church could be afflicted with a pope who tries to promote error (it’s happened before, after all), but it’s a reality I – we all – have to face. The question is what we do about that reality. It seems we are fated to be a very small remnant, with malice towards none and charity for all, hopefully, but a very small one, nonetheless. We must work to preserve as much as we possibly can, which starts with saving ourselves and our families. We must do as much prayer and penance as possible, far, far more than most of us are doing today.
We must pray for one thing in particular, to sum up which I will turn to Ann Barnhardt. We must pray to have the traditional Sacraments available to us as the cultural and ecclesiastical noose tightens around our necks, figuratively or literally:
What you should do is move heaven and earth to attend a Traditional Mass or Divine Liturgy, and then go every single day humanly possible, and spend as much time as possible before the Blessed Sacrament, and go to confession frequently. Do whatever it takes, right now, to find a good parish or chapel. If you wait until The Remnant Church is forced completely underground, you will have a much harder time. This is precisely what the parable of the wise and foolish virgins is about, folks. At some point, the door will close, and if you are one of the foolish virgins who got caught without any oil in your lamp, and had to scramble to find any, it will, at some point, be too late, and the Bridegroom will close the door. You have been warned. It is obvious what is happening. No one will have any excuse.
Go to Our Lord, kneel before Him and BEG HIM to provide for you and your family to always be able to go to Mass. Beg Him to show you the way and illumine the path for you, as He illumined the path of the Magi. Beg Him to fill your lamp with oil Himself, and to keep it always full. Beg Mary, Mother of The Church, to intercede for you. Beg St. Joseph, Patron of The Universal Church, to lead you to safety as he led Our Lord and Our Lady on the flight to Egypt.
I hoped to flesh this post out some more, but I’ve run out of time, at least for the moment. I think Barnhardt’s exhortation is as good an ending as I could put to a post, anyway.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, contraception, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, paganism, priests, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, unadulterated evil.
So the pro-abort Guttmacher Institute has put out its annual compendium of abortion statistics and reported that fewer than 1 million surgical abortions were performed in the US in 2014, for the first time since 1975. This would normally be a cause for rejoicing (while lamenting the fact that there are still mountains of dead babies every year even still), but there are certain caveats that make this report less than heartening. First, at least part of the reduction in surgical abortion can be explained away by the continuing implosion of the conception rate, especially among native born American women. Another factor is the rise of chemical/pharmaceutical abortion, the “morning after pill” and such like, which are not “counted” as abortions in the statistics. Many deeply involved in the pro-life movement report that these chemical abortions are increasing at an alarming rate, so that the total abortion rate may indeed by higher than it was a few years ago. Chemical abortion is often preferred as it can be done at home and doesn’t involve much of the trauma and medical risk of surgical abortion.
The final negative factor on the abortion rate is an increase in the use of long term contraception, which is very nearly self-sterilization in the form of IUDs. Use of long-term contraceptives exploded over the past several years and is probably also driving the abortion rate down.
At any rate, here’s the report from a non pro-abort source:
Great news, if not surprising news. As contraceptive technology has improved, as the taboo against using it has shrunk, and as new restrictions on abortion have passed in various red states, it’d be odd if the rate weren’t declining.
The pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, which conducted the survey, says there were fewer than a million abortions performed last year for the first time since 1975. Which is also good news, once you get past the whole “a million children aborted every year for 40 years” thing.
Some really bad news:
By the way, according to two polls taken last year, approval of birth control as either morally justified or not a moral issue is virtually unanimous among Americans. Gallup found 89 percent willing to call contraception “morally acceptable.” When Pew asked a similar question, just four percent overall (and eight percent of Catholics) deemed it morally wrong.
Thanks, bishops and priests of Amchurch! Mission accomplished.
Know this, and without the slightest doubt – the progressive/modernist faction in the Church intends to do the same with divorce and sodomy as they have done with contraception, turn them into moral non-issues for the vast, vast majority of Catholics. That includes, naturally, making the Blessed Sacrament available to those who have been civilly remarried with no annulment of their first marriage – as what’s the point of being Catholic if you can’t line up to get your “reward” every week like everyone else?
Think how many priests should have at least strongly suspected that the vast majority of their married couples with two or one or zero kids never once challenged them on the exceedingly strong likelihood that they were receiving the Blessed Sacrament while actively practicing contraception. That’s a massive failure of moral duty and a very large part of the reason why the Church continues to implode in a self-inflicted crisis.
Even writing this feels like whistling past the graveyard. Outside a handful of isolated traditional communities and even rarer Novus Ordo parishes with solid priests, no one in the Church cares in the slightest. Everyone continues to believe their happy fantasies that God is just a good guy in the sky that never holds anyone even slightly accountable for the moral evils they commit. He’s the cosmic Pez dispenser handing out eternal life to all who come calling. That this is utterly contrary to both Scripture and Tradition is, of course, conveniently forgotten.
Enjoy your newchurch while it lasts, boys. It won’t be around for very long. People can get their empty, meaningless, happy-clappy emotional/spiritual kumbayah experience just as well at home as they can in your parish. It won’t be long before the vast majority of the few remaining active Catholics start to figure that out.
Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Bible, catachesis, Ecumenism, episcopate, General Catholic, Interior Life, priests, reading, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
From the Preface to the New Testament in the Haydock Study Bible, some excellent commentary on common protestant claims regarding Sacred Scripture as the sole rule of faith under the private interpretation of each individual (or the leader of each sect, as is more typical). Much of the commentary below comes from Archbishop Rene Fenelon. All of it is great. Some of the key points addressed below:
- The absolute need for a sole authority to settle questions of Scripture
- The extreme danger that results from private interpretation and the pride that inspires this interpretation
- The error of protestant use of supposedly superior knowledge of the Bible against Catholics as a weapon to rend souls from the Church, when in fact they simply twist Scripture to their own ends. Those souls would be far better off with a Catechism than a panoply of biblical studies.
- Scripture cannot be the sole rule of Faith
If there be no infallible authority, which may say to us all, “this is the true meaning of the holy Scripture:how can we expect that illiterate peasants, or simple mechanics, should engage in a discussion wherein the learned themselves cannot agree? God would have been wanting to the necessities of almost all men, if, when he gave them a written law, he had not at the same time provided them a sure interpreter, to spare them the necessity of research, of which they are utterly incapable. Every man of common understanding has need of nothing more than a sincere sense of his ignorance, to see the absurdities of the sects, who build their separation from the Catholic Church upon the privilege of deciding on matters far above their comprehension. [Or even if not above their comprehension, per se, we still see the effect of private interpretation in the proliferation of warring sects, each holding a different view of various parts of Scripture and their meaning. Most of those have to be wrong. And in point of fact, much of protestant Scripture “scholarship” is nothing of the sort but simply an exercise of ex post facto effort to twist Scripture to find in it the doctrines they’ve already decided upon, as Luther and Calvin did in identifying “total depravity” as a rule of Scripture in order to justify the elimination of works as necessary for salvation and thus most of the 10 Commandments] Ought we then to hearken to the new reformers, who require what is impossible; or to the ancient Church, which provides for the weakness of our nature?” If we listen to the former, we should soon be found to resemble those men of latter days, who St. Paul tells us to avoid: ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of truth; (2 Timothy chap. iii. ver. 7,) because they trust to their own lights, and not to the visible authority appointed by Jesus Christ. How evident does all this speak for itself, when we behold a Voltaire extracting mental poison from the Song of Solomon; or, another Cromwell reading to a ruthless soldiery God’s ordinances concerning the smiting of the Ammonites and Chanaanites, in order to induce them to kill every Catholic, man, woman, and child; or the fanatic, maintaining from the Revelations, that no king is to be obeyed but King Jesus; or, finally, when we hear those dangerous comments of our modern Moravian and Antinomian Methodists on St. Paul’s Epistles, importing, that they being made free by Jesus Christ, are not subject to any law either of God or man. Surely, in such cases, it would be advisable, if possible, to withdraw the Bible from every such profaner of it; and instead of it, to put into his hands the Catechism, in which he would find the bread of God’s word, broken and prepared for his weak digestion, by those prelates to whom this duty particularly belongs. This the Protestant owns, when he finds the Socinian [Society of Friends – Quakers] abusing private interpretation, by repeatedly citing and expounding the sacred text against the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the Presbyterian against the episcopacy……
……..The learned Walton (Prolegom. chap. iv. 56,) asserts, what every one versed in antiquity must allow, that “some parts of the New Testament were doubted of for some ages, till at length by consent of the whole Church, all the Books, as they are read at present, were received and approved.” [Indeed. The Canon of Scripture was settled by the Church. The protestants accept all of the New Testament canon, even though Luther wanted to exclude at least the Catholic Epistle of James because it was too contrary to his new doctrine. He was only prevented from doing so by allies of his due to human concerns – rejecting portions of the New Testament so long settled would cause even more division and scandal and undermine his new sect. But from a standpoint of logic, the protestants have no reason not to exclude all manner of books from Old or New Testament, nor to add works like the Epistle of Barnabas, Gospel of Thomas, or the Shepherd of Hermas – they have rejected Authority in favor of their own private judgment to arrive at answers predetermined in advance, so why not use these other works? The only reason they do not has to do with human concern, e.g., what people would think] Here then we see that for a chief proof of the inspiration, authenticity, and due rendering of the word of God, we are referred to the general consent of Christians; therefore Scripture, though the rule of faith and life, cannot be the whole rule;since from Scripture alone, an exact canon of the sacred books cannot by human art be learned…………
………St. Augustine goes so far as to say: I would not believe the gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not determine me. (Epis. cont. Fund. chap. v, n. 6.) “This, says Fenelon, is the most simple, short, and decisive of all controversies.”……..[This is the key. Scripture has authority because the Church determined it to have it, not the other way around. It was the Church that predated the Canon of Scripture or indeed any individual Gospel or Letter. Tradition ultimately is greater than Scripture, and it is a sad testimony that far too many priests and bishops today, cowed by supposed protestant knowledge of the Bible, mimic their arguments in favor of Scripture, turning reading the Bible into an end in itself rather than as simply being the support and basis for what the Church believes. Priests would be far better off advising the souls in their charge to read a solid Catechism like the Catechism of the Council of Trent or This Is The Faith than the Bible, honestly. Mind, I am not discouraging those sound in the Faith from reading the Bible, I read it every day, but I am saying that in this time when so few people are really able to understand much of Scripture, and with the proliferation, especially in this country, of erroneous protestant biblical studies, and very aggressive “bible study groups” seeking to make converts of poorly formed Catholics, that it is more prudent to first form souls deeply in the Faith before turning them loose on Scripture.]
………..There are such inimitable instructions in the five letters of Fenelon, to a lady who wished to be admitted a member of the Catholic Church, that a brief analysis of the same cannot but be very acceptable to the biblical scholar: — In the first, the prelate shews that there can be but one true religion, and one only Church, the spouse of Jesus Christ. Our Lord would have only one; men are not entitled to make more. Religion is not the work of human reasoning; but it is our duty to receive it, such as it has been given us from above. One man may reason with another man, but with God we have only to pray, to humble ourselves, listen, be silent, and blindly follow. This sacrifice of reason is the only proper use we can make of it, weak and contracted as it is. Every consideration must yield, when the supreme reason decides…….. [Awesome]
……..In the second, he shews the necessity of a visible authority. Religion, he says, is all humility. The mysteries are given us to subdue the pride of reason, by making us believe what we cannot comprehend. Without this authority, the Scripture can only serve to nourish our curiosity, presumption, jealousy of opinions, and passion for scandalous disputes: there would be but one text, but as may interpretations as religions, and as many religions as heads……..
……..In the third, he teaches how to hear the Church, and to obey it without any apprehension of error. The infallible promises of God are our surety. He tells the lady, if she wish for any reform, not to seek it, like Dissenters, out of the Church, but by frequently reverting back to her thoughts upon herself, and by reforming every thing amiss there; by subduing all that savours of self; by silencing the imagination, listening in silence to God, and imploring his grace for the perfect accomplishment of his will……….
……..In the fourth, he gives her comfort and instructions how to act under her trials. The kingdom of God suffers violence. We cannot die to ourselves without feeling it; but the hand that afflicts us, will be our support……..
………..In the fifth, he give excellent instructions, on the promises of Jesus Christ to his one true Church. He remarks the Jesus Christ does not say, if you will not hear the church of this country or that; he does not suppose a plurality of churches, but one universal Church, subsisting through all ages and nations, and which is to speak and to be obeyed from one extremity of the globe to the other. Not an invisible church composed of the elect only, but a Church that can be pointed out with a finger. A city elevated on the summit of a mountain, which all can see from a distance. Every one knows where to see, to find, and to consult her. She answers, she decides; we listen, and believe: and woe to those who refuse to believe and obey her: if he will not hear the Church, &c………
Such sage wisdom! Thank God for providing us – even if in the somewhat distant past – shepherds whose cooperation with Grace and docility to the will of God inform all they said and make of them a great light to souls of this and every age. We live in a time when such souls are few, almost non-existent, among the men given the sacred charge of holding watch over the souls of millions, but we have the inestimable gift of Tradition and the wisdom of the past to guide us still, even in this our own faithless age. That is a gift beyond measure. And one that, in spite of herculean efforts on the part of modernists, cannot be taken away.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, priests, Revolution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
That’s what Damian Thompson says, anyway. Some interesting observations below – some revelations as to Francis’ character. It might even be considered a bit psycho-analytical. I was not aware of Francis’ scandal in reinstating a scandalous progressive boy-raping priest that Benedict had previously defrocked. That’s a damning indictment that Francis’ mercy extends only to perceived ideological allies, and not those whom he is most charged to shepherd and defend:
On 2 January, the Vatican published a letter from Pope Francis to the world’s bishops in which he reminded them that they must show ‘zero tolerance’ towards child abuse. The next day, the American Week magazine published an article that told the story of ‘Don Mercedes’ — Fr Mauro Inzoli, an Italian priest with a passion for expensive cars and underage boys.
In 2012, Pope Benedict stripped Inzoli of his priestly faculties, effectively defrocking him. In 2014, however, they were restored to him — by Pope Francis, who warned him to stay away from minors.
Then, finally, the Italian civil authorities caught up with this serial groper of teenagers in the confessional. Last summer Inzoli was sentenced to four years and nine months in jail for paedophile offences. The Vatican, under ‘zero-tolerance’ Francis, refused to supply evidence that prosecutors wanted…….. [I doubt he was guilty only of “groping,” and I hate how the media continues to soft-pedal these men’s crimes. They, painfully and cruelly, rape young boys, destroying their irreplaceable innocence and scarring them for life. Those who suffer childhood sex abuse are never quite right again. Reducing that to “groping” is yet another example of why so many of us have no respect for the media. As for Francis, his “zero-tolerance” depends entirely on whether one is seen as an ally or not. Leftism is always about power – those perceived as aiding that pursuit of power can never do any wrong, those who oppose it can never do any right.]
……A man who, when he took office, seemed endearingly informal — paying his own bill at his hotel, refusing to live in the Apostolic Palace, making surprise phone calls to members of the public — now cuts a less sympathetic figure.
He has broken with a far more significant papal tradition than living in the papal apartments or travelling in limousines. He has defied the convention that a pope, once elected, ceases to play nasty curial politics. [I’m shocked, shocked that a convicted Peronist would behave like a…..convicted Peronist]
Pope Benedict respected this convention. [Probably too much. It undermined his ability to effect any change – if he even wanted to.] Liberals who were worried that the ‘Rottweiler’ would harbour ancient grudges watched in amazement — and relief — as he turned into a virtual hermit. This created the factional chaos that led to his resignation — but right up until the end, Benedict was always ‘the Holy Father’.
That title has almost dropped out of use inside the Vatican under Francis, at least in everyday conversation. And, when you hear it, there is an edge of sarcasm. For example: ‘As the Holy Father so wisely says, we all have a natural tendency to eat shit.’
The priest in question is no fan of Francis. But the fact is that the Pope did say it — in public. Last month, he told the media to stop spreading fake stories because ‘people have a tendency towards the sickness of coprophagia’. Which means eating excrement.
Why did he say it? The traditionalist blog Rorate Caeli suggested that ‘ageing or an underlying medical issue’ was responsible for his ‘persistent anger, rancour, vituperation, use of uncouth words (which is known to be increasingly frequent in private)’. [Nah. It’s just who he is. It’s who he’s always been. This is a severely intemperate man. This is a man who is not in control of his appetites. Humility is what gives us the moral strength (and grace) to practice penance and limit our appetites. Francis may or may not limit his physical, material appetite, but his appetite for more ethereal things like obeisance and the gathering of power appears voracious.]
Again, this is an opponent speaking. There is no evidence that the Pope is mentally ill. However, plenty of Vatican employees will testify to his outbursts of temper, rudeness towards subordinates and vulgar language. [Again, intemperance. Intemperance also speaks to a lack of solid interior life driven by humility and devotion to prayer.]
He can also be genial, funny and compassionate. But this side of his personality is increasingly reserved for his inner circle and his allies.
All popes have inner circles, it goes without saying. What distinguishes Francis from his recent predecessors is the nature of the alliances he forms. He is far more brutal in the exercise of his power than, say, Pope John Paul II, who certainly had an authoritarian streak in him. [Indeed. Some say Francis is even more authoritarian than Pius XII, the supposed epitome of the “bad old Church.”]
‘Bergoglio divides the church into those who are with him and those who are against him — and if he thinks you’re in the latter camp then he’ll come after you,’ says a priest who works in the curia. [Think that had much impact on the Franciscans of the Immaculate?]
‘Bergoglio’, note: he doesn’t even call him ‘Francis’. Tellingly, this priest used to be a fervent supporter of some of the Pope’s administrative reforms and he doesn’t look back nostalgically at the reign of Benedict, whom he blames for neglecting his papal duties.
But, like so many Vatican employees, he’s sick of Francis’s habit of telling the entire Roman curia that they are modern-day Pharisees — an analogy that casts the Argentinian pontiff in the role of Jesus. [Convenient, that.]
Clearly Francis believes that relaxing the rules on communion for Catholics in irregular marriages is an act of Christlike compassion. [Could there be more to it than that? As a point of attack against the entire moral edifice of the Church, a more insidious one could hardly have been chosen. I don’t think that’s accidental in the slightest.] This is also the view of the venerable liberal cardinals who campaigned to elect him. It is often said that he is enacting their agenda — and it’s true that Francis is well disposed to liberal demands for women deacons and married priests. [Thus the upcoming terror of Synod 2018. Lord, please prevent this from taking place.]
He is not, however, their instrument. In the words of a Vatican observer who held an important position in Rome for many years, ‘He hasn’t taken on the old progressive mantle so much as created his own personality cult.’ Theological niceties bore him. Personal loyalty obsesses him — ‘and if the cardinal electors had done due diligence they would have discovered that he was an extraordinarily divisive figure among the Argentinian Jesuits’.
It’s not hard to detect a Latin American flavour to the deal-making and settling of scores that has become blatant over the past year. Most Catholic bishops had thought Francis was a plain-spoken and perhaps touchingly naive reformer. Instead, they are confronted by a pope who is simultaneously combative, charming, bad-tempered, idealistic and vengeful……..
Oh, I think the naivete is an act. I think he – as the scion of those who elected him – knows exactly what he is doing and the impact it will have. This is a man bent on remaking the Church in his own ideological image. Niceties mean nothing to him, all that matters is the end result.
He’s a leftist Borgia, minus the appetites against the 6th and 9th Commandments.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, priests, Society, true leadership.
One reason I’ve been behind the curve with regard to soon-to-be Dallas Bishop Edward Burns is because I was completely offline and out of town in North Carolina when the announcement was made. I missed out on a great deal of coverage, also, because I am not on social media. So, I was very glad to receive an appraisal from a local person who happened to have some interaction with Edward Burns on the day the announcement of his appointment as Dallas’ next bishop was made, essentially the only day he has been in the Dallas Diocese so far.
This individual was very impressed. They indicated Bishop-elect Burns is very prayerful. In fact, in spite of having an extremely busy day of travel, introductions, and press conferences/media interaction, he insisted on having a Holy Hour the night of the announcement. Some folks thought, it’s too late, it’s been a long day, but Bishop-elect Burns was determined to have a Holy Hour of prayer for thanksgiving and for Grace for his upcoming role, and so he had one. The impression my contact gained of Bishop-elect Burns is that he is a prayerful man, something that even I have been well aware was not an exactly overwhelming characteristic of either of his predecessors.
Bishop-elect Burns also showed a welcome pastoral touch. Even though he met hundreds of people on the day of his introduction to the Diocese, at the end of the day he thanked many involved by name. He had involved conversations with many local Catholics, from diocesan staff to lay people who had hurried to the presser to meet him, and all came away very impressed. He seemed to be happy to make time for local Catholics, to hear their views and any concerns they might have, and did not seem to be in a hurry to get away to more pressing engagements. That’s again a bit of a change from what has been the experience of local Catholics in recent years. I know I am far from the only involved local Catholic who found Bishop Farrell a man who was essentially impossible for most laity to reach, even well-connected, involved ones who had serious business to discuss.
It’s too soon to tell where Bishop-elect Burns lands on the matter of the Liturgy and Doctrine, but my contact is very hopeful there, too. I did get further feedback from local pro-life leaders that they are very excited and expect good things from Burns. Their brief introductions apparently gave them substantial hope for even more diocesan support of local pro-life, anti-abortion efforts.
Another hopeful sign is this: a local priest who has longed for years to offer Mass Ad Orientem is again doing so. This priest had introduced Ad Orientem at Mass in 2008, intending the change to be permanent, but he was apparently forced to desist after only a few weeks. You guys are well-informed readers, you can do the math from there. I know this priest very well and dearly love him, and am so glad he is again able to offer Mass facing the tabernacle as has been the default practice in the Church for 15 or 16 centuries.
Well, praise God, it looks like Dallas will have a bishop that is, if not a hero of orthodox doctrine, at least approachable, possessed of a solid prayer life, and seems to bend at least somewhat conservative. I know there are a few indications that have given some folks pause, but for now I will remain hopefully optimistic and give our new Bishop-elect Burns the benefit of the doubt, as he rightfully deserves. Never a Pollyanna, I’ll certainly be watching his actions with interest and will call things as I see them, but until then, I’ll take these positive assessments from people I know and pray they play out into reality over the next few years.
People often tend to want to give the newcomer, especially an authority figure, the benefit of the doubt, until evidence proves out the contrary, but I think there is a reasonable expectation of hope here.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, General Catholic, history, huh?, priests, secularism, Society.
Edward Burns from, of all places, Juneau, AK, was named to replace departed <giggle> Cardinal <snort> Farrell about three weeks ago, while I was in beautiful but cold North Carolina. This is a real under-the-radar kind of appointment. Burns is not as young as I feared (59, meaning Dallas won’t be saddled with one man, great or disastrous, for thirty years, like Albany and Rochester have been), and he’s led a fairly low profile heretofore. I’m not entirely certain, but there’s a good possibility that his former Diocese, Juneau, is the smallest in the nation. Heck, it’s 6000 Catholics are smaller than probably 2/3 of the parishes in this diocese.
I’ll admit this appointment happened a great deal sooner than I thought. Bishop Cardinal Farrell had said, before departing, that a replacement would be named within 2-3 months. I scoffed at that, since other dioceses have waited 18-24 months to get replacements, but he was obviously better informed than I: the replacement was named just over 3 months after Farrell departed for his new sinecure in Rome.
New Bishop Burns hails originally from Pittsburgh, and got some love from Pope JPII (via Ratzinger) in being appointed one of the co-chairman of the apostolic investigation into the (deliberately engineered) vocations crisis in the US, and later was appointed to the Vatican review of US seminaries. After that, however, he was sent back to Pittsburgh to the post he had held before he had been elevated to the USCCB in 1999, as rector of the diocesan seminary in Pittsburgh. After an additional year in that role was apparently sufficient purgatory and he was then consecrated Bishop of Juneau by Benedict XVI in early 2009. I don’t know if these moves signify a rising or falling star or are simply the vagaries of Church assignments for a man being groomed for the episcopate. Beats me.
The Diocese of Pittsburgh under Bishop David Zubik is generally seen to be somewhat on the conservative side, I think, at least relatively speaking by 201X American standards. What that means for our new Bishop Burns in Dallas is uncertain. This guy does not have much of a paper trail, though he has been fairly reliably pro-life, at least in a few public pronouncements. He doesn’t seem to be a screaming liberal, but I could be fooled.
I’m also uncertain what Burn’s appointment means for the Diocese. It does seem something of a step down, from receiving the consummate insider (and clearly a man on the rise) in Farrell, who had been a protege of the notorious but highly influential Cardinal McCarrick, a big player in the politically important Archdiocese of Washington, DC, and a deeply committed USCCB apparatchik, to this guy, wonderful though he may be (or may not be) from the Diocese of North Pole. Does that say something about how Dallas is perceived within the Church? Under Farrell, Dallas went from being something of a backwater with a scandalous recent past (the boy-rape scandals and decadent seminary situation being Farrell’s two biggest repair priorities in office) to being a destination, from being a place that received bishops from elsewhere to one that exported many into leadership positions in nearby dioceses. Or is it a situation where a diocese in crisis merited an admittedly sharp administrator (if hardly an inspiring, doctrinally strong shepherd), and now that the crisis is supposedly past (though things continue to be buried), someone of a lower profile could be named as replacement? I do not say any of this as a criticism of Burns, it’s simply comparing the very disparate past histories of two different men.
Some local pro-life folks have apparently met with Bishop-elect Burns and came away heartened. So maybe he’ll be awesome. My guess is that very little will change, practically speaking. There isn’t anything in his background, that I have found, that indicates he might have a innate hostility towards Tradition, over and above what most men formed in his time and place have. Of course, it’s difficult to say, most of this is just speculation off of a few thread of evidence. If you have found documentation that indicates reasons for concern or elation, please share them. My research has been limited to an afternoon and an evening during the break. I admit I am mostly just spitballing in this post.
One thing that has changed, and I imagine this was planned under Farrell, is that the local pro-life Mass and march will be split into two days, and the march will be little more than a short stroll from the convention center to an empty parking lot on deserted, weekend downtown streets (the last bit being per usual, unfortunately). This isn’t a major change, formerly held on one day with a Mass and a mile or so long march through downtown Dallas, the local pro-life March has, over the years, degenerated into a self-congratulatory spectacle garnering precious little media coverage and accomplishing mostly mutual back-patting. I don’t criticize those who participate, it’s certainly fine to get some reinforcement for one’s pro-life beliefs, but the March reaches basically no one who is not already converted and I don’t think it accomplishes a great deal in the defense of life in any concrete sense. As such, we’re going to just pray/counsel outside a mill, instead of participating in the March. Unfortunately, in the wake of the court’s overturning of Texas HB2, mills that had closed down due to the bill are re-opening, like the notorious Northpark mill which is nearly complete.
Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, General Catholic, Immigration, It's all about the $$$, Restoration, scandals, self-serving, Society, Victory.
Wellity wellity wellity – is this one prominent campaign promise that might come true? What might such a wall look like? What kind of overwatch would it have? Guard towers every X meters, or regular patrols, or an abundance of sensors, or all of the above, or? If we can find three camel herding Taliban in 50,000 square kilometers of mountain terrain with airborne drones, can we not find most all the 2-3 million illegals who cross the border every year?
Do you think it will really happen? I imagine the wall would have to be completed within his term(s) of office, because I don’t see many replacements that would finish it. Can it be done? How much will it help? (my guess – if built right and patrolled properly, it will cut illegal immigration 90+%, which is why the business/political elite hates the idea so much):
A memo from the Department of Homeland Security, which was recently reviewed by Reuters, suggest that the Trump administration plans to hit the ground running on the construction of that U.S.-Mexico border wall when they move into the White House later this month. The memo apparently summarized a meeting held between DHS officials and Trump’s transition team on December 5th in which requests were made for an assessment of “all assets available for border wall and barrier construction.” [Back in the 80s, the South Africans had flat bed trucks rigged with gear that could spit out hundreds of feet of triple concertina wire in seconds. The truck just drove along at a fair pace while the wire spat out the back. Great way to isolate a fair sized locality very quickly. A southern border wall could be built incrementally, starting with a quick and dirty version while a more permanent one is built. Even triple concertina will slow people down, a lot.]
In a wide-ranging request for documents and analysis, President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team asked the Department of Homeland Security last month to assess all assets available for border wall and barrier construction.
The requests were made in a Dec. 5 meeting between Trump’s transition team and Department of Homeland Security officials, according to an internal agency memo reviewed by Reuters. The document offers a glimpse into the president-elect’s strategy for securing the U.S. borders and reversing polices put in place by the Obama administration. [The Left will try to tie this up in the courts]
The Trump transition team also allegedly took aim at Obama’s executive actions, requesting “copies of every executive order and directive sent to immigration agents since Obama took office in 2009.”
The transition team also asked for copies of every executive order and directive sent to immigration agents since Obama took office in 2009, according to the memo summarizing the meeting.
Trump has said he intends to undo Obama’s executive actions on immigration, including a 2012 order to allow children brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents to remain in the country on temporary authorizations that allow them to attend college and work. [the so-called “dreamers.”]
The program, known as DACA, collected information including participants’ addresses that could theoretically be used to locate and deport them if the policy is reversed.
I’m agnostic on what happens to those millions currently in the country illegally once a wall gets built, or the immigration system is otherwise contained and stabilized at much lower, more easily integrated numbers. I would actually prioritize expatriation of muslims, especially those with any even remotely radical or criminal connections, far ahead of deporting Hispanics. Once the immigration rate is stabilized, it may be found that most Hispanics currently here illegally may remain and begin a path to normalized citizenship (save for those with criminal records and with a history of welfare abuse). There are many reasonable avenues to pursue, once the crisis is past and we can calmly and rationally consider what to do with those already here.
But it’s almost impossible to act wisely while in the midst of such a terrific crisis as we are faced with a practically non-existent southern border. It’s also difficult to act wisely when one political party seeks to gain a permanent majority by importing reliable voters to the detriment to much of the existing native population. There are myriad reasons why a wall is necessary and prudent, in spite of any “offense” building such might seem to commit against charity. Charity does have its bounds, especially in the material sense. It is not required to absolutely impoverish oneself for the improvement of another, and that could well be what this nation faces on this current path of essentially unconstrained immigration.
One can only imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth that will emanate from the USCCB (and this diocese?) should one brick get laid on that wall. We rarely hear how those imported Catholics (half of which will be gone from the Church within 10 years or less) are exploited and abused by unscrupulous employers due to their precarious legal status.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, persecution, Restoration, scandals, secularism, the struggle for the Church, true leadership, Virtue.
Well, one leftist cohort tends to resemble another. They are all predicated on the exaltation of man above God and the state (or institution) above all, to the extent that humans are crushed for the “greater good,” which really means the good of the tiny cabal that actually holds the reigns of power.
Leftists that treat supposedly sacrosanct “dialogue” as an arcane relic once they’ve gained power? Color me shocked:
Before a packed room in Rome’s Centro Lepanto on Monday, Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan urged the faithful to ardently hold on to the Church’s Magisterium on the indissolubility of marriage within the current state of ongoing ambiguities.
“When Christ preached 2,000 years ago, the culture and reigning spirit were radically opposed to Him. Concretely religious syncretism ruled, also Gnosticism among the intelligent leaders, as well as permissibilism among the masses — especially regarding the institution of matrimony. […] The sole purpose of the Son of God was to reveal the truth to the world.”……
……..“The formulation of dubia, as the Cardinals here have expressed in their own terms, has been a common practice in the Church,” he explained. “We need to be able to ask questions openly without being afraid of repressions.” [Progressives are all about “dialogue” and “debate” when they perceive themselves out of power, but when they believe they have power, such quaint notions go out the window. It’s all about whatever serves their perceived interests, that’s all.]
Bishop Schneider referred to the numerous attacks that the four Princes of the Church have suffered after their dubia was published. The questions still remain unanswered by Pope Francis.
“The reaction to the dubia is a proof of the climate in which we actually live in the Church right now,” Bishop Schneider said. “We live in a climate of threats and of denial of dialogue towards a specific group.”
Schneider went to say that “dialogue seems to be accepted only if you think like everyone else – that is practically like a regime.” [Leftists be leftists, wherever they are. Power is the only end they care about, and will use any means to gain it. Once they have it, they have few scruples in using it in cruel and unjust ways]
Schneider brought up his experience in Russia, where he was born in the time of the Soviet Union. His parents were sent by Stalin to work camps, or “Gulags,” after the Second World War. “If you didn’t follow the line of the party, or you questioned it, you couldn’t even ask. That is for me a very clear parallel to what is happening now in the reactions to the dubia — questions — of the Cardinals.”
“This is a very sad experience especially since everybody is speaking about a ‘culture of dialogue’ after the Second Vatican Council. While bishops openly teach heresies and nothing happens to them, that is truly a grave injustice and very sad,” Bishop Schneider added. [Sure. “Dialogue” for the progressives, which really means promotion of the worst errors, and persecution for everyone else]
“If the Pope does not answer, the next step will be recourse to prayer, to supernatural means,” Schneider said, “to pray for the enlightenment of the Pope and that he will gain courage.” [Prayer is the basis of everything. It’s a foregone conclusion. But I hope Burke and his allies are prepared to do more in the material realm, if need be. As in starting formal proceedings of inquiry into the orthodoxy of Francis’ beliefs.]
Schneider speculated about what might happen in the near future. “In Church history, we say that in an extreme case in which the bonum commune of the faith is threatened, then the bishops as members of the college of bishops, and in a truly collegial relation to the Pope with a brotherly obedience to him, must ask him publicly to renounce the misdeed of giving Communion to remarried divorced Catholics, as it is already being done in many dioceses.” [That’s very specific. But in a general council, Burke and those like him would be in the distinct minority, would they not? What then?]
Rebutting the attacks of various persons against the Cardinals, he defended the four. “This situation has already had precedences in saints — not in schismatics or heretics. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Catherine of Siena, and I think this should be possible in the Church without the person being called a schismatic.” [Absolutely. As I say, leftists always project. When they call someone schismatic, it’s because they themselves have schismatic intent. Thus the recent article in L’Osservatore Romano by the Patriarch of Constantinople, certainly the most liberal patriarch of the Orthodox Church.]
Cardinal Burke has said a “formal correction” might be in order to resolve the situation of uncertainty. “In the language of moral theology, fraternal correction is an act of love — if it is given in obedience and with reason,” Schneider commented. “We have to return to this familiar way of dealing with it.”
Absolutely true. I pray that not only does Cardinal Burke have the wherewithal to continue pursuing this matter – he is increasingly becoming the obvious leader of the opposition to Francis’ Reign of Error – but that he can be sufficiently persuasive to get at least 30% or so of prelates on his side. He may not ever be able to convince a majority of spineless, careerist prelates to join him in condemning Francis’ promotion of error, but even a good 25-30% would be an enormous rebuke and a sign of pending schism. It would gravely undermine Francis’ ability to govern the Church, and, more importantly, pursue his agenda.
Schneider is correct, however, in assessing that prayer is the basis for whatever strength Burke and his allies will have. Please devote Novenas, Rosaries, and many other prayers to him and all like him who are willing to oppose this most egregiously destructive of popes.
As an addendum, Cardinal Turkson has been, for the most part, firmly in the Franciscan camp (which is how he got a plum new assignment), but one wonders if he is wavering, given his recent statements seemingly supportive of the pointed questioning of the dubia? Turkson is a wholly political animal, a man who plastered Rome with images of himself during the conclave of 2013, so if he is shifting, even a bit, it might be revealing of general trends within the episcopate. Or he could simply be playing both sides of the fence.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, damnable blasphemy, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.
Martin Scorsese is a man capable of bringing prodigious gifts to bear, though he has used them most often toward prurient interests and the denigration, as opposed to the uplifting, of the human spirit. Almost all of his films are charnel-houses of violence, hedonism, unbounded lusts of all kinds, and the glorification of extremely seedy characters on the silver screen. Of course, his “Last Temptation of Christ,”rumored for years to have been at least partially financed by the Mafia, is blasphemous from beginning to end. It’s a shame, as he has such talents as to make even the most gruesome acts strangely mesmerizing, even beautiful in a way, but he has manifestly refused to use the gifts he has been given for more virtuous purposes.
So it should come as no surprise that Scorsese would be willing to produce a new movie based on a 1966 Japanese fiction book that depicted the supposed apostasy of numerous Jesuit missionaries in 17th century Japan. And, equally unsurprising is the fact that the film has already been lauded by many worldlings who have seen advance showings, and has tragically even been embraced by the Bishop of Rome himself. In fact, the Vatican hosted the glitzy world premiere, and there has been effusive praise for this work from many Vatican officials already.
Now, the book on which the movie is based supposedly has a good deal of merit until it veers wildly off course at the end, showing collapse of faith and total despondency, and it is unknown how faithfully Scorsese has followed the book in his movie, but given the fact that the arch-progressive James Martin, SJ, was principle advisor, I don’t think we can expect a ringing endorsement of the virtues of faith, patience, joyfully accepted suffering, and steadfastness in this upcoming epic. Rorate provides further details, while noting the extreme differences between this new movie, and the wonderful A Man for All Seasons, which is celebrating the 50th anniversary of its original release:
In 1966 the movie “A Man for All Seasons” was released
in the U.S., the same year Japanese author Shūsaku Endō wrote the historical fiction novel “Silence.”
Last night, the Vatican hosted the world premiere of the movie version of “Silence,” which will be released next month. Shown at the Pontifical Oriental Institute, administered by the Jesuits, approximately 400 priests and others attended. Rorate’s invitation to the screening may have been lost in the mail, so we have not seen the movie. But based on the novel, the endings for the two 1966 works could not be more opposite. One concludes with heroism and martyrdom, the other with indifference and apostasy.
The adaption of “Silence” for the big screen was done by Mr. Martin Scorsese, a former seminarian (Cathedral College minor seminary in New York) who is now a self-proclaimed “lapsed Catholic.” One may remember his scandalous and sacrilegious 1988 movie, “The Last Temptation of Christ.” [Saw bits of it way back in the way back when I was a blase’ protestant teen, and even then I thought it contrived, sacrilegious, and deliberately conceived to offend as many Christians as possible. I also thought it chicken-s–t, as Scorsese would never have the cajones to make a similar film about buddhism, let alone islam.]
To make “Silence,” Scorsese chose James Martin, S.J., as a consultant for the movie…….[Which almost certainly tells us all we need to know about this production]
Before last night’s Vatican screening, Scorsese and Mexican producer Gaston Pavlovich met with Pope Francis. According to a Variety
reporter in attendance: “The private papal audience, held in the Apostolic Palace, was announced by the Vatican press office Tuesday in a clear show of support for ‘Silence,’ Scorsese’s passion project.” [“Last Temptation” was another “passion project,” which few studios were willing to release, let alone fund, due to its deliberately hateful content. Thus, the recourse to unconventional sources of funding. Consider which movie he made next]
Now, perhaps the ending to the movie “Silence” is completely different from the ending to the novel “Silence.” We sure hope so. If not, the world will soon witness a $50 million renouncement of the Catholic Church by members of the Society of Jesus, as tacitly endorsed by the current (Jesuit) pope. The novel, which was absolutely terrific up until the end, has a clear message to leave with readers — the opposite of Saint Thomas More’s example to England and the world.
Apostasy should not be celebrated by the Vatican. These Jesuits are men for no seasons.
Indeed, and have been for decades. At this point, sad though it may be, I wait for their hastening extinction while they refuse conversion and reform. Though with this pontiff, they appear committed to hastening headlong along the same road they have been on since the arch-heretics Tyrell and Loisy corrupted their ranks.
As for the movie, there is no chance I will ever see it. The book’s ending is very provocative and the choice the “protagonist” makes will thrill worldlings, who will now have a powerful new weapon (a whole new mythology, powered by indelible images) with which to attack Christians who hold that adherence to the Doctrine of the Faith is the sine qua non of being a Christian, in spite of all suffering and persecution. Literally hundreds of glorious, edifying movies based on lives of real martyrs could have been made, but they would not stroke the world’s ego as this book does, telling the world, pretty much, what it wants to hear from “God.”
Meh. As if we needed further confirmation that Hollywood and the Left – ooops, oxymoron – hate us, and hate Him.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
The reasoning, as always with FrancisChurch, is absolutely atrocious. Coming as it does from the Dean of the Roman Rota – the very man Francis sacked Cardinal Burke to replace with – is all the more disheartening. Via LifeSiteNews:
While the dubia of four Cardinals concerning clarification of Amoris Laetitia spreads wider and wider ripples in the Vatican and worldwide, the dean of the Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota, the highest appeals court of the Church, says that they might lose their Cardinalate.
“The action of the Holy Spirit cannot be doubted,” he says. “[The Cardinals] question not one synod but two! The ordinary and the extraordinary,” Mons. Vito Pinto explained during a conference in the Ecclesiastical University of San Dámaso in Madrid, Spain. [OK. Whether or not the exhortation following the Synods – Amoris Laetitia – is Magisterial (normally it would be, but how can it be where it plainly intends – via Francis’ own implementation/interpretation – to contradict the Sacred Deposit of Faith!), the Synods WERE NOT. Tiny subsets of bishops do not equate to an ecumenical council, whether they meet one time or forty times. Not even 5% of the world’s bishops were invited to attend, and the deck was stacked with as many friendly to revolution as possible, particularly in the second synod. This is specious, circular reasoning at its lowest]
The four Cardinals, Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner, asked Pope Francis for clarification on September 19, and then went public with their concerns earlier this month when Francis failed to answer.
“Which Church do these Cardinals defend?” Pinto reproaches. “The Pope is faithful to the doctrine of Christ.” [The boundless effrontery of it all is simply amazing. So now that they have a progressive pope, the Left in the Church decrees that the Faith = whatever the pope says it is today. They weren’t quite so ultramontanist when Benedict was in the Chair of Peter!]
“What they have done is a very serious scandal that could lead the Holy Father to remove them from the Cardinalate, as it has sometimes happened in Church history,” Pinto expounds. [I think if Francis did that, he would both be making a very big mistake, and also telling us a very great deal about his conception of mercy. These men, after all, only asked questions, questions which permitted no wiggle room, no diabolical “shades of grey,” which Francis, apparently, has either preferred – or is unable – to answer. Who is introducing the novel doctrines here? It is not the four cardinals, and their numerous allies. It is Jesuit Francis.]
The Cardinalate – unlike the deaconate, priestly, or bishop’s ordination – does not entail an ontological change in the individual, but is an office conferred by the Pope. Therefore the Church speaks of “creating” Cardinals who join the College of Cardinals. They serve principally as helpers – in Latin, “hinges” (cardines) – to the Pope in ruling the Church. Therefore, they could theoretically be removed from their positions and return to being “simple” bishops or archbishops.
Mons. Vito Pinto affirms that the Pope has not directly answered their dubia but “indirectly he has told them that they only see in white or black, when in the Church there are shades of colors.” Pinto referred to multiple instances in which Pope Francis stated that life is not black and white but grey.
In the same conference, Mons. Pinto recalls, referring to Catholic “remarried” divorcees, how the center of Francis’ message is that the Church needs to accept the injured and fallen: “A nun told me that there are people divorced or living together who are communicating. And what should the Church do, say ‘yes, you may’ and ‘no, you may not’? Pope Francis wants a Church that is very close to the people.” [Which, if you note, does not address the supposed nun’s supposed concern at all. It’s meaningless blather. In reality, the message is being conveyed, but in the typical passive-aggressive, cowardly leftist way. They won’t straight up publicly proclaim heresy, but they hint at it, give it a wink and a nod, and basically encourage people to go that way, while in private communiques, the clear message is sent: give Communion to adulterers. I guess Christ, then, was not up to Francis’ exceedingly high standards of closeness to the people, when he said that manifest sinners who refuse the intervention of the Church should be anathematized?]
For Mons. Pinto the only solution – and the key to Francis’ pontificate – is acceptance, what he calls “mercy.” “In our time the Bride of Christ prefers to use the medicine of mercy and not wield the weapons of severity. The Catholic Church wishes to show herself to be a kind mother to all, patient and full of mercy to the children separated from her.”
Even while they fall into hell? So did Our Blessed Lord tell the Truth, or not? Is remarrying after a civil divorce adultery? Is adultery not a grievous sin? Did not St. Paul inform us that those who receive unworthily eat and drink condemnation on themselves? And what did St. Peter tell us about false prophets and blind guides who try to soothe the itching ears of the world by telling them happy lies, lies that smell of sulfur and brimstone? St. Paul told us that anyone who tries to bring a Gospel other than the one Christ preached must be anathematized. Does Vio Pinto represent Christ, or Francis?
I am willing to bet Cardinal Burke will be willing to lose much more than a red hat than to fold on this matter of permitting this radical change – this insidious attack – on the Church’s moral Doctrine.