Our Lady of Fatima Arrives for the Synod
THE FATIMA CENTER IS IN ROME ASKING OUR LADY’S PROTECTION
<< Where Will This Synod Take the Church? >>
This synod is likely to be an occasion of tremendous evil coming over the Church. As Bishop Athanasius Schneider said, the Working Document of the Synod is calculated to push an agenda contrary to Divine Law. 
The Fatima Center is asking Our Lady to stop or mitigate this threat. We have a noon procession every day with Our Lady’s Pilgrim Virgin statue along the arms of St. Peter’s Square, as a plea for Our Lady of Fatima to preserve us from the evils now threatening the Church. It must be no less moving to Our Lord and Our Lady than it is to us to see so many of the people whom we pass in our processions spontaneously join in honoring Our Lady of Fatima!
At other times throughout the day, the volunteers here are on the streets distributing literature about what is at stake in the outcome of the Synod. (Propositions for polygamy and ordaining women deacons were discussed yesterday.)
May Our Lady preserve us!
Comment:
Joe O’Connell, who runs the Fatima Center in Cork, is currently in Rome for the Synod. He sent us the above report, which is also posted on the Fatima Center Facebook page, and asks for our prayers.
This replaces our Synod Special thread, so all synod-related matters should now be posted here.
Comments (310)
I’d like to see the shocking statement below corroborated:
(Propositions for polygamy and ordaining women deacons were discussed yesterday.)
CrofterLady,
I share your curiosity, especially as I understood there would be no interim progress reports.
Very interesting.
Crofterlady,
Margaret Mary posted a report on the raising of the issue of women deacons on our previous Synod thread. She posted this link
And here’s a reference to polygamy:
“Some of the Africans wanted a much more pastoral approach to polygamy – they were saying what do you do when a man converts and does not want to subjugate four wives to a life of poverty? In the same way, Europeans were talking about the realities of same-sex relationships,” sayd Ivereigh. “They are trying to do something that is really almost humanly possible, which is to come up with a unified pastoral strategy on marriage for the world, despite enormous cultural differences.” Click here for source
Below is from the latest Dici report (official organ of the SSPX)
Who is advantaged by the new rules governing the Synod?
The work of the 2nd synod on the family began October 5th and will last three weeks. 270 Synodal Fathers are in attendance: 42 members ex officio, 183 essentially elected by the bishops’ conferences off the whole world, and 45 personally appointed by the Pope. Among the Synodal Fathers (cardinals, bishops, priests and religious), 54 are from Africa, 64 from America, 36 from Asia, 107 from Europe and 9 from Oceania. In addition to the 270 Synodal Fathers are 24 experts, 51 auditors, and 14 representatives of various Christian confessions. 18 couples are participating in the Synod, chiefly amongst the auditors.
The in camera sessions will take place this year amid new arrangements. Previously the discussion groups split up by languages (the circuli minores) only took place in the second part of the synod, following a first period of plenary sessions. Now, however, the assembly was split from the beginning into thirteen groups. The discussion is set up around the three themes of the guiding document (Instrumentum laboris), to be examined one after the other throughout the three weeks of the Synod: 1) Listening to challenges facing the family; 2) Discernment of the familial vocation; 3) The mission of the family today. The participants gather in linguistic groups for 13 discussions, and those who wish to comment in plenary sessions will be limited to three minutes. In contrast to last year’s synod, there will be no mid-session report, something that provoked lively controversy last year. According to several observers, these new arrangements have been put into place precisely to avoid overly conspicuous opposition amongst the various schools of thought.
In spite of all these precautions, the final days of the Synod will no doubt be extremely volatile. A final report will be presented to the full assembly on October 22nd. The Fathers of the Synod will be able to review it and comment in writing. An updated version will be presented to them on October 24th before a vote which must take place on the same day. The participants will have to pay careful attention to the taking into account of their comments by the committee responsible for drafting this report, especially since among the ten Synodal Fathers chosen by Pope Francis for this committee several are very close to him.
Two days before the Synod, on October 2nd, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri (on the picture), secretary general to the Synod, cautiously admitted the existence of “turbulence on some topics” without referring to the question of communion for the divorced and remarried. “The Pope will have the last word,” he stated, without indicating with certitude that this assembly would conclude with an Apostolic Exhortation from the hand of the Pontiff, as in the past.
In the National Catholic Register of September 29th, American Vaticanist Edward Pentin reported the words of Prof. John Rist, a specialist in patristics and a contributor to the work Remaining in the Truth of Christ (Ignatius) published last year in response to the progressive suggestions of Cardinal Walter Kasper: not only will the adoption of these new measures come to “a concerning end result, but also the absence of publicity (no mid-session report) will allow totally false accounts to circulate—even concerning the intention of the Pope—with near total impunity.” Source – Dici
Weren’t female deacons ordained in the early Church? There are female deacons mentioned in the Bible, in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans 16:1-3, when St. Paul stated:
“And I commend to you Phebe, our sister, who is in the ministry of the church, that is in Cenchrae: That you receive her in the Lord as becometh saints; and that you assist her in whatsoever business she shall have need of you. For she also hath assisted many, and myself also”.
Now, this office of ‘deacon’ may just be a generic office or institution, as St. Paul mentions deacons elsewhere, but I don’t think we can make assumptions regarding what St. Paul said regarding this as women in the early Church received a valid Sacramental Ordination, as Bishop Kallistos Ware, an Orthodox Bishop in England wrote:
‘The order of deaconesses seems definitely to have been considered an “ordained” ministry during early centuries in at any rate the Christian East. … Some Orthodox writers regard deaconesses as having been a “lay” ministry. There are strong reasons for rejecting this view. In the Byzantine rite the liturgical office for the laying-on of hands for the deaconess is exactly parallel to that for the deacon; and so on the principle lex orandi, lex credendi—the Church’s worshipping practice is a sure indication of its faith—it follows that the deaconesses receives, as does the deacon, a genuine sacramental ordination: not just a χειροθεσια (chirothesia) but a χειροτονια (chirotonia). However, the ordination of women in the Catholic Church does exist. Although it is not widespread, it is official by the Roman [sic] Catholic Church’. Source: “Man, Woman and the Priesthood of Christ,” in Women and the Priesthood, ed. T. Hopko (New York, 1982, reprinted 1999),
Phebe (or Phoebe) may well have been validly ordained according to the rite articulated by Bishop Ware. The Orthodox Church, I hasten to add, shares our Church’s theology regarding the Sacraments and Female Ordinations. Likewise, the author of the above source, Fr. Thomas Hopko, an Orthodox Priest, who quoted Bishop Ware, was opposed to women priests.
As for polygamy, the Church must declare those marriages null and void, and instead of telling the man to send his wives away, he must keep them in his house, or else provide for them in some other way, so as to prevent them falling into penury or other misfortune. He must live with them as if they were his sisters in chastity. They have after all served him in the domestic environment and provided him with children.
CC,
I think St. Paul was referring to Phoebe more in the sense of a nun than a deacon. The term “ministry” was applied by the early Christians to various offices, both religious and lay, which can be a bit confusing, not to mention useful to the liberals of our day. However, there is no actual evidence to suggest that minor orders were imposed on women at any time in the Church’s history. Paganism alone is unique for priestesses and the like.
You are mistaken. Sacramental Ordination for women in minor orders did exist in the early Church. Did you read the quote from Bishop Kallistos Ware which I put above? It states as a footnote in the New International Version of the Bible that the
‘Apostle Paul used the Greek diakonos (διάκονος) to designate Phoebe as a deacon. A transliteration of the original Greek, it is the same word as used elsewhere by Paul to refer to deacons. The word deacon in Paul’s writings sometimes refers to a Christian designated to serve with the overseers of the church, while it more often refers to “servants” in a general sense. In the letter to the Romans, apart from the debated case of Phoebe, it always refers to “servants” in the generic sense, as opposed to a church office’.
Some scholars believe Phoebe was responsible for delivering Paul’s epistle to the Roman Christian church. According to Dean and professor of theology Denis Fortin, Phoebe served the church at Cenchrae in the same capacity that Paul, Apollos, Tychicus, Epaphras, Archippus, and Onesimus did elsewhere. He writes it is possible that not all churches had women diakonos, but some churches like Cenchrae did. He believes 1 Timothy 3:11 seems to imply that Timothy also had women diakonos in his churches.[9]
Professor Philip Payne points out that Romans was written before any surviving reference to the office of “overseer” in a local church. He suggests that Paul, wanting to describe the authority and responsibility Phoebe held in the church at Cenchrae, used the term “deacon” (diakonos [masculine] διάκονος)—the only officially recognized title for a local church leader that existed “at that time and/or place”. If by “leader” (prostatis προστάτις) Paul identifies a church office here, Payne believes he was describing Phoebe using two titles for a church office that may have been equivalent to the later-documented titles “overseer,” “elder,” and “pastor.”
Payne concludes that Phoebe is the only person “unambiguously identified by name and given a title for local church leader in the New Testament”. Furthermore, she may have been given two such titles, “deacon of the church of Cenchrae” and/or “leader (προστάτις) of many.” [10] Payne´s theory, while not entirely impossible, is speculative in many regards, mainly because both the Greek term diakonos (possible meaning “servant” in a generic sense) and the Greek term prostatis (possible meaning “patroness” in the sense of being someone who provides financial resources or legal support) may refer to activities, which are not connected to church ministry at all. Translation therefore must be based on context. It has been suggested, that Paul quite unlikely would have referred to somebody as his spiritual leader, since he was leading the mission to the Gentiles. Certain passages in epistles attributed to Paul seem to forbid women’s leadership in the church (e.g. 1 Tim 2:10-14, 1 Cor 14:34-36), but scholars debate whether those verses are of genuine Pauline authorship. (sources: Fortin, Denis. “Was Phoebe A Deacon, A Servant, Or A Minister?” and Payne, Philip. “Is It True That In The NT No Women, Only Men, Are Identified By Name As Elders, Overseers, Or Pastors, And That Consequently Women Must Not Be Elders, Overseers, Or Pastors?”.)
She may even have been a “minister”, according to Denis Fortin who maintains that the KJV, NKJV, NASB and ESV consistently translate diakonos as “minister” when the word is used in connection to a male person, but not so when it comes to Phoebe. He asks if modern negative attitudes toward women in ministry might have been shaped by biased translators of the Bible. In contrast, however, William Tyndale’s New Testament (published in 1534) consistently referred to Phoebe and all of Paul’s co-workers as “ministers” with no distinction between them. The same is true of the Geneva Bible (1560). Fortin suggests that if these translations had been followed for this verse when the King James Version was produced in 1611, perhaps today there would be less resistance toward women in ministry.
It is also clear that St. Paul was not talking about nuns, as they are alluded to in a separate sense. St. Paul mentions them in 1 Cor. 7:34 when he says ‘And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband’.
CatholicConvert,
Sorry, but it’s you who is mistaken. The following is from the Catholic Encyclopaedia:
The 19th canon of the Council of Nicaea, [ ] distinctly lays down that deaconesses are to be accounted as lay persons and that they receive no ordination properly so called (Hefele-LeClercq, Conciles, I, 618).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm
CC, why are you studying, quoting extensively from, and seemingly having your opinions formed by a bishop/theologian of the Orthodox church, a Seventh-Day Adventist and a cleric/scholar of the Evangelical Free Church? Why are you consulting Protestant versions of the Bible in support of your recently-acquired un-Catholic views? Why are you expressing un-Catholic doubts about the authenticity of parts of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Corinthians? I hope you’re kidding us😮.
Christina,
I was just about to say the very same thing to CC.
I hope he’s kidding us – or he won’t be a “CatholicConvert1” any more!
I was also just about to say that Catholic Convert maybe still has a bit of converting still to do if he believes women were ordained in the early Church.
Christina,
I think you have just, albeit unwittingly, described the ecumenical movement down to its last detail! Well said!
Thank you for patronising me, and for basically saying that I am not allowed to exercise my right to think and express an opinion. I don’t if it was a mistake on your part Christina but you did type ‘Bishop’ with a small ‘b’. Bishop Ware is a validly ordained Bishop, as the Orthodox have valid sacraments. As for the rest of you, I am as Catholic as you are.
I have not advocated the ordination of women deacons or the ordination of women in general, not least because if women are ordained as deacons they would argue for women priests. I accept the Church’s theology on women priests. I am merely stating that women may have been ordained in the early Church, and I have provided evidence from Bishop Ware, as well as other scholars who have studied Greek texts. You seem to have ignored the information I provided pertaining to the Orthodox Church’s theology on the Priesthood. Bishop Ware is not expressing an Orthodox opinion, he is expressing a historical fact, that there was a ceremony to ordain women as deacons in the early Church before the great schism, and that this ordination rite was sacramental and was directly the same as that of deacons. If you can’t accept facts then that is your problem.
With respect, Catholic Convert , you are come tell mixed up. Just because the obscure, schismatic bishop you quote may have valid ordination this does not mean that you can place any sort of authority on what he says. He isn’t a Catholic, for goodness sake, surely you realise this?
CC,
Please don’t take it as “patronising” when a fellow (or sister!) blogger corrects anything erroneous in your comments. That’s what to expect in any discussion, oral or written.
All the “scholars” in creation can claim there was an ordination ceremony for women in the early Church and every one of them would be wrong. The key thing to remember about “scholars” – whether allegedly experts in Scripture or Theology, is that none of them, nor all of them combined, has any authority to pronounce definitively on any matter of Faith or Morals.
Just as it won’t matter one jot or tittle to future generations (if there are any!) whether the Movement for the Ordination of Married Men or the various feminist movements for women’s ordination had x number of members and held their own ceremonies, so it really doesn’t matter what the “scholars” to whom you refer have discovered or think they have discovered. There’s an explanation, believe me. The Catholic Church is where to look for divine revelation and unless God has revealed that He wishes women priests, then it really doesn’t matter one iota what some bunch of nuts did in the first century.
Maybe some future “scholar” will unearth the fact that there were a bunch women, who used to protest outside the Catholic cathedral in Edinburgh every Holy Week before the Chrism Mass, dressed as priests, wearing (flamboyant) stoles and carrying their protest banners, with the support of at least one priest of the Edinburgh archdiocese in their line-up. I only witnessed it once, because when I heard about this annual shenanigans-fest, we organised a group to go along and protest at the protest, so to speak… Interestingly, Cardinal O’Brien invited the protesting feminists in to form the “offertory procession” at the Mass and then mentioned Catholic Truth in his homily, as “that scurrilous rag that comes in the post, with monotonous regularly.” Oh well. You wins some, and you lose some…
As you know now, but as future generations won’t know if they rely on dissident sources, or those unqualified to speak on the matter, the “scurrilous rag” contained the undiluted and authentic teaching of the Church on women’s ordination as on everything else, while the female would-be priestesses, were a faithless and dissident bunch – albeit a pretty, glamorous even, faithless and dissident bunch.
The Early Church did NOT ordain women, and deaconesses were nothing more than helpers, e.g. when women being baptised were immersed in water and needed the help of another woman to guard her modesty.
Now, my final word on this is; if you really want to safeguard your Catholic Faith you will not rely on secular or any other non-Catholic source. And that really IS a fact…
CC, I’m sorry that you thought I was patronising you – that was far from my intention. I was shocked and saddened that you are searching for ‘facts’ touching on the faith from the writings of schismatics and heretics. You shared your search for the one true, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church with bloggers here, and if you cannot understand my sadness then, to quote, ‘that is your problem’ – a very big one.
CC: I may have disagreed with you on previous threads, but I’m with you on this point. Personally, I found the Early Church a fascinating part of theological study, and in many respects highly relevant to the issues we face today.
FWIW I’d say the more you think and express your own opinion the stronger you will become as a Catholic.
As St Anselm said, theology is faith seeking understanding.
I think the Phoebe dilemma is easily resolved. In Rom. xvi the Vulgate translates the Greek diakonos but in 1 Tim. iii,8 – where St Paul is explicitly talking about men – the Vulgate transliterates it. This is pretty good evidence that the early Church did not regard its application to Phoebe as a ‘technical term’.
Modern English words can have different meanings depending on context and the same is true of first century Greek.
Reblogged this on 2012-2019: de 'grote verdrukking' (apocalyps).
Pastoor Geudens
Many thanks for re-blogging this – I have posted a thank you over on your blog.
‘Creative Minority Report’ reports on a worrying quote from Cardinal Marx:
Cardinal Marx: “We must try to remain together,” he said. “The Church is the only institution in the world that can reach unanimous agreement. Thank God we have the pope. We bishops do not have to decide. Church unity is not in danger. And once the pope has decided, we will abide by his decision.”
The linked article points out that this is concerning because, previously, the boorish Marx was boasting that the German Church was “not a subsiduary of Rome” and was threatening unilateral action if he didnt get his way.
Yet now he promotes unity and obedience – surely because he expects the Germans to get their way, wrt the Kapser proposal etc?
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2015/10/the-scariest-quote-of-synod.html
Gabriel Syme,
Spot on.
This morning’s post brought a letter from an Irish reader who reports that “…A Nigerian priest condemned sodomy and divorce at Sunday Mass last, in Co. Longford, so the LGBT brigade complained. Bishop Francis Duffy issued an apology, on radio – a disgrace”
Too right it is a disgrace. These wimpish bishops are just contemptible. It’s difficult to see how they can about-turn if the Pope’s final decision post-Synod is “no change” – if, as he should, he announces that, just as the moral teaching on divorce and sodomy cannot change, neither can the discipline on reception of Holy Communion, which is there to prevent compounding these publicly sinful situations with another public sin – sacrilege.
Pray for Bishop Duffy of Co. Longford, and all the other episcopal cowards, who after years of spiritual deprivation (think “novus ordo” Mass) and media brainwashing, just don’t know right from wrong any more. Relativism leads to nihilism – and that is their state right now; unable to distinguish right from wrong, truth from error. God help them.
It would take a Nigerian priest to remind the faithful (faithless???) of the gravity of sodomy and divorce; the Irish priests and bishops appear too concerned with keeping up a good image in the Irish media & in society. Of course, the LGBT brigade complained!! And OF COURSE Bishop Francis Duffy apologised on radio! The grovelling of these men of the cloth is sickening; do they not realise that Christ and His Church contain the fullness of truth and goodness?? (rhetorical question; obviously not!!)
You are also correct, Editor, in highlighting what is often forgotten in the Church these days; the deadly consequences of sacrilegeous communions: I can’t recall the quote from sacred scripture off the top of my head right now, but is concerns sinners heaping coals upon their own heads by their evil deeds.
The Catholic Herald has the texts of the current reports from the 4 English speaking small discussion groups at the Synod:
Circulus Anglicus A:
Rapporteur: Archbishop Joseph Kurtz (USA)
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/10/09/english-synod-group-as-report-full-text/
Circulus Anglicus B:
Rapporteur: Archbishop Diarmuid Martin (IRE)
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/10/09/english-synod-group-bs-report-full-text/
Circulus Anglicus C:
Rapporteur: Archbishop Mark Coleridge (AUS)
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/10/09/english-synod-group-cs-report-full-text/
Circulus Anglicus D:
Rapporteur: Archbishop Charles Chaput (USA)
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/10/09/english-synod-group-ds-report-full-text/
I havent had time to read them all in great detail as yet, but Group D’s report did encourage me. It savages the Instrumentum Laboris, the heterodox working document of the synod, saying much of is “flawed or inadequate” and basically says it should be rewritten. It also criticises the stark euro-centricity of the document.
Groups C’s report is worrisome I think; the group doesnt seem to know what a family is, but – strangely – still manages to assert that there are “many different kinds” of family. How can they possibly say that, if they are not sure what “family” means in the first instance?
Let us be clear! the ordination of women cannot be done because it is not provided for in the plan of God. Any “odination” in this case would be invalid. Nobody, even the pope, can do anything about this.
The best argument I have heard against the ordination of women actually came from a woman. She said that women would never be ordained to the priesthood as they would be unable to keep the seal of the confessional. The urge to gossip about what they had heard would be too much.
Vianney,
I’ve often thought that myself. Our sins would be all over the place. LOL !
Fair play to Joe O’Connell for sending that report. He is a great Fatima man and would put many of us to shame. It is so tragic what is going on in Rome: however, this has all been foretold at Quito, Fatima & Akita; the widespread loss of faith and apostasy in the Church.
I am aware that alleged apparitions in Garabandal in the 1960s has been neither approved or disproved by the church (to the best of my knowledge!); however this alleged quote from those happenings appears very appropriate for these days:
“Since my message of October 18 has not been made known to the world and has not been fulfilled, I tell you that this is my last message. Previously, the cup was being filled. Now it is overflowing. Many Cardinals, many Bishops and many Priests are on the road to perdition and with them they are bringing many souls. The Holy Eucharist is being given less importance (honor). We must avoid God’s anger with us by our efforts at amendment. If we beg pardon with sincerity of soul, He will forgive us. I, your Mother, through the intercession of St. Michael the Archangel, want to tell you to amend your lives. You are already receiving one of the last warnings. I love you very much and do not want your condemnation. Ask sincerely and we will give to you. You should make more sacrifices. Think of the Passion of Jesus.” (June 18, 1965)
“As for the Sacrament of Matrimony, which symbolizes the union of Christ with His Church, it will be attacked and profaned in the fullest sense of the word. Masonry, which will then be in power, will enact iniquitous laws with the objective of doing away with this Sacrament, making it easy for everyone to live in sin, encouraging the procreation of illegitimate children born without the blessing of the Church. The Christian spirit will rapidly decay, extinguishing the precious light of Faith until it reaches the point that there will be an almost total and general corruption of customs. The effects of secular education will increase, which will be one reason for the lack of priestly and religious vocations…” (Our Lady of Good Success to Mother Mariana deJesus Torres at Quito, Ecuador, 15th century)
A “diabolical disorientation” will permeate the Church.
Multitudes of churchmen—religious, priests, bishops, cardinals—will fall away from the Catholic Faith.
Multitudes of Catholic faithful will be lead into apostasy (and hell) because of blind obedience to false shepherds. ( from fatima.ageofmary.com/apostasy website (don’t know how orthodox this site is)
“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see Cardinals opposing Cardinals, Bishops against other Bishops. The priests who venerate Me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres (other priests). Churches and altars will be sacked. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises, and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord. ( Akita, Japan).
I don’t think the Church every “disproves” an apparition, just ignores them or pronounces them “worthy of belief” (or something like that.)
I used to think Garabandel would be approved but it hasn’t been so I don’t quote it. I do know people who are keen on it and it’s because of that quote about cardinals and bishops on road to perdition, but that’s not enough to make it true, IMHO. There have always been bad bishops. I would like to know why it’s not been approved, if anyone knows.
I should have said that I think Medjugorje will be “disproved”, i.e. something said to show that it is not worthy of belief, but that’s because it has such a strong following and people need to know that it is not an approved shrine.
Agreed, the question of the ordination of women, as deacons or priests, should not be part of a synod on the family. But how can we possibly know the provisions of ‘the plan of God’ with regard to women’s ordination, or anything else?
Pew Catholic,
We covered this question of how we can know the plan of God, in our August edition, quoting extensively from Father Gruner’s excellent book “Crucial Truths To Save Your Soul.”
Below is an extract from another very good source which clearly explains how God gave His Church the great gift of infallibility in order, precisely, that we would know His will in these matters which are now so controversial…
“If a teaching is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, it is necessarily definitive and therefore infallible. However, controversies sometimes arise as to whether a particular doctrine is in fact a teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. On such occasions, the Pope can definitively confirm or reaffirm that a particular doctrine is indeed infallibly taught by that Magisterium. In such cases, the Pope does not make an ex cathedra pronouncement. Rather, he infallibly and definitively pronounces that a doctrine “has been constantly maintained and held by Tradition and transmitted by the ordinary, universal Magisterium.”[3]
The definitive character of such papal pronouncements is rooted in the very Tradition they confirm. Thus, the infallibility of these reaffirmations follows in part from the infallibility of previous teachings they affirm. As Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, the secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has explained, “a papal pronouncement of confirmation enjoys the same infallibility as the teaching of the ordinary, universal Magisterium. . . .”[4] These definitive pronouncements provide a more concrete way of knowing that a doctrine has been proposed infallibly.
Pope John Paul II’s definitive pronouncement that only men can be ordained to the ministerial priesthood is a recent example of an infallible papal confirmation. He made his pronouncement in his 1994 apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone):
[T]hat priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents. . . . Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk. 22:32), I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful (no. 4).
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is a good example of a definitive papal pronouncement that confirms or reaffirms a teaching of the ordinary and universal papal Magisterium. The Pope states that the teaching regarding priestly ordination is “the constant and universal Tradition of the Church.” He thus definitively identifies the teaching as magisterial. The Holy Father then definitively states that his pronouncement is a confirmation (“in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren”). Finally, affirming that he is acting to remove all doubt on the matter, the Pope adds that his “judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
Another example of how a Pope can definitively pronounce without an ex cathedra statement concerns contraception. In 1930, the Anglican Church broke with longstanding Christian Tradition and taught that contraception could be allowed in some “difficult” cases. In response, Pope Pius XI issued that same year his encyclical Casti Connubii (On Christian Marriage). Speaking “in token” of the Church’s “divine ambassadorship,” Pius XI reaffirmed that this teaching belonged to “the uninterrupted Christian Tradition,” proclaiming anew that “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature. . .” (no. 56). Pius XI’s definitive pronouncement illustrates that the issue of contraception was definitively settled long before Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, which itself affirms that same “uninterrupted Christian Tradition.” Other recent examples include John Paul II’s definitive pronouncements regarding abortion, murder, and euthanasia in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life).
Christ has provided the Magisterium as a great gift to His Church, so that the faithful may give free and grateful assent to the saving truth God has revealed to His Church. The Magisterium enables the faithful to live God’s truth in the abundantly fruitful manner He intended. When the Magisterium pronounces definitively on a matter of faith or morals, the Holy Spirit ensures that the Church will not teach erroneously. The Church can pronounce infallibly through the extraordinary Magisterium as well as through the ordinary and universal Magisterium. He who hears and obeys the Church hears and obeys her founder, Jesus Christ. And, as Jesus promised, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (Jn. 8:31-32). Source.
Does this help?
And, for the record, although there were female deacons in the early Church, they didn’t do any of the things the bishops now suggest. Their purpose was to enable women being baptised to do so with modesty, that sort of thing. They did not “preside” or “lead” any kind of services. We once published an article on this in the newsletter. This call for women deacons is another attempt to change Church teachings by the back door. They’re playing us all for fools, and, unfortunately, there is so much ignorance out there that an awful lot of Catholics, if not the majority, oblige only too readily.
CONCERNING THE “PRIESTHOOD” OF WOMEN (Paris, le 14 mars 2005):
That is that we hear about the “priesthood” of women under the pretext of equality with men, whereas it is only a difference! Is there a reasonably accurate scale of classification of either complementary beings or of a different nature?
Women can never have access to the Priesthood, because it is not included in the plan of God. Even if a bishop were to conduct an “ordination”, it would not be valid, it would be a travesty and sacrilege which, in my opinion, would be of an extreme gravity, because there would be a risk of rupture in the “apostolic succession”. That we must fear most.
From the beginning, God chose to incarnate in a man through the Virgin Mary Immaculate who, more than any other woman, would have deserved to be ordained priest. The Sacrament of Holy Order being closely linked to the Eternal Priesthood of Jesus Christ who died on the Cross to save us, every priest is the icon of Christ, despite his failings, in a totally supernatural relationship that transcends us and that we will discover, I believe, in the hereafter. Moreover, as I just mentioned, the Priesthood is not separable from the Sacrifice of the Cross perpetuated over time by the Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice and it is a man who died on the Cross, Jesus Christ, the Priest ultimately and not a woman. Therefore, for those who, wherever possible, know how to evaluate the importance and the value of the Everlasting Priesthood in the light of the constant teaching of the Church and the witness of saints, it is unthinkable that a woman has access and any “ordination” would, in this case, be invalid and sacrilegious with certainty.
One can always argue that protestants have already made the “ordination” of women. Well, it does not matter because they have long since broken the “apostolic succession” and their celebrations are therefore only mock sacraments. They can mimic the Church, but their ceremonies have no consistency, they are devoid of the presence of God and the fact to let anybody beleive, knowingly, that their clergy is invested in Priesthood and can therefore act in communion with Catholic and Orthodox clergy who has not broken the “apostolic succession”, is a real sin.
“Ordination” of women is simply impossible, because it was not planned from the outset.
I cannot resist in reminding you of the excellent Anthony’s refutation on “the ordination of women” (July 24, 2010 at 1:51 pm):
The Catholic Church venerates Our Lady as the pinnacle of womanhood, both as Mother and Virgin.
For a woman to seek priesthood would assume a dimension distinct from the fulfilment of womanhood achieved by Our Lady. It would diminish Our Lady as the model of perfect and complete womanhood by introducing a further role for women, one in which she does not partake.
The arrival of women priests would mean that Our Lady, despite her position as Mother of God and Virgin of virgins, no longer represents the pinnacle of womanhood. It would be an admission that she is lacking in her fulfilment of that role since she has missed out on a further role which is the priestly ministry.
Clearly, for Catholics this would be an intolerable position. Our Lady is God’s perfect creature whom He has crowned as Queen of Heaven. She has received God’s favour and is lacking in nothing. Female ministry would be a contradiction of her position and therefore a contradiction of the marvels that God has done for her.
Thank you, Editor and Lionel, for taking the trouble to reply so fully to my comment, in spite of it being a bit off-topic.
Pew Catholic,
I’m curious about your question as I vaguely remember you saying (jokingly, probably) that you were all for women priests. If you weren’t joking, have you changed your mind, knowing that it is part of the unchangeable teaching of the Church that only men are ordained? I hope you don’t mind me asking.
Fidelis,
You kidding me? Pew Catholic gave up all hopes of being ordained a long time ago after our discussions on the subject. She’s no Dopey Dinah, our Pew Catholic, she knows what side her lay vocation is buttered on, so to speak 😀
Fidelis, I’m still reading the replies and thinking about them. Editor, no-one would ever want to ordain me, whatever gender I was! Even the Anglicans would think twice!
Does anybody buy this? Has the ‘real’ Francis really stood up…..?
https://www.pop.org/content/real-pope-francis-has-stood
Pat McKay,
Pope Francis is a Modernist, which means that he will say the orthodox thing on one page, to quote Pope Saint Pius X “Pascendi”, and then say something different, on the next.
That article was a typical article by someone desperate to deny the obvious. The way they report his meeting with Kim Davies is an example. The article makes it sound like the Pope defended Kim, but he didn’t, all he defended was the “human right to conscientious objection”. That could mean the opposite to what Kim believed about homosexuality. He refuses to condemn homosexual activity and that’s the problem. He makes general statements about marriage between a man and a woman and procreation when (like in the photo on the article) he is with a man and a woman and their baby! The meeting with Kim Davies was kept quiet by the Vatican and then played down, so I wouldn’t put much trust in that Population website. They are obviously looking for the information that suits their purpose.
So, no I don’t think the “real Francis” has stood up. There was nothing new in that report, it’s all been said before and discussed on blogs, including this one. He says whatever the person in front of him wants to hear. In fact, the only people he has outright condemned are those who like the Traditional Latin Mass and he even mocked the people who sent him a spiritual rosary bouquet when he became pope. It’s his attitude to the traditional Church that shows the “real Francis” and his anxiety to please gays, transgenders and others with a gripe against the Church and its morality that show the “real Francis”. I wish it wasn’t, but that’s how I see it.
And that’s how I see it, as well – no question about it, Pope Francis, to quote Bishop Fellay, is an “outright Modernist” which is another way of saying he’s all things to all dissenters. He had no right (and I mean that, literally) to call a synod to discuss marriage and the family in the context of “pastoral practice”, giving the huge opening which we are witnessing to the dissenters to push their heresies.
The real Pope Francis is the one who grabs microphones on planes and talks nonsense, phones homosexuals in partnerships to ask them for a hug and is generally bringing the papacy into disrepute – more so, with every day that passes.
At this stage, Pat McKay, nobody should be fooled by those who are grasping, quite foolishly, at straws, trying to interpret all the nonsense and scandal coming from this pope in a way that makes sense of it. Mission impossible.
Editor, Fidelis,
I too agree that Pope Francis is a Modernist.
This article in the Remnant Newspaper titled Vandals in Rome: Will they sack Christian Marriage? says as much, too.
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2066-vandals
Well, it’s good to know I’m not the only one who didn’t buy this ‘real Francis’ stuff.
Forgive me for banging on about the St. Andrews Uni/Hillary Clinton issue once again, but to my mind that was when he ‘nailed his true colours to the mast’. He could have chosen to completely ignore this, but when he got involved he only gave pro-lifers the ‘middle-finger salute’ and sent his ‘cordial greetings’ to Clinton et al.
He reminds me of our old friend Jim ‘Dwyson’ (wonder whose money he’s ‘hoovering up’ these days), in that he ‘says whatever the person in front of him wants to hear’. A highly plausible character, who wants to be ‘all things to all men’. He, too, will see his day.
Oh, sorry. I was logged in as another user.
Repeat.
Everyone should ponder upon this. Sign from God?
https://damselofthefaith.wordpress.com/2015/10/10/the-stench-of-hell/
DOTF,
I have left a comment in response to J. Light on your blog – it is self-explanatory.
An interesting report from Rorate Caeli, nonetheless. Thank you for alerting us to that.
(Sorry. Wrong user again. Won’t happen again!)
Thank you, Editor.
My reply to you:
Thanks for your comment, Editor. I agree, for the most part. We certainly do not desire that a soul go to hell. We want people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Hence why we do what we do.
I’m wondering what THIS is all about – The Case of the Curious Letter…
Editor,
It was originally reported (by Sandro Magister) that 13 Cardinals signed the letter, but now it is claimed there were 9 signatories – Caffara, Collins, Dolan, Pell, Eijk, Napier, Urosa and Sarah.
It seems that Pell has confirmed his signature, if in a roundabout way. His spokesperson issued a statement about it, saying there were errors in the reported content and regarding the signatories, and saying a private letter should remain private.
Erdo, Scola, Piacenza and Vingt-Trois have seemingly denied signing it, after it was claimed they had.
See this Rorate link:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/10/synod-week-2-begins-13-cardinal-letter.html#more
The letter seems to have been presented on day 1, and Cardinal Napier has since said fears of manipulation “had been allayed” – see below – yet the Rorate article claims the letter was ignored by Pope Francis.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/10/08/suspicion-about-rigging-of-synod-has-been-allayed-says-cardinal-napier/
Apologies, the 9th Signatory was Cardinal Mueller – I accidentally omitted him above!
On this anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun, may we pray that Our Lady of Fatima will work another great miracle in the minds and hearts of all involved in the ‘Synod from Hell’. Our Lady of Fatima pray for us.
Christina,
Well said.
I have just come across this report and you know that, when folks start talking about “the middle ground” – barring a miracle – the game’s up.
This is an interesting insight on the leaked letter from Cardinal Mueller…
Vatican City, Oct 13, 2015 / 11:48 am (CNA/EWTN News) Cardinal Gerhard Müller spoke with an Italian daily on Tuesday about the synod and about a letter allegedly sent to Pope Francis from a number of cardinals abouts its process, calling the leak of a private document scandalous.
“I’m not saying whether I signed or not. The scandal is that it makes public a private letter of the Pope,” the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith told Corriere della Sera Oct. 13. “This is a new Vatileaks: the Pope’s private documents are private property of the Pope and no one else. No one can publish it, I do not know how that could happen.”
“The intention of those who willed its publication is to sow strife, to create tensions. I think that’s clear.”
The text of a letter, and a list of 13 cardinal signatories, were published by Vaticanista Sandro Magister the day before. Several of the prelates listed have denied having signed the document, and others have contested the text published by Magister.
Cardinal Müller is among the list of signatories published by Magister, as well as an alternate version published by Jesuit-run America magazine.
After discussing the letter with Corriere della Sera, the cardinal turned to larger issues of the synod, and Francis’ papacy.
He took umbrage at “those who sustain that in the Roman Curia there is opposition to the Pope. Those who say and write that there are wolves, that Francis is surrounded by wolves. This is an offensive expression, and criminal. I am not a wolf against the Pope.”
“I know who is the Pope and what is meant by his primacy a thousand times better than those who say these things. As prefect of the Congregation, I am the first collaborator of the Holy Father; not only myself but all those who are part of it. I will let no one put in doubt my obedience and my service to the Pope and the Church.”
Pope Francis had cautioned last week against a ‘hermeneutic of conspiracy’ surrounding the synod, and Cardinal Müller reflected that the ‘conspiracy’ would be “To say we are friends of the Pope, and they are the enemy!”
“I do not know anyone here who is against the Pope,” he affirmed.
Acknowledging that there has been concern expressed over the synod’s regulations, he said it “always discusses how to improve procedures, everyone has the freedom to say their opinion on this: the regulations are a human, not a divine law!”
Cardinal Müller spoke positively about the use of small groups for discussion at the synod, saying that “everyone has the freedom to express themselves more fully,” and that “in the [synod] hall there are only three minutes for each intervention, and a synthesis of all aspects cannot be done.”
“There was tension between doctrine and pastoral approach,” the cardinal said, “but it is the task of the synod to see these two aspects together. Every Catholic bishop, in his person, is a teacher of the faith and also shepherd of the flock.”
Regarding the link between doctrine and mercy, Cardinal Müller said, “Orthodoxy must be realized in pastoral care, and there is not a healthy pastoral care without doctrine: that is the teaching of Jesus, not an academic doctrine of theologians.”
He added that the debates should not be characterized as between “liberals” who are approved by the masses, and unpopular “conservatives” who defend the doctrine revealed by Christ.
“It is not as if one [bishop] is of the Ten Commandments, and another is of mercy. And the Gospel requires also the conversion of our lives. The door is narrow.”
Cardinal Müller then turned to the divorced-and-remarried.
“Persons are suffering because their marriage is broken, not because they cannot receive Communion. For us the center of the Eucharist is the consecration: each Christian has the obligation to attend Mass, but not to receive Communion. Concentrating only on this one point resolves nothing.”
He added that “a general rule” in this regard “is not possible.”
“Marriage is a sacrament, and the Church has not authority over a sacrament.” Source
Ah, yes. The old ‘The truth always lies between two extremes’ fallacy. I wondered when, and in what guise, that one would be trotted out.
I also notice that Abp. Coleridge (of Brisbane) is saying “I think our language has to become more biblical”. I rather fancy that what he really means is less biblical. Otherwise what difficulty does he perceive in “What therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder”? (Mark x,9)
Confitebor Domino,
“Less biblical” – LOL ! That is the diabolical disorientation of this crisis today for sure – everything is the wrong way round !
These liberals are really saying what David Cameron has said, that marriage is so good and so important that they want everyone to have it, i.e. same sex couples!
How can any person, let alone Catholic prelates, be so utterly confused, not to say downright stupid?
It’s like the people who say any religion is better than no religion, like President Eisenhower (spelling?) who said it was better than people should belong to a faith than not to belong to a faith, no matter what that faith was. How unthinking is that?
Yet, that’s what they are saying about this same-sex “marriage” – it’s good that they are in “stable” relationships rather than be promiscuous, and marriage is so good everyone should have one! LOL!
Next thing, they’ll be wanting weddings for dogs and cats!
Believe it or not, that has already been done (in the US of A I think)!😁
Gabriel Syme,
As Petrus has already said above, when Cardinal Mueller (whose appointment at the CDF caused such consternation at the time, such was his “liberal” reputation) stands with the “conservatives” then we know that things are very serious indeed!
DOTF
We know what the smell of sulphur represents. And its not just bad eggs!
Interested to read about the terrible stench from the body of John XX111 also on the site.
My old man told me about a huge asteroid coming quite near to earth (in planetary terms) which could absolutely finish us if it hit us.
Another sign from above?
Lord have mercy on us.
I see its the Feast of The Motherhood of Mary tomorrow so prayer please for an end to abortion and for all pro-lifers.
Clothilde,
I have replied to the claims about the stench from various popes on their deaths – if you visit Damsel’s blog again you can read my response to those claims, which came from J. Light (not Damsel, I’m happy to say). I think you will agree that we would need solid first class sources before taking them seriously.
You good folks may care to ‘eyeball’ this, a presentation we had at Mass this morning…..
http://www.northamptondiocese.org/THEBISHOP/Octobervideo/tabid/512/Default.aspx
Pat McKay,
Many thanks for alerting us to Bishop Doyle’s personal address, played at Masses in his diocese this morning.
One of the many things that jumped out at me from his address is the way the hierarchy, having refused to fight the introduction of same-sex marriage, are now using the fact that it has now been passed into law, as an excuse to accept it and try to find a way to give couples the Church’s blessing, so to speak.
Some questions I’d like answered:
1) What does he (and other Modernists) mean by “the messiness of our lives” – what does that MEAN?
2) What are the “Catholic” boxes we don’t always “tick” – again, what does that MEAN?
3) When he says we should accept ourselves as we are and not as we think we should be, is he giving us permission to ignore Christ’s exhortation to “be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect”? I speak as one who would dearly love to be exempt from that exhortation, as I’m finding it very hard work indeed just to be civil about certain of my fellow “Catholics” (read inverted commas as a way of communicating my personal opinion about their alleged “Catholicity.”) So, I have a very real personal interest in knowing whether or not we just accept ourselves a we are and get on with life, or whether we are meant to follow the Gospel exhortation to seek perfection.
I’ve copied the embed code to make the video immediately available here – Pat McKay’s link leads to the Diocese of Northampton website, so anyone who is in the mood to contact the bishop to ask him to explain what he means on any or all of the above, should use Pat’s link. Then come back here and explain it all to us!
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDf2UUarOZA?feature=player_embedded&w=640&h=360%5D
My my doesn’t he not half get about some of those air fares from him would keep a third world country in food for some time . Hope he’s going to chip in a few bob with all of the Rich clergy to help the Foreign Mission appeal next Sunday,won’t hold my breath though.
From Catholic Family News…
Oct 9 LGBT radical supporter to moderate English-speaking synod group
VINCENT CARDINAL NICHOLS, Archbishop of Westminster, has been elected as moderator of the one of the four English-speaking circuli minores (small groups) at the Ordinary Synod on the Family. The moderator has extensive influence on the direction of the discussion and thus on the content of the final report of the small group.
Cardinal Nichols’s approach to human sexuality has caused the pro-life, pro-family movement grave concern for many years. Serious questions have been raised about his approach to issues as diverse as abortion, contraception, the rights and status of the embryo, sex education, homosexual unions and the reception of Holy Communion for the ‘divorced and remarried’.
Nichols publicly supports radical activist group LGBT Catholics Westminster, which publicly rejects Catholic teachings on homosexuality. A Mass for ‘LGBT Catholics’ in the Archdiocese Westminster was first established in 1999. In 2009 Archbishop Vincent Nichols (who was made a cardinal by Pope Francis in January 2014) succeeded to the See of Westminster and continued the policy of official support for LGBT Catholics Westminster. In January 2013 the group moved to the Jesuit church of the Immaculate Conception, Farm Street, from which they continue to run their ministry of dissent.
A leading member of the group, Martin Pendergast, spoke at the LGBT conference held in Rome the day before the Ordinary Synod opened and called for homosexuals to have the ‘same rights as heterosexuals to receive the sacraments’. Pendergast, who is an civil partnership, is a former member of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales social welfare committee. He was also a faith-advisory member of the government’s strongly pro-abortion Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group (TPIAG) for five years. His partner Julian Filochowski is former head of the CAFOD, the English and Welsh bishops overseas aid agency.
Pendergast told the conference that his movement has the support of Cardinal Nichols. He spoke with satisfaction about the Farm Street ‘gay Mass’, where ‘pastoral needs and concerns are welcomed by the parish and the diocese’.
In the light of Cardinal Nichols’s public support for the radical LGBT movement and given the centrality of homosexuality in the discussions surrounding the Ordinary Synod, we would like to draw attention to the following troubling statements that he has made on the subject of homosexuality.
Troubling statements made by Cardinal Nichols on homosexuality and homosexual unions
On 2nd July 2010 Archbishop Nichols was interviewed by Stephen Sackur on BBC TV programme Hardtalk.
Stephen Sackur: The Church of England for example in this country is taking a rather different view. They believe there has to be some flexibility. The church has to be a reflection of society’s values to a certain extent and therefore we see women priests, women vicars, and there’s obviously in some parts of the Anglican Communion, women bishops.
Archbishop Nichols: Certainly.
Stephen Sackur: Some of their vicars are also prepared to sanction gay unions. That church is showing flexibility. Is the Catholic church not going to have to do the same eventually?
Archbishop Nichols: I don’t know. Who knows what’s down the road?
On 11th September 2010 Archbishop Nichols was interviewed by Neil Tweedie of The Telegraph and asked if the Church would ‘one day accept the reality of gay partnerships’.
He replied: ‘I don’t know. There is in the Book of Nature an inherent connection between human sexuality and procreation; and those two things cannot ultimately be totally separate. People who are of a homosexual orientation say: ‘Well, hang on a minute. How is the Book of Nature written in me?’ The most important thing the Christian tradition says is, don’t see yourself simply as an isolated individual but as part of a wider family. The moral demands on all of us made by that tradition are difficult. That tradition says human sexuality is for an expression of total self-giving in fidelity in a way that is open to the creation of new life. Now, that’s tough, that’s a high ideal. I’m not sure many people have ever observed it in its totality, but it doesn’t mean to say it has no sense.’
On 20th September 2010 Archbishop Nichols was interviewed on the BBC by Huw Edwards for a programme reflecting on Pope Benedict’s visit to Britain.
Other interviewees included Diarmaid MacCulloch, a homosexual Anglican and Oxford professor of church history, Tina Beattie, a pro-abortion ‘Catholic’ academic and Lord Patten, who helped to organise the papal visit.
At 21 minutes 30 seconds into the programme, Huw Edwards to put it to Professor MacCulloch that Pope Benedict:
‘clearly sees Britain…as a country where there is a lot of growing hostility to faith communities. Is that the right reading?’
Professor MacCulloch replied:
‘That is a code, and it’s a code for something quite specific. The code is: now Britain treats gay people as equal with heterosexual people, and gay partnerships are on the statute book, and the Catholic hierarchy hates that fact. You see them across the world as gay marriages are introduced in country after country…’
Archbishop Nichols intervened in a firm manner to tell Professor MacCulloch:
‘That’s not true, in this country. In this country, we [the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales] were very nuanced. We did not oppose gay civil partnerships, we recognised that in English law there might be a case for those. We persistently said that these are not the same as marriage.’
Later (at 24mins50secs into the programme) Archbishop Nichols said:
‘The times we [the Catholic bishops’ conference of England and Wales] interfere most in British politics is on poverty and education. Of course the media are obsessed with certain issues but if you want to know what it is we’re really passionate about, it’s about the fight against poverty and the education of young people.’
Later (at 27mins30secs into the programme), Professor MacCulloch said:
‘I’m pleased to hear what the archbishop has to say about sexual questions, and it has to be said that the English Catholic Church has rather taken its own line on this, not the Vatican’s line, there is always a certain independence in the English Catholic Church. It’s is good that that should be so.’
The interview did not contain any contradiction by Archbishop Nichols of Professor MacCulloch’s statement that the ‘English Catholic Church’ took a different line to ‘the Vatican’.
On 26th November 2011 The Tablet reported the following words of Archbishop Nichols in an article entitled Archbishop Praises Civil Partnerships:
‘We would want to emphasize that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision,’ the archbishop said. ‘As a Church we are very committed to the notion of equality so that people are treated the same across all the activities of life.’
19th October 2015 – The Telegraph reported Cardinal Nichols’s disappointment at the rejection of the radical language on homosexuality found in the relatio post disceptationem of the Extraordinary Synod on the Family
Nichols expressed his dissatisfaction with the text of the relatio synodi as follows; ‘I didn’t think it went far enough, there were three key words as far as I was concerned … ‘respect’, ‘welcome’ and ‘value’.’ He continued, ‘I was looking for those words and they weren’t there and so I didn’t think that was a good paragraph.’
Cardinal Nichols is President of Marriage Care
Marriage Care is an organisation which provides counselling services to same-sex couples. The Tablet reported, on 15th September 2011, that the Chief Executive of Marriage Care, Terry Prendergast, had said of same-sex couples; ‘We have offered them focused marriage preparation – private, and not in a group. This is about two people in love and one of our main aims is to support loving partnerships.’
In a document on their website Marriage Care explain:
‘Today, Marriage Care sees itself as a service provider of relationship education and support to all sections of the community, delivered from within a Christian ethos, developed from the organisation’s Catholic roots. We understand this Christian ethos to mean in practice that we are open to all, acknowledging the value and uniqueness of every human being regardless of gender, age, race, creed or sexual orientation
‘So, for Marriage Care, the Christian ethos is not made up of a set of doctrines but rather is an exhortation to the members of the charity to be visible by their inclusive and loving behaviour of the other by providing a rich variety of services across the whole community.’
Further disturbing remarks made by Cardinal Nichols about homosexuality can be found here.
Source – note, you need to read the article on the Catholic Family New website here, to read all the links provided
You could be right about delegating the pastoral decisions to local dioceses, and Archbishop Chaput (USA) has spoken of the danger of doing this.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/disunity-in-the-church-is-perilous-archbishop-chaput-cautions-at-synod-38158/
I think he made some very good points, and I was glad to read him taking on the use of terms like “unity in diversity”. That’s long overdue, IMHO.
Damian Thompson on the Cardinals letter:
(he has an interesting take on the denials of having signed the letter, especially in light of Pell saying that it should have remained private)
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/crisis-for-pope-francis-as-top-level-cardinals-tell-him-your-synod-could-lead-to-the-collapse-of-the-church/
ARCHBISHOP FÜLÖP KOCSIS: SYNOD MUST NAME SATAN AS SOURCE OF ATTACKS ON FAMILY
http://voiceofthefamily.com/archbishop-fulop-kocsis-synod-must-name-satan-as-source-of-attacks-on-family/
(the original was in capitals and I have just copied “as is”).
Gabriel Syme,
That’s an excellent link – thank you for alerting us to it. The Archbishop has put his finger right on the button, and he did so brilliantly – concisely and without apology pointing out that these claims to changed circumstances and “challenges” due to problems in marriage blah blah come straight from the Devil. Let’s hope his intervention makes Team Kasper think seriously about what they are doing.
Is the Pope going to abdicate/resign in 2016 interesting article underneath . My personal view is yes he probably is after he has manipulated the synod.
http://www.infowars.com/vatican-insider-pope-francis-will-resign-in-2016-following-argentina-visit/
Let’s hope he hurries up and gets on with it!
Petrus,
LOL ! I see your point, but it makes me really annoyed that he would do that, just resign after causing all the scandals he’s caused.
You are absolutely right, Fidelis . What really concerns me, however, is that Cardinal Muller is aligning more with the conservative camp….how bad must the liberals be if even Cardinal Muller looks conservative compared to them???
John,
That makes me really angry, the very idea that he will manipulate the synod and then resign when he gets to Argentina “job done”. I know we’re not supposed to get angry but this pope really makes me angry, I can’t help it. I don’t wish him any harm, don’t get me wrong, but I hate what he is doing to the Church’s reputation.
Fidelis
I find it sad that a lot of non Catholics can see what is happening to the Catholic Church, and yet the majority of Catholics don’t seem to have a clue.
In my opinion the presenter made some very good points about the papacy trying to make it look like just another job.
Fidelis,
This idea that it is wrong to be angry is a nonsense. I have a friend, a convert from Anglicanism, who can’t see past the scriptural quote “the anger of man worketh not the justice of God” (quoting it against our newsletter and, of course, moi, personally, as if I care) forgetting, entirely, that other scriptural reminder that it is quite possible to “be angry and sin not”. We have the example of Our Lord Himself when He overthrew the tables in the temple and chased the money changers out. Just anger is not only permitted, it can be a duty. Here’s how it is spelt out for us in the Catholic Encyclopaedia, which should serve as a reminder to us not to single out particular verses from Sacred Scripture to use out of context – that’s how Protestantism got off the ground…
THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPAEDIA ON ANGER…
The desire of vengeance. Its ethical rating depends upon the quality of the vengeance and the quantity of the passion. When these are in conformity with the prescriptions of balanced reason, anger is not a sin. It is rather a praiseworthy thing and justifiable with a proper zeal. It becomes sinful when it is sought to wreak vengeance upon one who has not deserved it, or to a greater extent than it has been deserved, or in conflict with the dispositions of law, or from an improper motive. The sin is then in a general sense mortal as being opposed to justice and charity. It may, however, be venial because the punishment aimed at is but a trifling one or because of lack of full deliberation. Likewise, anger is sinful when there is an undue vehemence in the passion itself, whether inwardly or outwardly. Ordinarily it is then accounted a venial sin unless the excess be so great as to go counter seriously to the love of God or of one’s neighbour. Source – Catholic Encyclopaedia Online
I’d say that there is something wrong with anyone who is NOT angry with this dreadful pope, so there is no need for you to apologise for your justifiable and righteous anger. It’s so easy to keep silent and smile and say you are leaving it all to God – in other words, I don’t give a toss!
So, well done for your justifiable and righteous anger. Long may it live!
How a so called Prince of the Catholic Church can defend the sin of Sodomy (which even among some unbelievers know it’s an act which cries Out to Heaven for Vengeance ) is beyond comprehension . Surely instead of Prince of the Church these so called Cardinals are preemptive Angels of Satan and that to bring down the Faith is their one true purpose . There is surely no other reason or do they not know -Right -from Wrong- seems as if the Sacrement of confession now no longer applies with these men if men they are . God Help Us .
Christina,
Yes, I agree. We need to pray many Rosaries so that the Consecration of Russia will be done as Our lady asked.
LOL, and then there three (popes) !!!!!!
Helen,
Forgive me, but I don’t understand your post “and then there three popes.”
I’m sometimes thick, so that’s probably why – LOL !
If Pope Francis abdicates like Pope benedict did and someone else becomes Pope we will have 3 Popes, 2 of them will be “emeritus” (as benedict xvi is now)
Spiritus,
Thanks for that explanation. I see what Helen meant now – LOL !
Rorate reports:
“Every day a kind of miniature Shadow Synod meets at the Domus Sanctae Marthae with the Pope (including some Synod Fathers and some outside guests) to decide what steps should be taken at the Synod.”
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/10/explosive-revelation-miniature-shadow.html
I wonder who the outside guests could be? The homosexual couple Francis hugged in America? Or the Spanish “transgender man” he was photographed with? The infamous Monsignor Ricca even?
Gabriel Syme,
That’s very interesting indeed – devious, but interesting!
Like you, I’d love to know the identities of the “miniature shadow synod” members. Doubt if any will be closet traditionalists!
Madame Editor,
Further to my fears that Pope Francis intends to permit Holy Communion for divorced co-habiters on the pastoral grounds of showing mercy to them even if the Synod does decide to uphold the Church’s teaching, I thought that this following extract is very apposite. It is taken from IS TRADITION EXCOMMUNICATED? by the Angelus Press pp. 22 – 23 and it says:
The Church’s teaching could not be much clearer than that.
Leprechaun,
Excellent quote which, as you say, makes the Church’s teaching (on the limits of papal authority) crystal clear. Well, that’s not quite what you said but it’s what you meant 😀
Here’s another astonishing development – priest punished for defending the Church’s teaching … by the Vatican
What was that? “You couldn’t make it up”? I agree!
I don’t know if there is a typo in the headline, or if “Circulus” should be “circus” – LOL!
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/10/14/english-synod-group-as-second-report-full-text/
What I noticed was that they talk about best practice in the family and mention Scripture, catechesis and prayer but not mention of the family rosary, as we used to hear from the pulpit. I don’t know what a family would do to pray together if they didn’t pray the rosary. I would be interested to get some examples if there are any.
Madame Editor,
That rather reminds me of Margaret Thatcher’s put down of the late Sir Geoffrey Howe: “We all know what you are going to say Geoffrey so there is no need to say it”.
Heigh ho.
The Catholic Church is this week in the biggest mess it’s been in since the Second Vatican Council, and Pope Francis is to blame.
Francis personally invited to a synod on the family the ultra-liberal Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels, who five years ago tried to conceal the fact that a bishop had molested his nephew. The invitation was a disgrace and it reflects badly on all the Synod Fathers that none of them has interrupted the proceedings to demand Danneels’s expulsion.
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/this-week-the-catholic-church-is-in-chaos-and-pope-francis-is-to-blame/
I should have made clear those parapgraphs do not sun in sequence, I was aiming to give selected examples of the direct criticism Thompson is aiming at Francis!
He also pans the decision making of Francis!
Gabriel Syme,
Good old Damian Thompson – at least now he is openly admitting that he has “liberal” leanings.
I had to laugh at this nugget: “… it’s time to recognise that – however endearing you find him – Pope Francis is responsible for this crisis”
“Endearing”? He’s about as “endearing” as a Rottweiller.
I’ve just signed this “Synod Walkout” petition
I hope all our bloggers and visitors to this site will sign it, too.
Thanks for posting that Editor, I have just signed it.
I’ve signed it Editor.
I did sign it, Editor
Thank you!
Editor
With respect, I think you have finally stepped over a line – rottweilers don’t deserve that!
Hear, hear, Petrus. If they are intelligent and properly trained they’re beautiful creatures who, like all dogs, give glory to God by their innocent trust. So there!
At his weekly audience, Pope Francis has publicly apologised for “recent scandal”.
Father Lombardi said the Pope was referring to scandals in which there is a “responsibility of men of the Church”.
I first heard of this via a tweet from Rorate Caeli – it does seem clear that he is alluding tot he conduct of the synod.
However the BBC spin it as though it is connected with the recent homosexual CDF priest, which I doubt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34531160
Gabriel,
I actually thought he meant the “gay priest” scandal myself. I don’t think he sees the Synod disagreements as a scandal, remember he encouraged the different opinions, saying to speak their minds.
I had to laugh (hollowly) about the bit that said they were scratching their heads wondering WHICH scandal!!
I’ve signed it. Much good it will do, says grumpy.
“Grumpy Therese” … has a sort of ring to it… Not necessarily “rings true”, but you’ll get my drift 😀
I am deeply hurt,Ed, as I have just caught your “drift”. How cruel….
Therese,
I’m amazed that you “caught my drift” as I kinda made it up as I went along but now that I read it again, I think it actually means that you’re NOT a “grumpy” Therese…
One of our trolls used to often say I had a way with words. There’s your proof, our Therese. There’s your proof… 😀
I’ve signed it as well, though I haven’t got over the injustice done to Rottweiler’s yet. I’m just about to alert the RSPCA 😣
Christina,
Mea culpa! I didn’t really mean any offence to the Rottweillers. Look at it this way. They’re not as bad as some people would have us believe. Here in Glasgow, they have to go around in pairs for protection – and not from other animals 😀
Editor
Ex popes will also be going round in pairs at this rate!
Petrus,
LOL ! That is so true!
I was beyond belief when I read this on rorate caeli just now
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/the-ridiculous-synod-sacrilege-that.html?m=1
You know, I just can’t wait for the end of the synod because then it will be clear what the future is. There could be a schism, yes, but at least we will know what’s what. These scandals going on all the time, are just too much IMHO.
Lily,
“Be careful what you wish for” springs to mind!
If people not in a state of grace are allowed to receive Holy Communion will there be no more need for confession? Surely anyone who has sinned should be allowed the same concessions.
Concessions without confessions could be the new Papal Motto. Concessio without confessio would look good embroidered on the altar cloth.
And will those who leave their second partners to live up with their third, or fourth even, still be allowed to receive, or would it be just the one strike and you are out?
I somehow have the feeling that the newly crowned Baroness Mone of Ultimo, or whatever, would benefit from the new rules rather than wee Lizzie Ludgate fae the east end.
Frankier,
I think it will depend on which diocese you’re in, how the new rules will work, if you believe this report, and it is quoting the Pope’s own words, so I believe it, no problem.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/doctrinal-devolution-to-bishops.html?m=1
Nicky
I believe the enemies of the church have targeted the Papacy to destroy the church or at the very least to seriously weaken it.
In Pope Francis it seem’s? They have found their ideal man from the outset he has downplayed the Papacy calling himself the Bishop of Rome there are probably a lot more instances other people can quote.
What if Pope Francis abdicates in the next year or two (as I suspect he might) is there anything to stop him calling an end to the Papacy and then saying the Catholic Church will be ruled by the college of cardinals or the bishops?
Is that a reasonable question we should ask ourselves.
John,
It’s certainly an understandable question to ask, but we need, more than ever, to remind ourselves of Christ’s promise that His Church will not fail. And we have that reassurance affirmed by Our Lady’s Fatima promise that “in the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph”.
The devil is raging through the hierarchy right now and he appears to be winning – but he won’t.
I too, have signed the petition.
The way things are going amongst some of the Bishops in this Synod of the Family, seems as though they do not care about the salvation of souls.
Maybe they need reminding of Saint Leonard of Port Maurice and his sermon on hell. No wonder priests – be they Pope, Bishop or parish priest badly need our prayers.
http://www.olrl.org/snt_docs/fewness.shtml
Our Lady of Fatima pray for them.
Nicky
So will that mean that when the immigration crisis is solved we can look forward to the Ten o’clock
News showing mass (no pun intended) movements of Catholics heading for the nearest accommodating dioceses?
Frankier,
I guess so – LOL!
I thought this was some good news from one of the Irish bishops at the synod. He doesn’t think the teachings should be made the responsibility of local bishops.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/dont-regionalize-church-teaching-on-marriage-says-irish-archbishop-at-synod-97124/
Has anyone any interesting news from today’s Synod?
I suspect the momentum will gather in the final days. Final days, indeed!
Crofterlady,
I’m very proud to report that Catholic Truth is first to have received copies of two presentations at the Fatima Center conference in Rome, on the subject of the Synod. Joe O’Connell emailed the copies, certain that we are first to receive them. So, he’s raced up the pay-scale as regular bloggers will have no trouble understanding! This first presentation is the lengthiest, so I will post them here in two separate comments boxes. This first one is the more lengthy, but well worth the read – I’ve been constantly interrupted so have to admit to getting only half way through before deciding not to keep you all waiting any longer, because what I HAVE read is gold-dust; a truly Catholic commentary on the goings on at the synod…
Associazione Madonna di Fatima
Circolo Canottieri – Roma
15 ottobre 2015
The Synod of Bishops has not the scope of an Ecumenical Council, not only for its limited representativeness, but also because it is a mere consultative assembly in itself, which does not have any magisterial value. However, there are events that despite having a reduced theological or canonical value, can have a great historical impact. The Synod of Bishops of 2015 is presented in this respect, as the last act of a war, within the Church, which began with the Second Vatican Council and has not ended yet.
Throughout its history, the Church has often been a battlefield, from Nicaea to Vatican II. In the latter case, the clash was not between ‘conservatives’ and ‘progressists’ , but between Catholics who are faithful to Tradition and who do not want to change the essence of the deposit the faith, and the “novatores “, those who want to introduce innovations in the deposit of faith. Between these two parties, there’s always a “third” one of moderates and undecided people, as happened in Nicaea when, between the traditionalist party of Athanasius and the revolutionary one of the Aryans, there was a third party, the “semi-Arians”, who were divided into numerous groups and sects.
Even Vatican II has seen a confrontation between two minorities, the liberals and the conservatives, who fought vigorously until its conclusion, which saw the victory of the progressive minority. This progressive minority was active, organized, supported by the media, and enjoyed the support of Paul VI. The conservative minority organized itself rather belatedly, was defeated and, after the Council, dissolved. Fifty years have passed since the conclusion of Vatican II, and in these years, the process of secularization of our society has become more and more aggressive and has penetrated inside the Church itself, conquering vast sectors of it. Paul VI spoke about the smoke of Satan in the temple of God and those words, today, are more a dramatic reality rather than a metaphor. The archbishop of Astana, Fülöp Kocsis, hinted to the role of Satan in the attacks on the family, using these words: “The family is under a ferocious and enormous attack. And this attack is of the Devil”.
The attack of Satan mentioned by msgr. Fülöp Kocsis not only comes from outside the Church, but also – and especially – from within.
Throughout history, the family has always been heavily attacked, but that marriage and family would be challenged within the Church had never happened in our history. Also unheard of is a Church which opens a debate such as the one currently carried out within the Synod. This debate is between two different views, which are radically opposed as regards the family and the sacrament of marriage, as if a “free opinion” between bishops would be or could even be possible!
The debate over the divorced and remarried, which was at the center of the extraordinary Synod of 2014, and now is at the center of discussions of this Synod, revolves around the basic problem of the relationship between the Church and the modern secular society.
The problem has exploded on Feb. 20, 2014 with the report by card. Walter Kasper, prepared on behalf of Pope Francis, and read during the consistory of cardinals in preparation for the Extraordinary Synod of the family.
Which is the thesis of Cardinal Kasper?
1) We live in a secular society that denies the Christian values of family and marriage.
2) The Church must take note that many Christians live in contravention to Christian principles.
3) Faced with this problem, which deepens and widens every day, the Church (without giving up its teachings) must change its pastoral practice towards the divorced and remarried and, more generally, towards those who are in an irregular and sinful situation, adapting itself to the new historical situation.
Cardinal Walter Kasper proposed to justify, both doctrinally and canonically, the administration of the Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried Catholics, based on the reason that this is now standard practice in the Church. His entire speech is built on the assumption that “between the Church’s teaching on marriage and the family, and the beliefs and the lives of many Christians, an abyss has been created.” In his view, it is possible to change the practices of the Church without changing its doctrine. The role of the Church, therefore, would be to bless all that comes from the sociological reality, starting with the cohabitation outside of marriage.
Since then the debate has been intense. A large amount of books, articles, interviews and statements have been published by both parties. However, most important of all, there has been the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, with its final report of October 2014 and a series of documents that have followed, the last of which is the Instrumentum laboris, in preparation for the 2015 Synod which is currently underway.
The 2015 Synod has started, and its proceedings are confirming the existence, within the Catholic Church, of a strong clash between two minorities. On the one hand, a handful of Synod Fathers who have decided to defend traditional morality, while the other, the “innovators”, seem to have lost their Catholic faith. Between the two minorities, as always, there is a soft and waving majority composed of those who dare not to defend nor attack the truth, being more motivated by personal considerations and interests rather than by the doctrinal debate.
The discussion takes place primarily in the so-called minor groups – 14 language groups – and then in the general congregations, the so-called “plenary session”. The “innovator” bishops, in the debate on the first part of the Instrumentum laboris, have expressed their voice, especially in two of the 14 minor groups: the Anglicus C group and the Germanicus one. Let’s pause for a moment on a central passage of the report of the Gemanicus group, which saw the interventions of the new archbishop of Berlin, Msgr. Heiner Koch, and the archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn as the moderator.
The German bishops hope that in the final document, any negative or “forensic” language will be expunged. They do not want a language that “keeps away and condemns” (“eine negative abgrenzende und normativverurteilende Sprache (forensischer Stil)”), but rather a language which would convey the positive evolution of the Christian position, one that can implicitly express what truly is such position.
To better understand what is behind this ambiguous language, we must recall the central passages of the interview to Cardinal Schonborn by Father Antonio Spadaro, which was published on Sept 26 on the magazine Civiltà Cattolica. In that interview, the Archbishop of Wien states that we “must be aware of the historical and social dimension of marriage and family”. In fact, he explains: “Too often we theologians and bishops, pastors and guardians of doctrine, forget that human life takes place in the conditions imposed by a society: psychological, social, economic, political conditions, and all within a specific historical context. This has been lacking in the Synod. (…). We should look at the various situations of coexistence, not only from the point of view of what is missing, but also from the point of view of what is already promised, what is already present. (…) Those who have the grace and the joy of living the sacramental marriage in faith, humility and mutual forgiveness, in the trust in God who acts in our daily life, know how to find elements of true heroism, true charity, true mutual giving in a cohabiting couple, in two people who cohabitate without being married. Of course, we must say: “It is not a full reality of the sacrament, yet” But who are we to judge and say that there are no elements of truth and sanctification in them? (…)In this regard, I cannot hide the fact of being shocked by a purely formalist way of arguing, which actually rides the horse of intrinsece malum (intrinsic evil) (…). The obsession for the intrinsece malum, in fact, has so impoverished the debate that we are now lacking many arguments in favor of unity, indissolubility, openness to life, of the human foundation of the doctrine of the faith.
We have lost the taste to reflect on these human realities. One of the key elements of the Synod is the reality of the Christian family, not from an exclusivist point of view, but from an inclusive one. (…) There are also situations where the priest, the accompanying person, whoever intimately knows the couple, may get to say: “Your situation is such that, in conscience – in yours and in my conscience as a pastor – I see your place in the sacramental life of the Church”. (…)I know I can scandalize someone by saying this … but you can always learn something from people who objectively live in an irregular situation. Pope Francis wanted to teach us this.» (Matrimoni e conversione pastorale. Interview to the Cardinal ChristophSchönborn, edited by Antonio Spadaro S.I., in Civiltà Cattolica n° 3966 of Sept 26 2015, pp. 449-552).
This interview should be read in parallel with that of another synod father, who received a Germanic cultural training, the archbishop of Chieti-Vasto, Mons. Bruno Forte, Special Secretary of the General Assembly of the Synod. In his statements to Avvenire of 19 September 2015, Msgr. Forte said that the Instrumentum laboris expresses “Sympathy towards all that is positive, even when, as in the case of cohabitation, we are facing an incomplete positivity. This sympathy for the cohabiting partners is dictated by their desire for fidelity in their unions, by the desire for stability and openness to life, when this desire could and would be crowned by the sacrament of marriage. It is right, therefore, to accompany the couples in this maturation process. But when cohabitation is episodic, everything is harder and it becomes important to find a way to encourage further steps towards a more significant maturation. (…)In case of a cohabitation, especially in the presence of children born out of the new union, taking a step back would mean not to carry out the commitments. These commitments involve moral duties which must be fulfilled in a spirit of obedience to God, who is calling the couple to loyalty and love. When these conditions exist, then a deeper integration in the life of the Christian community becomes possible. But up to what point? We have already said it: It’s up to the Synod to propose it, and it’s up to the Pope to decide».
As is evident from the interviews we have just quoted, the approach to family issues is purely sociological, without any reference to principles which transcend history. Marriage and family, for Cardinal Schönborn and Bishop Forte, are not natural institutions which accompany the life of man since the dawn of civilization: these institutions have certainly born and live in history, but are rooted in the very nature of man and are intended to survive, in any age and in any place, as a basic cell of human society. Shonborn and Forte believe that the family is subjected to the dialectic evolution of history and that it can take on new forms, depending on the historical periods and the “positive development of society”.
The “positive language” mentioned by the Germanicus group implies that the church should never condemn, because it has to grasp the positivity even of evil and sin. Properly speaking, sin does not exist for them, because all evil is just “imperfect and incomplete good”. These aberrations are based on a deliberate confusion between the metaphysical and the moral concept of good and evil. It’s obvious that, from a philosophical point of view, God is the Supreme Good, and He did not create anything bad or imperfect in the universe. But among created things there is human freedom, which allows men to morally depart from God. This aversio a Deo in the rational creature (that is man) is an evil which is properly called sin. But the notion of sin is absent from the perspective of the cardinal, as well as from that of the Special Secretary of the Synod.
By denying the existence of intrinsic evil, Cardinal Schönborn denies moral truths like the one according to which “there can be intrinsically illicit acts independent of the circumstances in which they are performed by the subject” (John Paul II Exhortation Apostolic Reconciliatio and paenitentia, n. 17) and rejects the whole encyclical Veritatis Splendor, promulgated just to reiterate, against the resurgent “situational ethic,” the existence of moral absolutes. This perspective destroys not only the notion of divine and natural law, its basis and foundation of the moral order, but also the notion of human freedom. Freedom is in fact the first subjective root of morality, while the natural and divine law are its objective form. Without divine and natural law, there is no good and evil, because the natural law is what allows the intelligence to know the truth, and to the will to love what is good. Freedom and law are two inseparable elements of the moral order.
Sin exists because there are moral absolutes. Sin is an absolute evil because it is opposed to absolute good, and is the only bad because that is opposed to God who is the only Good. The origins of any misery and unhappiness in our world are not political, economic or social, but go back to sin, both the original and the actual ones, committed by men. Man «A person sins mortally… also when he consciously and freely, for whatever reason, chooses something which is seriously disordered» (Congregation for t he Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana of 7 November 1975, n. 10, par. 6). Among the sins are those which, according to the Scriptures, “cry to heaven” like the sin of Sodom (Genesis, 18, 20; 19, 13), but there is also a violation of the Sixth Commandment which prohibits any sexual union outside marriage. No “positive language” can be allowed to bless these unions. Pius XII said that “perhaps, now the greatest sin in the world is that men have begun to lose their sense of sin» (Declaration of October 26 1946).
Whether we like it or not, this is the doctrine of the Church. What alarms us is not only the Synod which is currently underway, but what happened before and what might happen after the Synod – regardless of its conclusions. Because, beyond the synod, what emerges with ever greater clarity is the existence of a process, which could be best described as ‘a project to overturn the traditional morality of the Church’.
It is not just the problem of divorced and remarried Catholics. The problem is also the idea of a new morality that diverges, in the background, from the traditional one. A new morality about two commandments, the sixth and the ninth, but also three sacraments: Marriage, Communion and Penance. The loss of the sense of sin leads to the abandonment of the sacrament of Penance. But by violating the precepts of the natural order, which require to not commit adultery, the couples who are living as husband and wife without being married offend the sanctity of the Sacrament of marriage. Also, by approaching the sacrament of the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin, they are committing sacrilege. The word “sacrilege”, however, does not make sense for many Christians; not only because the actions against the sixth and ninth commandments are not perceived as sins by them, but also because they have lost – with their sense of sin – even the notion of the Real Presence. In other words they no longer believe that during the Sacrifice of the Mass an extraordinary miracle occurs, and they no longer believe that the consecrated host and wine become the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Our Lord, that we receive during Communion. If we have lost our belief on the Real Presence, this is also due to the new lex orandi in force in the Church after Paul VI’s liturgical reform in 1968, after which the sacrifice of the Mass is often celebrated in such a way that we lose the entire idea that it is a true Eucharistic sacrifice.
Let’s think about how they introduced Communion in the hand: it was presented as an exception to the rule, but has now become the rule, practically speaking, all over the world.
The liturgy has been their first field of application for the Marxist theory of the primacy of practice, that is that truth comes from experience and finds its verification in the human action. When adapted to the Church reality, this theory is expressed in terms of the primacy of pastoral doctrine. This primacy is expressed as follows: we should not be interested in doctrine, but only how it should be implemented in practice, because the pastoral ministry is the “only expression of true faith”, a faith which becomes emancipated from the truth, and reduced to a subjective experience of the believer or of the community of believers. It is the Hegelian theory, according to which nothing, in history, is immutable but you must chase the Weltgeist, the spirit of the times; it is the Marxist theory according to which philosophers, and today theologians as well, must prove the truth of their arguments.
The primacy of pastoral practice of the doctrine means that:
1) the Synod “event” is more important than the documents it will promulgate, and its language is more important than its contents. The Relatio of the Circulus Anglicus C clearly states the need for this revolution of language: “Like Vatican I, this Synod needs to be a language-event, which is more than cosmetic”.
2) The post-synod is more important than the synod itself, because it is its own, self-realization. The Synod, in fact, as the Second Vatican Council, entrusts the fulfillment of its objectives not to its documents, but to the pastoral activities that will follow from them.
3) the self-realization of the Synod takes place in the name of experience of local churches, that is of the Church’s decentralization.
This doctrinal devolution is an implicit denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontifex. The ancient heresies of Gallicanism and ecclesiastical nationalism are likely to resurface. The Rome-centric Church is about to be replaced by a polycentric or prismatic Church. The image of the prism has been used often by Pope Francis: “the prism is unity, but all its parts are different; each has its own peculiarity, its charisma. This is unity in diversity. It is on this path that we Christians do what we call by the theological name of ecumenism: we seek to ensure that this diversity may be more harmonized by the Holy Spirit and become unity” (Meeting with the evangelical pastors of Caserta, 28 July 2014).
This transfer of power to the bishop conferences was already provided for by a paragraph of the Evangeli Gaudium, which considers them as ” subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority… Excessive centralization, rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach.” (n.32) even if Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Muller, in an interview to the French magazine Famille Chretienne of March 26 2015 said that the “idea of delegating certain doctrinal or disciplinary decisions on marriage and the family to the bishop conferences is totally anti-catholic”, because the bishop conferences – although they have jurisdiction on certain issues – “cannot be a second magisterium which operates without the Pope or the communion of all the bishops”.
A new “two-speed church” perhaps is about to be born, a variable geometry church in which, when faced with moral problems, each nation will adjust differently, according to the ethics of the situation.
The principle that the doctrine does not change, but only the way you expose it does, breaks the continuity of the relationship between doctrine and pastoral care, and introduces a principle of separation between these two dimensions: the truth and the life.
What are the consequences? If the pastoral ministry changes, but not the doctrine, this change will not take place in the synod itself, but in the daily life of the Christian communities, and therefore out of the Synod, after the Synod, in the life of the dioceses and the parishes of the Church. The Synod, enacting the principle of separation between doctrine and practice, would authorize the bishops to implement a number of pastoral novelties. But if the pastoral practice is not consistent with the only doctrine, it means that there will be many practices, and all worthy of being tried. The protagonists of this revolution, if we go on along this path, will therefore be the bishops, the parish priests, the bishos’ conferences, the local communities, each one operating according to its own freedom and creativity. Rome would remain on the background, with no real authority. The Church would be de-romanized, a fragmentation which inevitably would lead to a schism, which is a rapture that inexorably occurs when a central reference point, both in terms of doctrine and pastoral practice, no longer exists.
The road taken by the promoters of the synod seems to be the foundation of a new morality and a new church that will resemble the Federation of Anglican churches rather than the Catholic Church (which is One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman!) This new church would follow not only the Anglican’s ecclesiological model, which is fragmented and chaotic, but also its moral degradation which is affecting the Anglican churches today (as we already know). All this for tackling the problems of the contemporary family!
Those who oppose this process are accused of being too tightened around archaic formulas and stereotypes that should be immersed in reality, which should ‘receive life’ from reality.
But what makes words alive, what makes them full of significance and not empty or meaningless, is the correspondence that they must have in real life, the continuity between truth and life, a continuity which is called coherence. If between the Word and the life there is discontinuity, separation, fracture, then there is inconsistency and words lose all of their value.
Jesus Christ offers us the perfect example of consistency and coincidence between truth and the life, because He has not only lived the truth, He IS the Truth and the Life. The person of Jesus Christ that we encounter every day in the Eucharist, reminds us that there is only one doctrine, there is only one pastoral, there is only one Gospel, there is only one way of being Catholic, because there is only one truth and one life, but also one “Via”, only one way to live the truth, one way to announce it. It is ‘that Way, that Life, the moral Truth on marriage and the family that we ask the Synod to proclaim!
Below is Susan Pearson’s presentation at the Fatima Conference in Rome, on the subject of the Synod. Again, well worth reading – a timeous and edifying reminder of true principles of Catholic family life…
What is the family? Who can tell us?
Let me tell you a real story: we’re in 1992, it’s the last Sunday of the year, the pastor of the Church of The Holy Trinity starts his homely: “Today”, he begins, “it is the Sunday of the Holy Family. We are celebrating a family comprised by a Father, a Mother and a Son (the congregation laughs). But the Holy Family is just one of the many possible families: Here at the Holy Trinity church we have many kind of families: we have “gay” couples with adopted children. We have unmarried couples who are raising children, we have single-parent families, we have parish women who have conceived children thanks to artificial means – all these different types of families are right here, in our parish of the Holy Trinity. So, on the one hand we have the Holy Family, and on the other all these families which are so diverse from each other. Who can tell us what is the better family?
Exactly: who can tell us? This is exactly our problem, today.
I’ll make another example of this confusion: the former president of the United States, Jimmy Carter, at the beginning of his presidency expressed his desire to help the family. With sincere benevolence, him and his government wanted to organized a big meeting about family – a meeting which was never realized because the organizers were not able to agree on what is really “a family”.
So, who can tell us what a family can be? As Christians, our only righteous answer comes from God: the idea itself of the family comes from Our Lord, because it was Him who created it this way, and therefore only God can decide what kind of family is the best one. And so he told us, but more than that he showed us the ideal family, the one that should be used as a model for every other family: it is the perfect family, that of Jesus, Mary and Joseph. He gave us His Holy Family so that it could be an example and a model for all of us.
Michelangelo’s famous words warn us on this regard: “The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark”. Or, like the Chinese say, ” a thousand kilometer trip doesn’t start with the first step, but with the decision to where we want to go”
That same priest of the Holy Trinity parish, who made a parallel between the alternative models of the family which would be as “good” as the Holy Family, a few years later abandoned his priesthood and the Catholic church, and became the director of a gay bar in San Francisco…
We Catholics should not look to modern culture or to secular history to found our life models. Even those models which are presented to us by the Leaders of the church or of the government, are often wrong models. The mass media and the show business do not offer us viable or acceptable examples.
The problem gets worse when these models, these principles, become engraved in a country’s law or constitution, things such as the abortion and now the “gay marriage”.
However, it would be even worse if these models would start to be considered as the “official position of the church”. We must have trust in the Holy Spirit, which will be with the Church until the end of times, and we should implore Him so that such a horror may never happen.
There is another thing to consider as regards the purpose of a marriage. The final goal for each woman and each man who are called by God to become married, must be their eternal salvation. For them, their marriage must be instrumental to reach that goal.
Before he got married, the Blessed Karl of Austria told to his future wife: “now we must help us each other to obtain Heaven”.
How can a couple, while living in sin, “help each other to obtain Heaven”? There are those who say that “Love is most important: where there is love, there is also God. Maybe their behaviour is not perfect, but God understands”. I think you might have stumbled about such reasoning. Well, living as husband and wife without the Sacrament of Marriage is not a simple act of temporary passion or human weakness, which Our Most Merciful Lord would easily forgive. No, in this case it is a deliberate decision in order to conduct a life style which was explicitly forbidden by Our Lord himself.
Often, to find an excuse to legitimize behaviours which are contrary to what was taught by Our Lord, it is said that “morality cannot be legislated, because man will always do what they want. But this is not entirely true. During the civil right wars in the United States, it was said that forbidding segregation would be useless because people would continue to hate and ostracize the other races in any case. It is true, but only to a certain point.
People do not obey the law, this is true, however what is written in the code of laws of a country may have an enormous impact on the way that society behaves, and the vast majority will always conform to the norms of their country. The law and the mass media, as well as our language, form the perception that each new generation creates as regards what is respectable or tolerable, and what isn’t. Our minds and hearts are therefore deeply affected by the legislation of the country we live in.
The end of segregation proves that this can bring to positive outcomes, but it may also bring to very negative ones. Take abortion or homosexuality, for instance: what was once unthinkable has become tolerable, then acceptable and now respectable! What else will happen, now? Will it become admirable, or even mandatory? Who, among us, has not found himself in the position of remaining silent instead of expressing a politically incorrect comment? Or maybe closing an eye in front of the scandalous life style of a friend, a colleague or a family member?
After getting used to the sinful life of our friends and neighbours, how easy has become for many Catholics (who once thought and acted differently) to apologize for their own behaviour, instead of being proud of their actions!
To better understand this confused period of history we should maybe start to think about why the “gay unions” and the cohabitation of unmarried couples are not liked by our Lord. We know that the sacrament of marriage was established by God mainly for the propagation of the human species, for the procreation of new generations. As God said to Adam and Eve, “Be fruitful and multiply”. In this context, “gay marriages” can never be fruitful! Unmarried couples, on the other hand, usually try to avoid to have children, but even if they have one, the informal relationships of this kind cannot be ideal to raise a child.
Why the modern man wants to limit the number of children in the family? Aren’t they aware that any son or daughter is a previous blessing by God? Every child that God gives us is a unique joy, and the happiness of a family grows which each new-born! Of course we must have a strong faith to give birth to a child, especially when money is short: a friend of mine, who is a father of 8, told me that “a divided love is multiplied” [phrase unclear in Pearson’s original Italian, n.b Alex.]
As soon as he was elected, John Paul II celebrated his Mass in Washington DC, and while speaking about the family, he told us: “you parents, if you want to give a good present to your children, try not to buy them something expensive, give them brothers and sisters!”
Sometimes we may think that the model of the catholic family which is represented in the Holy Family or by the lives of the saints is not possible to endure in our modern age. Too often, in fact, both spouses are working outside of their house. In the morning, the mother usually leaves her kids in a kindergarten because she needs to go to work on the other side of the town, and when she comes back, in the evening, the children are too tired to enjoy her presence, because it’s time to go to bed…
But the situation is more encouraging than it seems. The History of the Catholic Church offers us several, marvellous examples for the working mother, examples such as that of Zelie Martin, the mother of Saint Theresa of Lisieux.
She was a lace maker and worked from home, while she was always surrounded by her children: I know, it seems something so remote and different from our society, but if you think about it, the economic crisis, despite its negativity and the loss of jobs, has led to the creation of many small enterprises, often family based ones, which are operating from home. The new technologies are allowing more and more people to work from home, much more than in any other period of the industrial revolution.
One of the key, positive points in working from home is home-schooling: in my country, the children who are studying in their homes are always the most trained and well-behaving of all, and usually obtain the best results in the exams and in their college. Moreover, they always have a splendid career in their profession and, later on, they become good parents as well, and often continue what their parents did with them, and teach their kids from home. This is really a successful story of which we Catholics should be proud of. We should talk about this to others, and encourage them to do the same!
But we must also fight the false principle according to which the single-parent family is “good enough”, only because there has always been families with only one parent, in the past, who were able to raise their children alone, after the death of one of the spouse. One would be tempted to think “well, if God doesn’t approve single-parents family, why does it allow that a father or a mother to die while his children are still young?”
Well, the lives of the saints have many examples of this. Susanne quotes the example of John Paul II father, who died when he was young, and his mother had to take care of many children; or Saint Maria Goretti’s mother, Assunta, who had to take care of 6 children with no money. But we know that God providence will always help to overcome these difficulties and to make a good out of an evil. The sense of loss for a widow strengthen in her/him the appreciation for the graces that God originally conceived for a integral and complete family.
There is another difference that modernists are unable to see: The sons of widow parent, most of the time are not truly without father or mother: they are joined with the departed for whom they pray and who, in turn, intercede for them. The memory of the departed spouse will be always live in the family, giving strength to those who remain in this world.
Susan then quotes the minor of the daughters of the Emperor Karl of Austria. She was born after her father died and told, later on, the wonderful tale of his father’s deeds and thoughts, which were told her by her parents and relatives.
Children of a divorced couple live a very different experience: the spouse who must leave the household is usually insulted by the other parent, and both use the children for their own interests. It is a good sign that the Synod is taking place in Rome, centre of Catholicism but also heart of Italy and of his mothers who gave birth to many children during the histories. Many lives of the saints show us the love that surrounded them and Italian families, in particular, were very devoted to Our Lady so that their children always felt the love of their Heavenly mother together with their earthly one. The Blessed Pious IX was consecrated by his mother to the Blessed Virgin.
I’ve grown up close to an Italian community in California and I got from them a marvellous example of catholic life. I was always part of their family life and I’ve seen large families remain united over the course of the decades, always helping each other. The “mamma” of these families was always honoured and revered by her family members, and I will always remember the song “mamma” which was song by Italian boys with passion.
Today we can surely keep the traditional values of family only with great effort. However, by looking at the example of the most beautiful family ever and by meditating on the love by Jesus, Mary and Joseph we can safeguard our precious heritage, as well as our faith, our families and the entire Christianity. We must not allow anyone to deprive our children and nephews of the treasure that we received from God and which is ours to pass to the next generations!
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXXp4sGtEjc?feature=player_embedded&w=640&h=360%5D
ROME, October 16, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) — Archbishop Blase Cupich of Chicago — who is participating in the Synod of the Family at Pope Francis’ personal invitation — said at a press scrum in the Vatican press office this afternoon that the conscience is “inviolable” and that he believes divorced and remarried couples could be permitted to receive the sacraments, if they have “come to a decision” to do so “in good conscience” – theological reasoning that he indicated in response to a follow-up question would also apply to gay couples.
During the lengthy press briefing, the archbishop also spoke approvingly of the so-called “Kasper Proposal,” which would permit divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion in some cases. Cupich explained that he had distributed Cardinal Walter Kasper’s book, The Gospel of the Family, in which the cardinal had laid out this proposal, to all of the priests in his diocese. Read more here
So, in the end, it all comes down to “conscience” as popularly understood. I’m just amazed that no bank robbers and other thugs have cottoned on to this line… YET!
“So, in the end, it all comes down to “conscience” as popularly understood. I’m just amazed that no bank robbers and other thugs have cottoned on to this line… YET!”
LOL!
We were always taught that conscience has to be formed before you can be certain that you are doing the right thing and making the right decisions. You can’t just do what you want if you feel OK about it. If Jesus says adultery is a sin then nobody’s conscience can tell them differently, no matter what Archbishop Cupich says.
MM
Spot, absolutely on! If we all went about doing what we chose, and could get away with blaming it on our consciences, then they’d have to throw the rule-book away. No more sitting at red traffic lights; would give a whole new meaning to “going green”! Well said.
I wonder how the Archbishop would act if one of his priests told him that he had come to a decision to abuse children all in good conscience and promised to carry on doing so.
Frankier,
Excellent point – absolutely on the button. Well said (etc. etc!)
“When the pastor becomes a wolf, it is the flock in the first place, which has the duty to defend itself.” – Dom Prosper Gueranger, L’Annee Liturgique, Feast of Saint Cyril of Alexandria, pp. 340-341.
God bless Joe O’Connell and all those faithful Catholics in Saint Peter’s Square who are calling on the protection of Our Lady of Fatima in these dark, unprecedented days. If the scandal, which has been mounting for going on two years, and is now approaching its objective doesn’t cause Catholics to turn to the Immaculata, She who has crushed all heresies, and stir them to beseech Her with many rosaries, then it’s hard to see what will. The diabolical horror show that is unfolding before us, insofar as we are given the grim details, will surely be spoken off till the end of time.
“In the frenzy of their conceited conviction that they know so much these blind leading the blind have even turned upside down the eternally true concepts of truth and religion; they have founded a new system and in their wild, unbridled chase after new ideas they have forgotten to seek the truth where it dwells in safety; holy, apostolic traditions are scorned and in their place other doctrines resorted to which are idle and empty and uncertain and which do not possess the sanction of the Church; and with such things they believe in their delusion that they can uphold and preserve truth itself.”- Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi
The question of whether the Synod is rigged, much more than enough scandal in itself, now appears academic and superseded, granted the accuracy of reports on the Pope’s parallel and secret discussions at the Domus Sanctae Marthae. Sham is about the only available description of the entire process at this stage. And so, this is where novus ordo democratization actually leads.
“They will be fooled by evil spirits and by teachings that come from demons.” – 1 Timothy 4:1
The means and the end of the latest, maybe last, stage of the conciliar revolution are coming into ever sharper focus. While the modernists deployed the weapon of ambiguity with such devastating effects at Vatican II, that particular camouflage appears now to be judged superfluous to requirements. Inhibitions amongst bishops about openly spouting heresy, denying divine and natural law, and spraying the very filth of satan in all directions, look to have be conspicuously discarded.
“Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil.” – Isaias 5:20
And mention of Vatican II brings to mind one issue on which the modernists appear to be rigorist adherents to “continuity”. Amidst all the current deception concerning matters “pastoral” just remember that it is most definitely not a novel revolutionary weapon.
“This gap between doctrinal and pastoral, which was used as pawn, will continue to have a bearing on the interpretation of the Council and is, in my opinion, one of most important shadows cast on the Council debates…” – Liberal peritus, Edward Schillebeeckx OP in The Real Achievement of Vatican II, 1967, pp. 84-85
Faithful Catholics can only read with horror and righteous anger the daily details of apostasy emerging from Rome. As for methods; Machiavelli and your average militant Marxist political activist look like otherworldly, bumbling amateurs in comparison to those involved in this monster Modernist readyup.
“I hate arrogance and pride, and every wicked way, and a mouth with a double tongue.” – Proverbs 8:13
On a purely natural level, leaving aside the grave doctrinal and moral issues, the conduct of this process brings the human element of the Church into deep hued disrepute. Imposing an heretical agenda, stacking the makeup of the Synod fathers, including with repulsive over-aged uber Modernists, disregarding or constantly changing rules and procedure, attempting to either bully and silence or ignore those considered to be standing in the way of the clearly desired agenda, shamelessly trying to manipulate what the world actually hears about proceedings, including through the mouth of one particular individual who appears to have graduated cum laude from the Joseph Goebbels College of Communications, while all the time the real secret work is being, or even has been, conducted elsewhere is considered fitting conduct for the successors of the apostles? It’s impossible to avoid thoughts of the “father of lies”.
“But such as turn aside unto deceits, the Lord shall number with the workers of iniquity.” – Psalm 124
How in heaven’s name can we use the term synod in relation to this scandal? What we are seeing in Rome is prideful heretical clericalism. Modernists are now becoming ultramontanes. And as with all revolutions, the “people” are really nothing more than pawns.
The names of many of the big beasts in this apparent dog and pony show are familiar to everyone here. And of course the truly horrendous reality, which has long since departed from the realms of plausible deniability, is the very active, overriding role of the Vicar of Christ in all this. To maintain otherwise requires a very resolute, Alice in Wonderland reality defying type of papolatry.
One can but wonder about the extent to which Pope Francis and those whom he is supporting and directing enjoy the Holy Ghosts gift of fear of the Lord.
“But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgement. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” Matthew 12:36-37
The error of Pope John XXII could almost be considered a minor footnote to Church history when compared to the conduct of Pope Francis. Truth be told, this papacy has long since taken on the appearance of a runaway train. The diabolical Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita, which has been discussed here before, is another recurring “nightmare”.
What is the likelihood of Pope Francis ever repeating and teaching the following words of the great saint whose name he took?
“See you blind ones, you are deceived by your enemies: by the flesh, the world, and the devil; because it is sweet to the body to commit sin and it is better for it to serve God;… And you have nothing in this world or in the one to come.
The body becomes sick, death approaches, and this man dies a bitter death. And no matter where or when or how a man dies in the guilt of sin without doing penance and satisfaction, the devil snatches up his soul from his body with so much anguish and tribulation that no one can know it unless he has experienced it. And they leave their substance to their relatives and friends, and these have taken and divided the inheritance among themselves. Worms eat the body. And so they have lost body and soul in this passing world, and both will go down to hell, where they will be tormented without end.”
– 2nd Letter to the Faithful
Of course, we don’t know what exactly is going to happen in the next few weeks and months. Humanly speaking, prospects could hardly be more grim. And without Our Lord’s guarantee to His Bride the Church, despair could be a temptation for many. It might be helpful to recall the following words of Hilaire Belloc which make the essential point about the Church’s indefectibility in typically forceful terms:
“Any purely human institution run by such a group of knaves, fools, and cutthroats wouldn’t have lasted a fortnight.”
Faced with the hubris of the heretics, faithful Catholic must now turn to Our Lady. Really, what is the point of recalling examples and testimonies of the overwhelming power of the Rosary if all we ever do is treat them as stories. Surely these unprecedented, scandalous days in Rome are a time to pray for a miracle to match the deliverance from evil that took place at Lepanto.
Maybe Pope Francis looked out of his window some day and saw 100,000 “rosary counters” on their knees reciting the Rosary he might turn again and “confirm the brethren in the Faith”.
The following words from the founder of the Marists, Father William Joseph Chaminade (1761-1850), issued during another dark era are all we need to hear:
“Today the great prevalent heresy is religious indifferentism, which allows souls to become paralyzed in the stupor of egotism and to be swallowed up by passions. This description of our age, which is sad but true, does not discourage us: far from it! Mary’s power has not diminished. We firmly believe that she will vanquish this heresy like all the others, because today as before she is the promised Woman who crushes the head of the serpent, and Jesus Christ teaches us that she the hope, the joy, the life of the Church and the terror of hell. To her is reserved the great victory for our days. To her belongs the honour of saving the Faith from the shipwreck that threatens is today.” – E. Neubert, Marie dans le dogme (Paris, 1953) pp. 213-214
Finally, a point that has been made here before in relation to Vatican II bears repetition: amidst all this talk about the “Spirit blowing” and “the God of surprises”, for anyone to suggest that the agenda that has been rolled out with increasing force and arrogance since February last year is the work of Holy Ghost must surely be utter blasphemy. On the contrary, faithful Catholics must in hope and confidence, and trusting in the intercession of Our Lady, Saint Joseph, patron of the Universal Church, and Saint Michael the Archangel, look to the Paraclete to frustrate and prevent the worst ambitions of the modernist revolutionaries.
It may be that God has decided that His Church will no longer be
Just ignore me – I was going to post a revolutionary thought and then thought better of it – but pressed reply instead of cancel! Our Ed will have something to say about my incompetence, nae doot! Dinnae fash yersel lassie, I’m already repentant.
Therese,
Nothing to repent about. You were going to say “It may be that God has decided that His Church will no longer be in a state of crisis, and bring the Synod to a speedy close…”
I’m not daft. I know what you meant. No need to set traps for me 😀
Leo,
“The diabolical horror show that is unfolding before us, insofar as we are given the grim details, will surely be spoken off till the end of time.”
I hadn’t thought of that – but you are absolutely correct. Whatever happens now, this period of shameful history will never be forgotten.
“Inhibitions amongst bishops about openly spouting heresy, denying divine and natural law, and spraying the very filth of satan in all directions, look to have be conspicuously discarded.
Absolutely. I think it is clear that this Synod is bringing the poison out into the open. I think that’s a good thing. So many of these bishops are throwing off all pretence of being Catholic. Intelligent Catholic laity (and priests) will take note and realise that, in your words “…as with all revolutions, the “people” are really nothing more than pawns. Let’s hope and pray that the majority, albeit late in the day, come to see that they must return to the Faith of our Fathers, come to see that with the new Mass, new Catechism, new Rosary, New Evangelisation and now the new Morality, they have been fooled into accepting a new religion. This is already happening, I’m glad to say. I sometimes attend the Summorum Pontificum Masses available in Glasgow and have recently been heartened by the conversations I’ve enjoyed with Catholics there, who are now, more than ever, aware of the gravity of this crisis.
Yet again, Leo, every word of your post is a treasure, hitting various nails on their various heads. I’ve selected this paragraph to highlight, because, really, you say it all here – and we should all pay heed, without delay…
“Faced with the hubris of the heretics, faithful Catholic must now turn to Our Lady. Really, what is the point of recalling examples and testimonies of the overwhelming power of the Rosary if all we ever do is treat them as stories. Surely these unprecedented, scandalous days in Rome are a time to pray for a miracle to match the deliverance from evil that took place at Lepanto.”
And so, Leo, say all of us!
This is interesting, to see Cardinal Kasper in an interview with EWTN
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeRQltA_inE?feature=player_detailpage&w=640&h=360%5D
Thanks for that, Michaela – will watch asap.
Below is a letter to Pope Francis from a Muslim doctor, a wonderfully hard working pro-lifer, on the subject of the Synod on the Family… It came to me via Wendy Walker’s daily pro-life bulletins. If this letter doesn’t hit the Pope between the eyes, nothing will…
Your Holiness Pope Francis
Please allow me to approach you on behalf of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world (of whom I am of course), with regards to the one topic which is being daily discussed at the Synod of bishops: THE FAMILY.
All Muslims believe in the traditional natural family core unit, composed of a man and a woman, as ordained and blessed by God ALMIGHTY, our Creator and primary Legislator.
Any man made, alternate version of the Family which seeks to break away from God’s original design (in this instance by virtue of gender) is in direct contradiction with the teachings of the three Abrahamic faiths.
We, Muslims, indeed believe that Judaism and the teachings of Jesus (peace be upon Him) along with Islam are in agreement on this particular point. We therefore humbly appeal to you to reassert Marriage as it is endorsed by the Scriptures, in the process of decision making at the Synod.
Unfortunately, what we are seeing today within the Synod, is the increasing abandonment of God’s sacramental institution of Marriage and Family for the benefit of a wave of secularism, sadly pushed by ordained Ministers/Bishops, in accordance with (or in submission to) “progressive” liberal politics. Those non-Scriptures based ideologies find their full expression in the promotion of homosexual practice and in same sex “wedding” ceremonies being approved by Christian Ministers/Bishops and conducted inside churches.
By no means is the practice of homosexuality consistent with Scriptural standards of sexual ethics. Neither does it permit the continuation of the nature Family, since by definition it doesn’t procreate; not to mention that it qualifies as a highly risky sexual behaviour in regards to health. It can therefore but cause the eventual decline of human population.
It is a particularly alarming fact that Ministers/Bishops are actively promoting homosexuality inside the Church; by doing that they are displaying a greater allegiance to secular leaders than to God Almighty, and this trend is being passed on to younger generations of worshippers. Just as worrying is the rapid propagation of a seemingly indoctrination in favour of homosexual behaviour through mainstream media, inside primary schools etc., carried by an army of relentless activists all across Society.
I think the time has come for us who are witnessing this phenomenon, to open our hearts, minds and arms to its primary victims: the very people who are given away to homosexuality. Those men and women need a voice of Truth and compassion instead of the avalanche of “tolerant” modern-day philosophies which only results in pushing them further away from the Grace of Almighty God. For this purpose, we must urgently pave the way for scientific/medical professionals to challenge the media narrative and publicly expose the absence of relation between human DNA and human sexual desires/The psychological and emotional roots of homosexual behaviour and its consequences.
As believers, we do not condone the act of homosexuality but we love humans regardless of their active or passive involvement in same sex relationships.
The outcome of this year’s Synod is now the object of Muslims’ prayers. We are really concerned and hoping that the Biblical teachings on Marriage will prevail! Such a victory will resonate powerfully all across the Muslim world just as much as it will for the millions of believers on this Planet who remain attached to God’s Word above everything else.
I can certainly understand and appreciate, Your Holiness, that you have a tremendous task ahead of you: You must stand up to the promotion of non-Biblical teachings inside the Vatican; You must remain a leading figure of authentic Christianity in the face of the assaults carried against true Marriage and the Natural Family. On your shoulders weighs the responsibility of upholding the Word of God vs the word of Man even if it means making unpopular decisions in regards to the appointment of Church leaders.
We like to emphasize , that we Muslims are right behind you. We also provide our support in favour of the Truth through VOICE OF THE FAMILY, a movement based upon the divine teachings of Jesus(peace be upon him) in order to protect the FAMILY.
We are praying for you and encouraging you to stay strong for the Glory of God. There is more to this life than the temporary approval of men, and that is the eternal praise of The One Who holds us in His mighty hands.
I thank you on behalf of us all for giving us the opportunity to be heard on the crucial matter of Marriage/Family. We pray that whichever the outcome of the Synod will be, it will reflect the true basic teachings of Jesus (peace be upon Him) throughout, so that Marriage/Family and Humanity will be preserved.
The blessing of God on you.
Yours truly,
Dr A Majid Katme(MBBCH,DPM)
Pro-life Pro-family Muslim Campaigner in the UK/UN
Weekly TV and Radio Broadcaster
Ex-President: Islamic Medical Association/UK
Tel no: 0044 7944 240 622
Address(private):
31 North Circular Road Palmers Green London N13 5EG UK
NB: We would love and appreciate if a copy of this letter is given to every member of the Synod and to all bishops.
Thank you and GOD bless you
17 October 2015
Note for benefit if media: the good doctor is available for interviews.
That is a really wonderful letter from the Muslim doctor. I also wish he was a Catholic. We could use a dozen like him!
Thank you Dr Katme. I hope that the Pope reads your letter and that it makes him think carefully about this awful Synod.
I agree, a very inspiring letter.
I note Cardinal Marx is openly calling for Communion for the divorced and remarried
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/at-synod-cardinal-marx-openly-promotes-communion-for-divorced-and-remarried-63236/
It’s turning into a real battle with evil, the principalities and powers warned of by St Paul!
Fellow Bloggers and Lurkers,
Notwithstanding the doomsayers, be not deceived. God is not mocked. He is still in charge, and He is only biding his time to give man a chance to repent. He does not interfere with man’s free will.
If man does not repent, nay, if he continues to flaunt his “independence” in the face of God then on his own head be it.
Leprechaun,
I totally agree – we mustn’t forget that God is in charge. It’s so easy to forget that, or put it to the back of the mind, but it should be always at the front. “The gates of Hell shall not prevail”.
Has anybody else heard about this, the Pope having a stroke due to anger at the conservative cardinals.
http://angelqueen.org/2015/10/17/pope-francis-rumored-to-have-suffered-a-mini-stroke-brought-on-by-angry-confrontation-with-13-conservative-cardinals/
Margaret Mary,
I’m just astounded that this news of the Pope suffering a mini stroke brought on by bad temper hasn’t been reported in the mainstream news. I wonder how reliable the report is. If the report is accurate, it shows him in a very poor light that he has such a lack of self-control that he would make himself ill with his bad temper. Boy, does this man need prayers.
Margaret Mary, That’s big news indeed. I hope you are all praying for his recovery………… The source seems sound but has it been reported anywhere else?
It’s just about impossible to keep tabs on all of the evil that for at least twenty months has being building towards a peak at this scandalous sham Synod of Sodom. The following set of links should prove helpful as a sort of “one stop shop”. There is enough training material here for a lengthy anger management course for faithful Catholics.
http://sspx.org/en/problematic-synod-family-list-texts
Leo,
Many thanks for that very useful link – I’ll make good use of it, be assured!
A reader emailed me this Spectator article which appears to confirm Pope Francis’s determination to “de-centralize” the Church.
That’s so typical of Damian Thompson, it’s difficult to know whose side he’s on!
This is the daily press briefing from the Vatican about the Synod
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/10/19/synod_on_the_family_press_briefing_day_12/1180435
Many, many thanks, Leo for that list, and for all the research you do and share with the rest of us bloggers!
Christina
Thank you very much for your very kind words.
To be honest, it’s very tempting to try and ignore the massive, incessant scandal being unloaded by Pope Francis. Speaking personally, it’s also very difficult to keep anything resembling an even temper.
The fact that so much, seemingly endless, time and energy is being taken up with even discussing the possibility of the approval of sacrilegious communions and sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, is nothing less than a scarcely credible nightmare. Holy Mother Church really is enduring one very dark night. And even if this tsunami of filth and heresy was miraculously to recede today, immense damage would be left in its wake.
Really, I fear that the faith of many good souls among those who do not have a proper understanding of the nature and limits of the papacy is going to be severely tested. And it’s probably a bit harsh to use the familiar term “papolatry” in the case of many of these “John Paul the Great” Catholics, who are going to need a lot of help in catching up.
One more thought on the white knuckle papacy of Francis: righteous anger can be very useful in combatting sloth and tepidity, and acting under our rights and duties granted by canon law. Just thinking about, or even ignoring, what the Pope and relentless, faithless, heretical, schismatic bishops are doing isn’t good enough, to put it mildly. At this stage, all of us here should be familiar with what saints, Doctors, theologians and Popes have taught about resisting a wayward Pope.
The following words of Newman might have written with the present Conciliar madness in mind.
“The body of bishops failed in their confession of the Faith…They spoke variously, one against another; there was nothing, after (the Council of) Nicea (325 AD) of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony, for nearly sixty years. There were untrustworthy Councils. Unfaithful bishops; there was weakness, fear of consequences, misguidance, delusion, hallucination, endless, hopeless, extending into nearly every corner of the Catholic Church. The comparatively few who remained faithful were discredited and driven into exile; the rest were either deceivers or deceived.”
– John Henry Newman, On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine.
At this stage we really are hanging on for air support. It will arrive one day. We have the Immaculata’s assurance. Until then, with the help of the true Mass, and Our Lady and Her rosary, we won’t desert.
Finally, I should have posted this link before. It’s from Hilary White, a really first class and entertaining writer, one of those who are giving a genuine example of true Catholic resistance to the revolution. It’s quite long (I should talk, not!), and readers might wonder what all the mushroom talk is about, but stick with it. Come to think of it, mushrooms are rather apt, considering that faithful Catholics are getting the “mushroom treatment” from Rome right now.
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/1990-the-cordyceps-pontificate-of-pope-francis
Leo,
Brilliant quote from Newman – thanks for that. And for the Remnant link which I look forward to reading.
I think Hilary White and Lifesitenews in general, have come out fighting since things worsened with the attacks on pro-lifers and marriage under this pontificate – previously, they were careful not to criticise the popes because they, (John Paul II and Benedict) at least, spoke out in defence of family and marriage. They’ve certainly played a leading role in reporting on the synod, that’s for sure and it is 120% welcome!
What happened to the pink elephant? I wonder.
I’m still here…
What? You’re only an illusion? 😁
That, Christina, is a clear case of wishful thinking!
a very clear case of wishful thinking – LOL !
This is great news from the Synod, about the canonisation of the first married couple, in the Catholic Herald:
Pope Francis canonises Louis and Zélie Martin
by Carol Glatz
posted Monday, 19 Oct 2015
First canonisation of a married couple takes place in St Peter’s Square on Sunday
Pope Francis called on people to replace their thirst for power with the joy of quiet and humble service, as he proclaimed four new saints, including the parents of St Therese of Lisieux.
All of Christ’s disciples, especially its pastors, are called to model themselves after Jesus and “suppress our instinctive desire to exercise power over others, and instead exercise the virtue of humility.”
The Pope said the new saints — a Spanish religious woman, an Italian priest and the first married couple with children to be canonised together — “unfailingly served their brothers and sisters with outstanding humility and charity in imitation of the divine master.”
On World Mission Sunday on October 18 in St Peter’s Square, during the Synod of Bishops on the family, the Pope created the following new saints:
— Louis Martin (1823-1894) and Marie Zelie Guerin Martin (1831-1877), the French parents of St Therese of Lisieux. They had nine children; four died in infancy and five entered religious life. During their 19-year marriage, the couple was known to attend Mass daily, pray and fast, respect the Sabbath, visit the elderly and the sick, and welcome the poor into their home.
— Italian Father Vincenzo Grossi (1845-1917), founder of the Institute of the Daughters of the Oratory.
— Spanish Sister Maria of the Immaculate Conception (1926-1998), a member of the Congregation of the Sisters of the Company of the Cross.
Some 65,000 people attended the Mass, including the more than 300 cardinals, bishops and others taking part in the October 4-25 synod on the family.
While the Pope’s homily pointed to the new saints as inspiring examples of joyful servants who completely trusted in God, he dedicated the bulk of his reflection on the day’s readings and the Christian meaning of authority and hierarchy.
He said the prophet Isaiah said the servant of the Lord “is not someone of illustrious lineage; he is despised, shunned by all, a man of sorrows. He does not do great things or make memorable speeches; instead he fulfills God’s plan through his humble, quiet presence and his suffering.”
It was Jesus’s life and attitude of profound service that “were the cause of our salvation and the reconciliation of mankind with God,” the Pope said.
Jesus invites everyone to follow him on this same path of love and service, he said, and to “reject the worldly temptation of seeking first place and commanding others.”
“Faced with people who seek power and success, the disciples are called to do the opposite,” the Pope said.
Those who exercise “genuine authority” in the Church and the Christian community are those who serve others and “lack real prestige.” Jesus calls people “to pass from the thirst for power to the joy of quiet service,” the pope said.
Jesus’s teaching and example clearly show there is “no compatibility between a worldly understanding of power and the humble service, which must characterize authority.”
“Ambition and careerism are incompatible with Christian discipleship; honour, success, fame and worldly triumphs are incompatible with the logic of Christ crucified.”
Because Jesus fully shares in the human condition, with the exception of sin, he can empathise with human weaknesses, the Pope said. “The fact that he is without sin does not prevent him from understanding sinners.”
“Jesus exercises a true priesthood of mercy and compassion” by loving and accepting God’s children; by sharing in their weakness; by offering them “the grace which heals and restores”; and by accompanying them “with infinite tenderness amid their tribulations,” he said.
Through baptism, all Christians must share in this ministry by opening one’s heart to God in order to receive his love and charity, which is to be received not only “for ourselves, but also for others.”
Pope Francis again praised the new saints before reciting the Angelus in St Peter’s Square and called for their intercession.
He asked families to entrust their joys, dreams and difficulties to Ss Louis and Marie Guerin Martin; he asked that the example of St Grossi be an inspiration for people dedicated to offering young people a Christian education; and he prayed that St Maria of the Immaculate Conception “help us live in solidarity and in closeness with those most in need.”
Or perhaps the poor man will have a fatal stroke.
They say you usually don’t survive more than a couple, but I’m not a medical professional so I don’t really know. I think he’s had at least one before, so he probably needs to be careful now – and keep hold of his temper! LOL!
I have a fully functioning sense of humour, and I enjoy a good and hearty guffaw, but I seriously hope you are joking. If that is a genuine wish on your part then you are sick in the head. Even if it is a joke, it is one that is based on the Pope’s well known relatively fragile health, and therefore cheap and uncharitable. To mock someone along the lines of death, misfortune and sickness, and to wish it on them is a serious sin against charity and the commandment to love one’s neighbour, according to my booklet on confession by TAN books. I strongly urge you to go to confession, and instead of slagging the Pope off, you should pray for him to have a strong faith and good health. Nasty and bitter people such as yourself make me wish I had stayed Anglican- I never encountered nastiness, arrogance, smug conceit or general contempt for people who hold a different opinion in that Church.
I hasten to add that I oppose attempts to whittle down doctrine in terms of divorce etc., but I reiterate that to wish death or incapacitating illness on someone is uncharitable and unchristian.
Catholic Convert,
I suppose you are right about the comments re. the pope’s health but I can’t get too worked up about any seeming lack of charity towards him when he is blatantly insulting God by doing his utmost to encourage sinful behaviour by adulterers, fornicators (cohabitation) and same-sex couples.
We’ve never had such a bad pope so you have to cut us a bit of slack. There’s no nastiness or the other things on your list – people are just letting off a bit of steam so maybe your charity could extend to them, myself included since I didn’t condemn the comments but could see where the bloggers were coming from. I do wonder at your conversion if seeing sin and imperfection in Catholics makes you wish you’d stayed in the schism of Anglicanism. That’s not a conversion based on a solid foundation, especially since you think the disagreement is over a difference of opinion in the Church when it’s about a pope who is encouraging people in sinful situations to think they’re going to receive God’s mercy even if they continue in their sinful situation.
We’re all praying for the pope so there is no need to tell us to do that. I can only speak for myself but, apart from the concerns I have for Francis’ soul, I wouldn’t be shedding hypocritical tears if his fragile health gave out. However it comes about, a new pope will be more than welcome, and long overdue already, if you ask me. If that’s being uncharitable, well, that’s me being uncharitable. I don’t wish the pope ill, I just don’t want him to be pope for a second longer than absolutely necessary and I wonder if you do?
I agree with you that he is a bad Pope, no doubt about it. But if you think that I should cut somebody some slack for wishing an individual dead then you are as ridiculous as they are. To call yourself Catholic and then wish the Holy Father dead, or at least support those who do is evil. I do feel intense charity to those bloggers- I will pray for them to repent and confess. The Catholic thing to do would be to pray for the Pope to find tradition and the faith, not wish death on someone. That’s why I’m worked up.
It is not in my pay grade, or power, to say how long a Pope should reign. He will be taken, as we all will be, in God’s good time, and it is not our place to say otherwise.
You are very dishonest – nobody wished the Pope dead. You are reading the worst into the couple of posts that are there. Helen said maybe the poor man will have a fatal stroke when Nicky said he might resign soon after having another stroke, and then Fidelis said that people don’t survive many strokes so he better keep his temper. How is that “wishing him dead”?
I don’t see any lack of charity except in your posts. You’re the one who needs to repent.
CC,
Nobody wished the pope dead. That is stretching – wildly – the comments made by our bloggers in response to the news that an apparent loss of temper caused Pope Francis to have a mini-stroke. He’d better learn to keep his temper because if he ever meets me, he’ll have a hard time trying to keep calm, and a mini-stroke will be the least of his worries.
You think that’s OTT? Too bad.
If you want waffly dialogue, false charity and, of course, a good dose of even falser mercy, then, as you say, the C of E is the place to be. Or maybe the Vatican. Apply for a job there. I hear there’s at least one vacancy in the CDF.
PS I won’t be “repenting and confessing” anything in this post, shock horror. Too many real sins to worry about.
Actually, Helen did wish the Pope dead, and insinuated that a fatal stroke may be the cause. If you were employed by someone, and didn’t like that person, and a colleague (i.e. Nicky) said the Pope may resign soon, and another colleague said ‘or the poor man will have a fatal stroke’, that is expressing hope that they will die. I think that talks of people having strokes is sick and offensive. We all know people, i.e. my grandmother and great-grandmother, who died of strokes. If the Pope has had minor strokes, then we should pray that he will be given good health and not have another one.
Even if it was said in jest, without any malice intended, it is still pretty cheap.
I don’t want ‘waffly dialogue, false charity and false mercy’, but I don’t want nastiness and insults being levied on someone just because we don’t agree. We need to calmly explain our position, and if the Pope doesn’t accept it, then he will be answerable before God, as we all will be.
Actually CC, we are entitled to pray that God will take the Pope from this earth before he does any further damage, with – of course – the proviso and the sincere desire that He takes him to Heaven.
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2099-female-doctor-tells-pope-to-his-face-evil-in-this-world-comes-from-sin-not-from-income-disparity-or-climate-change
Look at this folks!
What a brave doctor! Bravo!
Crofterlady,
Great speech at the synod by Dr. Anca-Maria from Rumania. She tells the truth…Lets hope she shames the devil!
Thanks for posting that Crofterlady.
A must read by all!
There is an interesting extract from a book about Pope Paul VI on the Rorate Caeli website, emailed to me this morning by a reader. I decided to post it here, because what is going on at the Synod right now, has to be viewed within the context of Vatican II and the post-VII popes:
On the One-Year Anniversary of the Beatification: “The Papacy of Paul VI” : Devastating Excerpt from New Book on a Disastrous Pontificate
Concluding paragraphs from the extract…
In the short term, therefore, Paul VI escapes a realistic estimate, but the idols of the present age will not last for ever, either in the world or in the Church. When they have passed, he will be judged in the light of the anarchy that he promoted in the Church, the reflexion of his own division of mind. Even as he imposed acceptance of the new Mass, he wrapped it in remorseful phrases: “It is no longer Latin,” we find him saying, “but the common tongue, that will be the principal language of the Mass. For whoever knows the beauty, the power of Latin, its aptitude in expressing sacred things, this will certainly be a great sacrifice, to see it replaced by the common tongue. We are losing the language of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like intruders and outsiders in the literary domain of sacred expression. We are thus losing to a great extent that admirable and incomparable artistic and spiritual richness that is the Gregorian chant. We have reason, to be sure, to feel regrets and almost a confusion over this.”[7] Confusion indeed is the mark of a man who knew the treasure of which his policy was depriving the faithful but who pursued it nevertheless; pursued it, moreover, with blind intolerance, proscribing the liturgical tradition of the Church; pursued it while invoking the pastoral needs of a laity who were deserting the new worship in their millions.
Paul VI’s psychological peculiarities, held in the glare of modern scrutiny, perhaps throw light on the failures of earlier popes whose characters are lost in the darkness of their times. We know nothing of the weaknesses of Honorius, whose submission to the Eastern emperor earned him fifty years later the stern condemnation of Pope Leo: “We anathematise Honorius, who did not seek to purify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by a profane betrayal permitted its stainless faith to be surrendered.” It may be, however, that the Church’s censure will one day be passed on Paul VI, as on Honorius, as one “who did not, as became the apostolic authority, quench the flame of heretical doctrine as it sprang up, but quickened it by his negligence.” Source – Rorate Caeli
Undoubtedly the Conciliar novelty of Collegiality has been a major factor in the five decades of doctrinal and liturgical anarchy, as well as the de facto schism that has become more and more evident, all of which has led to an unprecedented and unquantifiable apostasy and endangerment of souls. These days of modernism on amphetamines are just one more manifestation of the grotesque, Lutheran inspired theory of conciliar kenosis (self-destruction) that is at the heart of the progressivists’ programme.
The scandalous questionnaire circulated throughout the Church two years ago was probably the first warning of the attack on doctrine that is now in full swing at Pope Francis’ sham synod. The references to “local churches” were hardly a coincidental, benign detail. Nothing ever is with Modernists.
The issue of Collegiality was involved in one of the most infamous examples of the Modernist tactic of ambiguity, during the drafting of the Vatican II’s document, Lumen Gentium. The target was the Church’s hierarchical structure and the primacy of the papacy, while decentralisation was and is at the heart of the agenda of both the ecumaniacs and revolutionaries, whose influence has been very obvious during this papacy.
“The concrete realization of the collegial spirit”, Pope Francis states in his 2013 Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, “has not been fully realized” (# 32). A “sound decentralization” is necessary (# 16). It looks like the ambiguity tactic has been pushed aside and the ecumaniacs are calling the shots: “in the dialogue with our Orthodox brothers and sisters, we Catholics have the opportunity to learn more about the meaning of Episcopal collegiality and their experience of synodality” (# 246).
And yet, it is impossible to ignore the ease, determination and single mindedness with which Pope Francis wields the full power of the Petrine office. Autocratic and dictatorial are words that spring readily to mind. To highlight the irony of the abuse of power involved in a Pope using his supreme office to force through the shattering novelty of full blown collegiality is one for the “ocean is very large and full of water” file. Thoughts of Pope Paul VI and the Mass spring to mind.
Indeed, probably the most noticeable, if not only, attachment to Tradition shown by a Pope, who from the very beginning of his papacy has referred to himself as the Bishop of Rome, is the rigorous devotion to the following magisterial teaching:
“It is an article of faith that the Roman Pontiff, successor of Blessed Peter the prince of Apostles, not only has a primacy and honour, but also of authority and jurisdiction over the universal Church, and that, consequently, the bishops, too, are under his authority. That is why, as St. Leo goes on to say, it is necessary for the whole Church throughout the entire world, to be united to the Holy See of Peter, that is to say, to the Roman Church, and to have recourse to it as to the centre of Catholic unity and ecclesiastical communion…” – Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus #10
“If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power…let him be anathema.”- Vatican Council 1, Session 4, Chapter, 3, Canon 9, July 18, 1870.
Tradition and continuity can mean only one thing, and that is not decentralization. In the face of the revolutionaries who have suddenly, if not inexplicably, become hyper ultramontanes, Catholics should recall the words of a courageous Dominican defender of Tradition:
“Using virtue and the love of God, and the abolition, in the name of virtue, of the indispensable means of formation and conservation, to blackmail the faithful into bending – that’s modernism at its most basic. Modernism controls its victims in the name of obedience, thanks to the suspicion of pride which is cast on any criticism of their reforms, in the name of respect for the Pope, in the name of missionary zeal, of charity, and of unity.”
(Fr. Roger Calmel OP, Letter of 8th August, 1973)
From the very beginning of this papacy, it has been very obvious that all the wrong people have had difficulty keeping the smirks off their faces, if they even bothered trying to conceal their delight. Recent revelations about the St. Gallen “mafia” of plotters and subversives only serve to reinforce and explain the already abundant evidence.
One of the most prominent leaders of the progressivist, revolutionary Modernists of the last five decades has given his happy approval to Pope Francis’ agenda, as set out in Evangelii Gaudium; a man who, I believe, although I’m having difficulty typing this, is a priest “in good standing”!
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/a80a1af139dbfcd0e4df07cbe5ec4a8b-162.html
This really shouldn’t come as a surprise, considering the manifesto of destruction set out over four decades ago in his book, The Church, vol.2. The following quotations of Kung are taken from Atila Guimaraes’ highly informative book Animus Delendi I (p. 164-165). The previous point about irony comes into focus when reading the third point: obviously there was to a bit of tactical flexibility when “private decisions” of Pope Francis and the enforcement of the fuehrerprinzip are required to advance the revolution. Here’s what the Swiss arch modernist had to say:
“…This reform has already begun and it will suffice here to present an outline (of what the Pope ought to do):
“1. Evangelical humility: to renounce the non-biblical honorific titles befitting only to God or Christ (Sanctissimus Dominus, Beatissimus Pater, His Holiness, Holy Father, Head of the Church) or to all Christians or all Bishops (representative of Christ, etc.)…These are some appropriate titles: Bishop of Rome, Servant of the servants of God, Supreme Shepherd…
“2. Evangelical simplicity: not to yield to a romantic idealism in matters of poverty; to renounce the pomp and luxury from bygone eras of pontifical power above all in relation to dress, domestic servants, the (papal) court, guards of honour, and even more so with regard to the liturgy.
“3. Evangelical fraternity: to fully renounce the absolutist style of government, the baroque Byzantine imperial style in speeches and letters, secret legal process, private decisions without Church collaboration or her representation (collegiality, the Episcopate, episcopal and lay councils)…
“4. Evangelical liberty: to foment the autonomy of the (local) churches and their pastoral services according to the principality of subsidiarity; the internalization and dismantling of the Curia’s power apparatus….”
If anyone is still suffering from New Springtime delirium, or has been deprived of their cognitive faculties for the last two and a half years, reading the above words might have a very beneficial effect. Is that checklist not a precise encapsulation of what has been going on?
Forget any scandalous talk about the “God of surprises”. I doubt it is possible to overstate the scale of the crisis in the Church when Kung’s programme is the programme of the Vicar of Christ.
I realise that lengthy blocks of quotations can sometimes be tedious, but in the interests of eliminating reasonable doubt, readers will hopefully appreciate the inclusion of these quotes, which are once again taken from Animus Delendi – I, by Atila Sinke Guimares. Kung is here joined by the liberal Vatican II peritus, Edward Schillebeeckx OP.
“The total Church exists in the local churches. Those who bear the ministry are not above the people of God, but rather, are included in it. They are nothing but servants of the people, who, as a body, are a priestly people adorned with the gifts of the Spirit.” Hans Kung, Truthfulness, The Future of the Church, p. 43
“The laity should have the right not only to advise, but also to make decisions jointly with their leaders in the community, in both the regional and universal Church.” – What Should Remain in the Church, p. 21, Hans Kung
“In actuality, we can say that the democratic element is appearing ever more clearly in today’s Church. We find this, above all, in the foundation of the institutional structure, in different ecclesiastic provinces and local Churches, and the relations between the Bishops and the faithful. Here, in many places, a more democratic structure is already apparent. This presupposes that the Bishop himself already has a new concept of how his authority functions. Once the episcopal image gradually takes its form within a democratic perspective, the supreme authority in Rome will be able to permit the local Churches, to a large extent, to resolve their own problems themselves. – Foundation of Authority in the Church, Edward Schillebeeckx OP
“If the experienced and qualified counsel of lay people is taken into consideration at all levels of the decision-making process, then the whole structure already will begin to change. This incorporation of the laity must be carried out at all levels, including the Roman Curia and the Synod of Bishops.” – ibid
Just for good measure, here the views of a third hardcore revolutionary:
“…horizontally today we have the people of God, where there are authorities but the primacy lies in horizontalism. That is what was recorded at the Council, which defined the Church not as a perfect, hierarchical society (the term that used to be utilized was societas perfecta). It was replaced by populous Dei, the people of God…Instead of a societas perfecta, there is the populous Dei, where are authorities but the authorities refer to the people of God. Therefore, this is the new constitution of the Church, which represents a complete change of position. I consider this to be one of the main characteristics of the Council. A vertical authoritarian regime was replaced…” – Dominique Chenu OP, Interview with Atila Sinke Guimares, 1983
With all this talk of democracy and “listening to the voice of the people”, the successors of the Apostles would do well to remember that “the people” chose Barabbas over Our Lord.
Caiphas and Judas also spring to mind.
There is no doubt that there is nothing accidental or haphazard about the destructive Conciliar programme that has been unleashed on unsuspecting Catholics, right down to the lowest level of the Church. It’s just that the revolution has not been televised. That revolution is reaching crescendo under Pope Francis.
Once again, we can take the evidence of Hans Kung, the purveyor of heresy, from the time he marked everyone’s cards in a newspaper interview two years ago in which he expressed his joyful satisfaction with the course of this papacy:
“He has already achieved some things that can no longer be withdrawn,” Küng said. “It cannot even be foreseen what the changes already initiated mean.”
“I have made many proposals for reform in the course of my life. But that a Pope could leave the papal palace in such an elegant way. I could not imagine. ”
In terms of remarried divorcees Küng is convinced that Francis has pursued “a great strategy.” “First of all he surveyed the group of eight cardinals, then the whole College of Cardinals. In the fall there will eventually be a synod on the family. Of course, every step is a risk. But if Francis has the College of Cardinals behind him, he is no longer alone. He lays total emphasis on collegiality. ” Küng is convinced that “the admission of remarried divorcees to the sacraments” will be implemented, most of all desires of the Progressive reform. “There he is performing the mercy of which he so often speaks, and putting it into practice.”
Küng concludes the interview by saying, is “happy” about Pope Francis. He had “always said his profession is not as a critic of the Pope.” “So I’m delighted that I no longer have to act as a critic of the pope.”
Enough said, Hans.
Does anyone care, at this point, to argue that the overarching programme and objectives manifested to date during the papacy of Jorge Bergoglio are in any way spontaneous, surprising and haphazard, and influenced and directed by anything other than the plan of devastation crafted by the conciliar neo modernist revolutionaries? Seriously.
Leo,
Seriously. You have hit every nail imaginable on their respective heads in this latest post. I smiled at “modernism on amphetamines” which must rank as the understatement of the synod!
And this is a classic:
“With all this talk of democracy and “listening to the voice of the people”, the successors of the Apostles would do well to remember that “the people” chose Barabbas over Our Lord. Caiphas and Judas also spring to mind.
I’ll be reading your post again, more slowly to make sure I’ve not missed anything.
One question only: I notice that you quote Atila Sinke Guimares, who, if my memory is correct, is part of the Tradition, Family, Property movement, about which, I’m afraid, I have always felt the same reservations as I feel towards certain other groups, such as Opus Dei. I’m curious to know what you think of them. That’s my question. Minus the question mark!
Editor
My views on the TFP are decidedly mixed, to be honest and charitable. I think it accurate to say that in relation to Vatican II they have adopted a position of submission and assent. While open to correction on this, my understanding is that they aren’t likely to be overcome with sorrow if the conciliar novelties and errors were to be rescinded, but they are not prepared to openly actively resist them. In other words they aren’t going to take on the modernist Bishops and break any lances in defending Tradition.
I expect opposition to the 1988 episcopal consecrations at Econe is just about universal amongst the membership, with the consequent attitude towards the Society. I can’t speak with any authority on the TFP’s official, up to date, exact, attitude to Archbishop Lefebvre, but it would be a reasonable guess to say that it is not a million miles removed from that of the FSSP. An obvious minus there, from this blogger’s point of view.
I posted comments somewhere here the week before last in which I said “credit where credit is due” to the TFP. They do get out and give public witness e.g. they hold a monthly Rosary in the main Dublin thoroughfare. They are very visible, with jacket and tie, regulation haircuts and large heraldic banner. You will remember, Editor, that I mentioned the deployment of bagpipes, so nobody can accuse them of being timid, or hiding the light, so to speak. I’ve seen videos from the US of them taking on lowlife abortionists and atheists on a college campus and at the Occupy Wall Street demo.
As a lay organisation they are not quite in same boat as the “regularised” priests and brothers in the diocesan clergy and different Ecclesia Dei priestly fraternities, but I think it fair to say that their posture in the face of the conciliar modernist revolution is similar. It comes back to the old issue of obedience, true and false. While they would no doubt object to the expression, the reality is that, like the “canonically regular” clergy, they are settled on the modernist-overseen reservation, with no obvious signs, that I am aware of, of taking a step off.
As I recall from something I read a while back, I believe there was a major falling out with Atila Sinke Guimares in the 1990s. If I am not mistaken, the latter, who took and continues to take the line of vigorous, active resistance to Vatican II novelties, wrote a lengthy open(?) letter to the TFP castigating them for putting episcopal approval and toleration above the fight for Tradition. Corrections are welcome, as I’m a tad bit doubtful on details here, and am flying from memory.
Part of the disagreement, in fact, was over Guimares’ series of books (seven or eight to date) on Vatican II and its aftermath, included among is the book, Anima Delendi – I, which I quoted from in a previous post. I believe the parting of the ways stemmed from the TFP leadership objecting to the work being published, rather than its remaining as a sort of internal resource/working paper. Again, correction welcome.
Leo,
Thank you for that very clear and very balanced account of the TFP. I can’t find anything with which to disagree and it’s very interesting that there appears to have been a “major falling out with Atila Sinke Guimares in the 1990s…”
That’s cleared up quite a bit in my mind and reinforced, frankly, my reservations about them, notwithstanding their good works in terms of public rosaries and protesting the same-sex “marriage” referendum in Ireland. Credit where it’s due, on that score, as you rightly say.
The following is undoubtedly small beer in the overall context of the tidal wave of scandal unfolding at Pope Francis’ sham synod. While it might be better placed on the recent Irish thread, it does come from the synod, from the consistent offender of pious ears, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin, who Heaven help us, is the relator of one of the English speaking episcopal discussion groups.
http://www.catholicireland.net/primates-contribution-rome-synod/
It’s hardly necessary to comment of this conciliar gem:
“We have to find a language which helps our young people to appreciate the newness and the challenge of the Gospel.”
Just try any reliable pre-Vatican II catechism, your Grace. People, educated or not, with any degree whatsoever of true religious instruction have understood clear Church teaching perfectly well for twenty centuries. And, we can do without the nails scraping down the blackboard reference to “newness”. Talk about mantras.
As for the May sodomy-acclaimed-as-“marriage” referendum, which rendered the Irish constitution blasphemous, the following remarks have to be in the running for some sort of year end award in the hall of shame. Maybe the Archbishop was simply having some sort of stab at undetectable humour, seeing as though he said last year that “the Church had lost its sense of fun”.
“The referendum was debated within a social culture where people struggle to understand abstract moral principles…”
“…What the Irish referendum showed was a breakdown between two languages. It showed also that when the demanding teaching of Jesus is presented in a way which appears to lack mercy, then we open the doors to a false language of cheap mercy.”
Anybody remotely approaching informed on the matter (a separate thread was devoted to this) knows that the collective, collegial gross dereliction of duty of the Irish Bishops in the face of evil makes the application of the term “craven pre-emptive capitulation” look a bit mild. The reality was that Church teaching on the matter was glaringly absent from the debate. The small group of lay people who did actually fight the abomination in the national media made a deliberate point of arguing on secular grounds against perversion as “marriage”. One of leading members of the group was actually a self-professed practitioner of unnatural vice.
Whatever was being “presented” by Bishop Donal McKeown of Derry to voters, it was not the teaching of Christ.
“People have to make up their own minds and I’m quite happy that people can do that in front of God, be it yes or be it no”.
“I don’t doubt that there are many people who are practicing churchgoers of whatever church background who will in conscience vote Yes, and that’s entirely up them. I’m not going to say they’re wrong,” he said.
I didn’t hear of the Bishop being overcome with rebukes or corrections from fellow Irish Bishops, and certainly not from Rome. Welcome indeed to the wonder world of conciliar Collegiality.
Was Archbishop Martin trying to tell the synod bishops the other day that the teaching of Christ on marriage was “presented” before the Irish people in May? I think they should know the reality.
Are they aware of what the Archbishop wrote in the Irish Times, three days before the plebiscite on perversion?
“I was initially reluctant to accept an invitation from The Irish Times to comment further on Friday’s marriage referendum. I do not wish the debate to be seen as predominantly a religious issue or just as a Church-State debate.
“As a bishop I have strong views on marriage based on my religious convictions. I have, however, no wish to stuff my religious views down other people’s throats, but I also have a right to express my views in the reasoned language of social ethics. In airing my views in public debate, I do not expect to be listened to on the basis of dogmatic utterance, but on the reasonableness of my argument.
“I write then primarily as a citizen of Ireland. I have no affiliation with any group of No campaigners. Some such groups will quote me, but I know how short-lived such affirmation can be. I have said that I intend to vote No, yet there are those of the ecclesiastical right-wing who accuse me of being in favour of a Yes vote, since I do not engage in direct condemnation of gay and lesbian men and women.”
Whatever was “presented” there, it wasn’t the teaching of Christ. And let’s not forget that the above wasn’t a “novelty” from the Archbishop, who has plenty of “previous” when it comes to disturbing statements.
By way of example, in an address to the Irish Catholic media at the Faith of our Fathers conference in Kilkenny on Friday, September 13, 2013, his first major public address following the Irish parliament’s legislating for the killing of unborn children up to birth, on no medical grounds, Archbishop Martin told listeners that:
‘We can repeat doctrine ad nauseam. We can denounce moral teaching with clinical clarity. But all of that will be worthless and the Church’s teaching will appear to others like any other ideology, if we do not reflect in our lives – personal and institutional – the loving embrace of the God revealed in Jesus Christ.”
I know that that collection of sentences might allow someone to spin whatever way they want, in best modernist tradition. I don’t think though, that genius is needed to work out which words stuck in the memory of those who heard them. And I’m mindful of Saint Francis of Assisi’s exhortation to “preach the Gospel, use words if necessary”. Saint Francis never spoke of “repeating doctrine ad nauseam”.
For those in doubt, the Archbishop obligingly stated that “we do not need a conformist Church”. Not much likelihood of that happening any time soon.
At the infamous February 2014 Divine Mercy Conference in Dublin, having been subjected to the scandalous Dominican dissident, Father Timothy Radcliffe, remaining attendees heard Archbishop Martin say in his sermon later that day that “we are to reach out not with a package of dogmatic formulae or a check list of morality…” Granted the danger of taking quotes out of context, no matter what follows that, the disgraceful jibe at doctrine is pretty obvious. Such words have no place in a true Catholic Bishop’s vocabulary. Let’s remember, the Archbishop spent long enough in the Vatican’s diplomatic service to know the meaning and effect of words.
Two months before the Archbishop’s May article in the Irish Times, he made a speech to an Iona Institute arranged gathering in which he said that at last year’s Synod “it was also stressed that the Church had to welcome people as they are.” Are what exactly? The Church has being welcoming repentant sinners for twenty centuries, Your Grace.
He also stated that “there can be an ethic of equality which is an ethic of recognising and respecting difference” before informing his audience that “I am not saying that gay and lesbian people are unloving or that their love is somehow deficient compared to others, I am talking about a uniqueness in the male-female relationship.”
To repeat, whatever was “presented” there, it most certainly wasn’t the teaching of Christ. I just thought that any Bishops who are attending Pope Francis’ sham synod and who happened to be passing by here might like to know.
How about the following for a renunciation of a Bishop’s solemn duty before God to lead, teach and sanctify souls under his jurisdiction, spoken a few weeks ago, when His Grace was launching a book written by an Anglican:
“Faith is not about regurgitating perennial certainties. It is about perennially having the capacity to think anew – being challenged even to doubt,” the Archbishop suggested.
“It is about perennially having the capacity to think anew and to think anew within an ever more rapidly changing world, being challenged even to doubt, but as Cardinal Etchegaray said always trying to come out facing in the right direction; not the non-direction of entrenchment in a past which seemed secure but may never have existed, but in renewed thinking, which generates renewed optimism and renewed faith.”
Marks out of ten, folks, for “presentation” of immutable Catholic Truth?
http://www.catholicireland.net/archbishops-tribute-popes-willingness-anew/
The Newsletter sometimes has column entitled “When Irish Eyes are not Smiling”, carrying incidents of shame from the recently declared Republic of Sodom. Well, for anybody out there who is interested, the reality right now is that in this land of countless souls effectively abandoned by their shepherds, apostate Irish eyes are like two spiders climbing up a jar a beetroot.
Leo,
You are so right – for twenty centuries people understood the language of preachers and others who teach the faith, parents and teachers, even the peasants working in the fields, and now that we have so many young people going off to university to study for degrees in this, that, and everything, suddenly the Church has to find a new language to make the faith acceptable to young people.
Is this Catholic Tradition that’s being described: “the non-direction of entrenchment in a past which seemed secure but may never have existed” ?
As ever, your post is rich with apposite quotes, Leo. They keep bringing us back to the realisation of how bad things are. Thank you, though – we need reminding as often as possible, to keep us from the danger of falling into modernism.
Leo,
Yet again, as with Archbishop Conti (former Archbishop of Glasgow), as reported in a recent edition of our Newsletter, we have an (Irish) archbishop promoting a grave sin against Faith – that is, the sin of deliberately doubting what God has revealed: ““Faith is not about regurgitating perennial certainties. It is about perennially having the capacity to think anew – being challenged even to doubt,” the Archbishop suggested. (taken from your “Catholic Ireland.net” link)
All in all, Leo, I think you’ve provided us with plentiful content for our next “When Irish Eyes Are Not Smiling” column! Without a doubt, if you’ll excuse the pun!
I saw the picture from this news article yesterday http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-21/slovenia-police-asylum-seekers/6871312 and it chillingly reminded me of Jacinta Marto’s vision which was revealed in Sister Lucia’s official memoirs and which Sister Lucia said was part of the Secret (so it must be part of the Third Secret because there was nothing like that revealed in the first two parts):-
“At another time, we went to the cave called Lapa do Cabeço. As soon as we got there, we prostrated on the ground, saying the prayers the Angel had taught us. After some time, Jacinta stood up and called to me: “CAN’T YOU SEE ALL THOSE HIGHWAYS AND ROADS AND FIELDS FULL OF PEOPLE, WHO ARE CRYING WITH HUNGER AND HAVE NOTHING TO EAT? (Emphasis mine) And the Holy Father in a church praying before the Immaculate Heart of Mary? And so many people praying with him?” Some days later, she asked me: “Can I say that I saw the Holy Father and all those people?” “No. Don’t you see that that’s part of the secret? If you do, they’ll find out right away.” “All right! Then I’ll say nothing at all.” (From Sister Lucia’s Memoirs, volume 1, p129)
Westminster Fly,
The problem I have with that quote is that there is no sign of the Pope praying before the Immaculate Heart of Mary and I don’t see how the migrant crisis could be part of the Third Secret, since the Third Secret is about the apostasy in the Church. Maybe I’m not understanding your meaning, but I don’t see the connection.
Some good stuff here. We need more of same!
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/arinze-rebuts-cardinals-claim-that-catholic-faith-is-unrealistic-who-do-you
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/interview-bishop-schneider-warns-of-spirit-of-satan-at-synod-on-the-family
Crofterlady,
Two brilliant links – thank you for posting those reports.
Crofterlady.
Yes its good to see that there are faithful Cardinals and Bishops who will not bargain with the devil.
Quite a coincidence too that the vision of the children as recorded by Sr. Lucia showed ‘fields full of starving people starving and crying with hunger’ compares to the refugees fleeing from Syria.
Lord have mercy on them and us if we fail to help them.
Time to say the rosary.
Despite appearances, I have not gone away.
I have been sitting quietly in the side lines (gasp from my long suffering saintly wife) enjoying the fantastic commentary on this site.
With all due respects to the esteemed other posters, I must say Leos’ are worth their weight in gold.
Has he written a book? if not, why not.
In view of our esteemed Editors threat (?) to start an Irish post, I hereby preempt her with the following piece of doggerel. It should be dedicated to Archbishop Martin I suppose.
Please leave it, if you wish, for the anticipated new thread.
HOW ARE THINGS IN GLOCCA AND GOMMORAH
How’s it goin’ in old Glocca Morra
Now twinned with Sodom and Gomorrah,
Are you still awaiting fire and brimstone
An epithet on Irelands headstone;
For Saints and scholars an island famed
Being counter culture you’re now proclaimed,
When Old Irelands eyes have stopped smiling
You’ve made it so with laws defiling.
When the shepherds left their flocks to fight
The great war with satan and took flight,
Into the arms of modernism
They lost the war with communism;
The faithful few are now ostracised
Multi ethnic children not baptised,
This cultural desert makes Grainne Bhaile (wail)
The death knell sounds for the ancient Gael.
Having survived Cromwell’s genocide
And the Great Hunger when millions died,
It should have been “easy as she goes”
With your great history in verse and prose;
You succumbed to the god of mammon
The Celtic Tiger was your shaman,
Ceased belief in the Virgin Mary
Hitched your skirts for the EU fairy.
When raised near the fields of Athenry
The belief in God was Lex loci,
There was no sign of opposition
Despite some Celtic superstition;
We celebrated the Latin Mass
Not knowing the turmoil to come to pass,
Before the masonic Club of Rome
Had wrecked the peace of our humble home.
Waterside4
We missed you! Welcome back.
And stop giving Leo ideas – if he goes off to write a book, we’ll be lost without him!
But the real question is, have YOU written a book – of poetry – and if not, why not???? Yours above sure beats my last effort which began there was a wee man from Dundee…
Seriously, in case anyone’s interested, I have been writing a crime novel and one of these days, I’ll get it finished! (Well, it may not be in the same league as Leo’s writings but it’s better than nothing 😀 And the murderer is not all bad…)
Waterside4
Thank you very much for those words. I think that the flattery police will be knocking on your door in the near future.
Truth be told, most of the time I’m just bodgering posts together, passing on the work of others, and taking from the treasury given to all Catholics, the Church’s magisterium. Anger, as in the last few weeks, can often be a very useful spur.
I wouldn’t have thought, though, that my efforts could hold a light to Editor’s or Athanasius’ when it comes to expressing things, and putting right those in error. And honestly, with the exception of the occasional troublemaker or malevolent troll, I always considered this blog a team effort. I can think of other bloggers who can say all that needs to be said, in a few lines, without testing anyone’s attention span.
As for books, I think my station is with the readers, while the likes of Christopher Ferrara, Louis Verecchio, John Vennari, Michael Matt, Cornelia Ferreira and Hilary White do the real writing. The world will be a better place that way. Well maybe if I stapled two or three marathon posts together, I might have something, in terms of quantity anyway.
For some reason I’m reminded of the following:
Mick was talking to a friend one day: “Ye know, this speed reading crack is great. Yesterday, I read War and Peace from cover to cover.”
Friend: “Right. That sounds a bit impressive. What’s the storyline then?”
Mick: “I think it’s about Russia”.
As for poetry, Waterside4, I think that poem on Glocca and Gomorrah is brilliant, spot on. And likewise the one on the Rosary. I’m storing them for distribution. I think you are pretty close to being elected as this blog’s “poet laureate”.
Philately will get you a long way!
How can a murder(er) not be all bad?
An oxymoron if I ever met one!
Anyway I’m too old the be writing books
Keep up the good work my esteemed editor.
Philately? Collecting postage stamps? You having me on?
How can a murderer not be all bad, you ask: answer: if I invented him! That’s how! He’s a Catholic Truth reader, dopey!
I’ve been working on my poetry this evening, so, for the record, here’s the next line of my poem…
There was a wee man from Dundee,
Who fell over and hurt his poor knee; .
If I can think of a good finish, I will post it here. But don’t hold your breath. Those two lines took me ages to put together…
So, maybe best to wait for the crime thriller!
There was a wee man from Dundee
Who fell and hurt his poor knee
In truth I can tell
The reason he fell
Was `cos he was late for his tea.
Frankier,
OK. I give up. Two poets Vs one would-be crime-writer trying her hand at poetry – it’s a no brainer 😀
Ed.
Here’s a message for you.
From a synod of bishops in Rome
Pope Francis has emailed my home
He said Will you see,
Why the Ed. from CT
Refuses to answer her phone?
Frankier,
LOL ! That’s one call the Pope really wouldn’t want answered !
Michaela
He would soon drop the phone when the vile language started.
Frankier,
The Pope would not hear any vile language from me, be assured, but I’d be skipping the “Your Holiness”/”Holy Father” bit – that’s for sure!
Ed
Sorry, I meant that you would drop the phone when the vile language started.
Frankier,
Too true! LOL! Pope Francis wouldn’t exactly be delighted to get a phone conversation with editor! LOL!
Helen,
What is meant is that we must resist the false teaching, the modernism being promoted by the rebels at the Synod. In the context of the synod and the bishops promoting immorality, we must resist, i.e. refuse to accept, the false “mercy” being promoted as a means of undermining and, indeed, overthrowing, the teaching of Christ on marriage.
I know I can be somewhat lazy about posting here though I do, like many, lurk on a regular basis. However, the thread topic is so fundamental to our Faith and our Church, I am surprised at the lack activity hitherto.
Leo,
A Bishop doing what he is supposed to.
I doubt however Pope Francis, Cardinal Kaspar and those of the same ilk will take any notice.
Maybe “the God of surprises” isn’t going to show up after all…
“One of the prelates responsible for drafting the final document from the ongoing Synod of Bishops has said he does not anticipate that it will propose changes in the Catholic church’s practices towards the divorced and remarried.
Indian Cardinal Oswald Gracias — one of ten prelates who co-drafted the document after three-weeks of intense deliberations among some 270 bishops at the Oct. 4-25 Synod — said in particular that one specific proposal that might have allowed the remarried to take Communion would likely not be mentioned.
That proposal would have suggested that the church could use what is called the “internal forum” to allow some remarried persons to take the Eucharist on a private, case-by-case basis after seeking guidance, advice, and then permission from priests or bishops.
“I don’t expect that,” said Gracias, speaking in an NCR interview Thursday. “I think this has got to be studied.”
“I don’t think we’re ready as yet,” said the cardinal. “The matter has not been sufficiently analyzed in depth. We all know, all the bishops know, that this is a possibility. But we’ve never focused on that.”
Francis-cartoon-book.jpgNow available: The Chronicles of Francis, the Cartoon Strip, featuring cartoons from the popular series Francis.
“Now, with the pope’s giving more power to the bishops for annulments I think the next step could be letting bishops take responsibility also for training the consciences of people,” he continued. “That is essential in internal forum solutions.”
“It’s in keeping with church teaching, so it is not something totally new,” he said. “Yet, this internal forum solution should not be randomly used by everybody. That’s the danger.”
“I do think we must study it, certainly,” said Gracias. “That’s why I don’t think the document would have it. I don’t think we’re ready yet to have a consensus on this matter, and it would be not good to have the Synod divided on this matter at the moment.” Source
“Maybe “the God of surprises” isn’t going to show up after all…”
I sincerely hope not – LOL!
Hot off the press!
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2112-special-synod-report-is-healthy-decentralization-part-of-the-plan
That’s a fantastic video by Michael Matt. He is so right about this all being the Pope’s fault, no use blaming the cardinals around him, since he appointed them in the first place. That’s what we’ve been saying on this blog since Adam was a boy, LOL! As he says, it’s “jaw-dropping” that there are still Catholics who are blaming the bishops and cardinals but won’t blame the Pope. What will it take to make them see the truth?
There are none so blind as those who will not see, Margaret Mary. I’ll be very interested to see what Michael Voris comes up with if the Pope does what we all fear he will do. The liberals are not hiding in the shadows any longer, and I feel that anyone who continues to make excuses for this demonic agenda is either terminally stupid or of bad will.
Margaret Mary and Therese,
I agree that the video is a fantastic one. I don’t know if either of you had a look at the comments beneath it.
Michael Voris did his usual stock in trade tirade about how dare Michael Matt stand in front of the Vatican in the spot secured for him by a Cardinal whom he could not name. Then proceeded to threaten him more or less with legal action. Well no surprises there. There is nothing so blind as those who cannot see.
But then to accuse both Michael Matt and Christopher Ferrara of being heinous sinners. Come on Michael Voris how dare you suggest that both these men are on a sure road to hell.
Thanks Theresa Rose. I suppose that answers my question, as I don’t think Michael Voris is terminally stupid.
Theresa Rose
I think that comment is a spoof – I see his name is spelt Vorris (it is actually Voris, with one R) so I think it’s is somebody taking the mickey out of Michael Voris. If you ask me, it’s a very well deserved case of poking fun at him – LOL!
Margaret Mary,
I never picked up on the misspelling of Voris. You might well be right in saying that the comment being a spoof. That is the problem with Michael Voris he has made quite a few comments like that recently. No wonder if it is really a spoof.
That’s very good news about the Polish priest being suspended. He should be outright dismissed from the clerical state, though.
Thank you for that correction, Margaret Mary.
You are quite correct. That priest should of course be dismissed, not suspended. I bet though, that he’s more than a tad bit regretful that he opened his mouth and pranced about in that sickening fashion.
in order to assuage our Crofter Lady and others I would like to take them back in time – like Back to the Future – hopefully – with the following ditty of rural life in the Ireland of my long lost youth.
THE ROSARY
Our neighbourhood was rural
In my childhood of the horse.
The lights were oil and candle
Pre electro motive force;
We were the only household
With a copy of “The Press”
Which the local bachelors
Came to read and then digress.
Their talk was quite eclectic
Through art, politics and sport,
Back then a sixth grade pupil
Did not need a school report;
To show that he had mastered
The most basic rudiments,
Which now are much sought kudos
For literary gradunents.
Their knowledge was amazing
They discussed near everything,
From atom bombs and physics
To subduing Christy Ring;
Would Dempsey or Gene Tunney
Take the Bomber at his best,
Would Mao win Indochina
Or would Eisenhower revest.
I can’t forget these people
Of a simple homespun kind,
There was one whose gentle mien
Always stands out in my mind;
When tea with bread was broken
She took the beads and kneeling down
“Now lets say the Rosary”
They obliged without a frown.
He ‘led in’ the Rosary
But on occasion lost his way,
A Mystery to my Father
Why it had to change each day;
To start with he was Joyful
But got Sorrowful past ten,
She’d say “Glory Mikey, Glory”
And he’d Glory there and then,
She commandeered the ‘Trimmings’
Where her prayers went on and on,
She included all the neighbours
Though we scarce knew everyone
She invoked the help of Patrons;
To set poor prisoners free
She even prayed for heathens
That the true light they may see.
In that time of simple faith
Many decades long ago,
Belief was far from simple
Not bound up in false ego;
I wonder if there’s many
Rural firesides on this night,
Have time to pray the Rosary
In our heathen fading light.
Patrick Healy
The Spectator reports on the synod diary of ++Mark Coleridge of Australia, which reveals the Synod process suffers from organisational and technical calamities:
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/farce-and-verbiage-behind-the-scenes-at-the-popes-synod-an-aussie-archbishop-spills-the-beans/
They have also found an old video of Jorge Bergoglio, before becoming Pope, distributing communion in the typical “mega mass” fashion; i.e as though the hosts were a tub of peanuts or something. Damian Thompson comments:
But the film – which must surely be genuine – may throw light on the Pope’s opinions on who is entitled to receive the sacrament. Anyone, judging by this.
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/is-this-the-future-pope-francis-casually-passing-holy-communion-into-a-crowd/
“My God My God Why Have They Forsaken You “. Do these so called leaders of our Faith not understand what Christ meant “What does it Profit a man if he should gain the whole World but suffer the loss of their Soul”. We know that there is something Tremendously wrong with the leadership I E our Pope in the Church when Maddona and Elton John say that they love him.
I took great heart from this article dated 22/10:
“Synod Diary: “Even Kasperites can count.”
“Tonight, the first draft of the final document will be summarized by Cardinal Erdo; it is widely expected that Church teaching will be reaffirmed by a significant majority”
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/4306/synod_diary_even_kasperites_can_count.aspx
Yet strangely, opinion is divided around the Catholic blogosphere as to what the outcome will be. Fr Z says he is “not confident”, yet blogger Mundabor is confidently proclaiming that Francis & Co have been strongly rebuffed.
Gabriel,
I read one of the dissenter cardinals saying that nothing will change because they need more time to convince the other bishops, or words to that effect. I think they are just waiting and watching for the right moment. I don’t think they expected so much opposition.
Today I returned from a pilgrimage to Lourdes and Fatima asking Our Lady to protect the Church from unfortunate outcomes of the Synod.
Wurdesmythe,
That’s great news about your pilgrimage. I think your prayers are being answered as the dissenters are taken aback at the number of bishops who opposed their schemes, and the talk is that they won’t get the changes they wanted now, but will have to wait longer. I hope the Consecration of Russia takes place soon as that will put an end to all the plans, Deo gratias.
Howdy stranger! Great to hear from you Wurdesmythe,
I’ve been to Lourdes twice but never Fatima, so I’m (spiritually!) envious of your pilgrimage, which I’m sure will bear good fruit in terms of protecting the Church from “unfortunate outcomes of the Synod” as you prayed.
We’ll get a clue tomorrow when, God willing, the full force of Hurricane Synod will be kept at bay a while longer, while the wolves work out how to attack the flock from a different angle next time – can’t resist the mixed metaphors!
Wurdesmythe,
Has anyone ever told you that you bear more than a passing resemblance to a former Chancellor of England? (And rest assured I’m not referring to messers Lawson, Lamont or Brown).
If you also (in all humility) consider yourself a person of singular learning, with an angel’s wit; of marvellous mirth but sometimes of sad gravity – then I really will have to reassess my previous dismissal of reincarnation.
Has anyone ever told you that you bear more than a passing resemblance to a former Chancellor of England?
Said Chancellor was the patron saint of my Confirmation; that is as far as the resemblance goes.
Our Lady of Fatima pray for us! We really need some kind of major intervention.
Teresa Rose, we certainly do. This thread has been fantastic for the incredible amount of research done by a relatively small number of bloggers. I imagine that we lurkers are considerably more numerous, as we have daily been kept informed, via brilliant commentary and links, with what has been going on in the Synod from Hell. God bless all of you for the time and effort you have put into this.
Does anyone else find the deafening silence of the media strange? Joe soap who doesn’t “do” internet, won’t have a clue what’s going on.
Helen,
I think you just asked and answered your own question!
Just a wee word, folks…
I’m up to my eyes with matters domestic right now (long story, don’t ask) so I will be absent from the blog for longer than usual stretches for the next week. I will pop in when I can, but I thought I’d mention (just in case anybody should notice – like they’re bound to…NOT!) that I have a lot to deal with this week (winning the lottery really IS a pain…) so don’t go thinking I’ve attended a meeting of the Scottish Bishops Conference and am now recovering in wards 4,5 and 6 of the Royal Infirmary 😀
Editor,
If I am understanding correctly about what is said about the Synod via the Remnant Newspaper and the video link. Then the only thing I can say is that there is a complete dereliction of duty by Pope Francis and a number of Prelates in their failure top uphold Catholic Doctrine and Catholic teaching.
I need to say that there have been a number of Cardinals and Bishops who have come to the defence of Catholic Doctrines and teaching like a good shepherd does.
However, it looks like we are being told forget the 10 Commandments and everything else concerning the Catholic Faith – just do as your conscience tells you. Well does that mean murderers and thieves can claim they did what they did because their conscience told them to go right ahead?
Are Catholics being led down the road to perdition – that is to hell?
I remember being taught as a child that as a Catholic we should always pray for priests, no matter be they parish priest in your local parish or, Bishop or Pope even. We do this in charity because they have the heavy responsibility for the salvation of souls in their care.
Our Lady of Fatima pray not only for the Catholic laity, but especially for all priests.
Theresa Rose,
“However, it looks like we are being told forget the 10 Commandments and everything else concerning the Catholic Faith – just do as your conscience tells you”
That seems to be exactly what the Synod document is saying and it is a scandal of awesome proportions.
I wonder how it will all pan out in the parishes?
Here is a good article (see link) from Fr Ray Blake, criticising liberalism and Pope Francis in the wake of the Synod.
He says we should be patient and have cause for hope, because although the Synod was all about VII waffle and ambiguity, it was clear that the African Church is rising and its growing influence will help provide a positive future for the Church.
As to why the African Church is of such good quality, he says:
Dare I suggest it, it was that Archbishop, that Apostolic Delegate for French speaking Africa, who was so keen on promoting native clergy, so keen on promoting sound seminaries and sound catechesis, that he managed to set fire to Africa, and the flame still burns brightly.
Indeed the article is headed by a picture of Marcel Lefebvre.
And of the Synod, he concludes:
I suspect this was not yet the triumph of orthodoxy but it was a defeat for Liberalism – but wait, be patient.
http://marymagdalen.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/synod-not-of-liberalism.html
Gabriel,
I think you are very charitable in your reading of Fr Ray Blake’s blog. I see him as writing in a “poor Pope Francis” manner, as if the Pope is trying to keep it all together instead of he being the ringleader of the liberals. For example, the following passage is, to my mind, just beyond belief:
“I can understand him being cautious, even frightened to come out with clarity, besides that is not his way. I can understand his concern up until now has been to keep the Teutons and the more liberal exponents of South American theology in the Church”
I think Fr Blake needs to view the videos on this excellent thread, where we have the daily reports from the Fatima people, John Vennari and Chris Ferrara. That’s where he will see that this synod was not a “defeat for Liberalism” – they have come out of this perfectly happy. It’s basically a Protestant Church now, at least until the Consecration of Russia.
Michaela,
My interpretation was of Fr Blake viewing Francis as something of an empty vessel, who was pandering to the Germans etc, hoping to deliver what they want to keep them “on side”.
He said that Francis has been “painted into a corner” and his response to the final report is now down to “what he can get away with” rather than any grand liberal triumph.
Fr Blake was more explicit in a further blog post where he says:
“It is precisely because of the Pope’s own packing of the Synod with his liberal nominees that I think the Synod was a victory for Catholics and a defeat for Liberalism, especially as Catholics, bishops especially, by instinct want to be in the Pope’s party.
Practically all of those delegates elected by Episcopal Conferences seemed to hold a more or less Catholic position, whilst many of the Papal nominees did not.”
He makes recommendations that Francis ” looks to the unity of the Church, which has been seriously damaged recently, and secondly, that he finds an alternative to his negative carping and condemnatory style”
http://marymagdalen.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/i-admire-cardinal-pell.html
Of course, a novus ordo priest like Fr Blake, will always be less forceful and blunt than the brave and direct SSPX voices, but I liked what he had shared – of course I respect the fact others may read a different interpretation.
I fail to see how it was a “defeat for Liberalism”. Cardinal Vincent Nichols wouldn’t agree. When asked this morning if divorced and re-married “Catholics” could receive Holy Communion, his answer was that they should “come and talk to us”. In other words, don’t make a fuss about it, we’ll just OK it at the local level. Pretty much like Pope Francis did when advising the divorced women to go to another priest if their local pp was making a big deal about colluding in a sacrilege.
Therese,
We can always rely on Cardinal Nichols to talk rubbish! After the 2014 synod he claimed he didn’t vote for pro-homosexual paragraphs because they were not pro-homosexual enough for him. After this synod he is prattling his “come talk to us” line. He just says whatever he thinks will win him favour with the UK media and the English “magic circle” of Bishops; as well as impress his Anglican friends etc.
But, as for a defeat for liberals, look at what the central liberal figures are saying:
Pope Francis bleats that:
“[The Synod had] “laid bare the closed hearts which frequently hide even behind the Church’s teachings or good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families”.
https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2015/10/25/francis-admits-defeat-bitches-around-and-promises-to-keep-promoting-heresy/
And Cardinal Wuerl – one of Francis hand-picked liberals to write / gerrymander the final report and who has a personal record of giving communion to unrepentant sinners – says:
“There’s no new recommendation” [on access to the sacraments for divorced Catholics],
http://www.wsj.com/articles/pope-francis-weighs-response-to-setback-on-divorce-issue-1445809918?utm_content=bufferb1b68&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
It is true that the final documents use weak, Vatican II style language, but they are fundamentally orthodox.
Of course, liberals and their media allies will try to distort this – we have already seen this from, Nichols, Schoenborn and Kasper (at least Wuerl had the decency to be honest) – but we must not give into them and insist on the real meaning of the documents prevailing.
If we do not resist their attempts to distort the output, then we give them victory on a plate.
After a battle, the side which can keep control of the empty battlefield gains much.
In WW2, the Germans were good at this and it meant they could retrieve and repair their vehicles which had been damaged during the fighting – a great boost to their war effort. We were not good at this, and it meant that we lost even vehicles were were only slightly damaged and could have been easily fixed – a big hindrance.
After the synod battle, we are now in the “keep control of the battlefield” phase. This is what Nichols and co are trying to do with their prattle. But, rather than repairing damaged tanks, our own goal is to ensure the synod outcome is properly understood and efforts to distort it are rebuffed.
Here is the latest Remnant video on the “two Churches” post-synod.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YyaQHuk0zQ?feature=player_detailpage&w=640&h=360%5D
John Vennari and Christopher Ferrara are discussing the end of the Synod of the Family at Fatima TV:
Synod 9: The Synodal Wasteland. I don’t think that I have managed to copy and embed it, but it is well worth hearing it.
Why won’t John Vennari name the “conservative” prelate who more or less said the document could have been worse. I don’t understand why they are not revealing his identity. Is it Cardinal Burke? Bishop Schneider? I would want to know that so that I stop praising him as a faithful prelate. Nobody is faithful who welcomes that document. That’s obvious, IMHO. Somebody will eventually name him, so why are they shying away from it?
No doubt we are going to be inundated with all sorts of commentaries about Pope Francis’ farcical, fraudulent, sham synod, its breathtaking Machiavellian machinations, and its evil fruits, in the first instance presented in the form of the final document.
Along with the Catholic Family News videos and those of the Remnant, most especially the second, spectacular 28 minute long interview with Dr. John Rao, I would highly recommend readers find time for the following typically excellent article by Hilary White, also at the Remnant. It is noteworthy because it deals with the overarching, novus ordo, conciliar context of this scandalous synod rather than the ugly details.
It articulates very well what a lot of us here no doubt think, and should be very helpful for any Catholic struggling to see the real elephant in the room.
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2115-the-spirit-of-the-synod-a-plague-on-both-your-houses
Hopefully the following excerpts (many others could have been chosen) will serve to encourage others to read the full article.
“In reality, the arguments and outrages of the Synod aren’t over doctrine or dogmas per se. The battle is over first principles. And what the Synod has demonstrated is that the distinctions between the “good” and “bad” bishops we have been making are essentially false ones. They really aren’t different because they basically all accept the same first principles, or general premises: “The Church was bad, but thanks to Vatican II, we are now mature, and can face the modern world as part of it, with our heads held high at places like the UN, equal players in the international fields.
“All the Bishops essentially agree on this. All. Of. Them.
“This is because in order to become a bishop in the last 50 years, this has been the only litmus test that counts. Their agreement on the positive developments in the Church since the Great and Glorious Council to End All Councils, is what makes them company men.”…
…”But the reality is already being laid out for all the world to see. This Synod is intended as the beginning of a whole new Church. In fact, one of the bishops at a press conference in the last day or so said it pretty much right out loud.
“‘The final document is important, but even more important, the Pope has himself seen the Synodal experience, so he really knows what’s happening, and can do something with all that.’ [Anyone who now continues to claim that Francis can’t know what’s being said and done in his name can be tarred and feathered without fear of sin.] Because the whole thing, from the first questionnaire, to the last preening, self congratulatory handshake in front of the cameras, has all been nothing more than Kabuki theatre.”…
“…This, if nothing else, is what I hope and pray the Synod has taught many people: while we can generally agree with the “good” bishops on some of the Church’s doctrines — mainly those relating to sex — our gripe with them is precisely on the level of first principles. And on those, ultimately, these ‘good conservatives’ are of necessity on exactly the same page as the mad progressives. And, it must be said, against us, the faithful.”
In the days, weeks, months, and probably years to come, when we are told by neo-Catholics that there is nothing to see, and to move along, let’s remember that the task is one of restoration in the Church, not some Cult of Man pseudo “renewal” based on human respect and toleration of error. Until the human element of the Church returns to those first principles identified so correctly by Hilary White in her article, we’d better be prepared for the long conciliar nuclear winter to continue. And let’s remember to point out to the apostasy coverers that novus ordoism is not Catholicism.Until they recognise that and act on it, they are actually hampering the salvation of souls. No ifs, buts, maybes, or whatever you are having yourself.
Archbishop Lefebvre, who is vindicated more and more with each passing day, warned Cardinal Ottaviani about what was happening twelve months after the end of Vatican II. I wonder where that letter ended up.
http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/arch_lefebvre_response_card_ottaviani_post_council.htm
Leo,
Well timed comment, rich in apposite information as ever.
I say “well timed” because I have today received the following email from an Irish lady – this is the second time I’ve heard from her as you may deduce from her message…
Hello Editor,
I’ve been following your blog on the Synod it’s good, I like the youtube clips from the Remnant TV guys. As I said before I thought ye all were a little strange and over the top, but I can see now that ye’ve been driven over the top and even others are beginning to wake up and smell the coffee! Like me!
Anyway, here is a link that I think you might find interesting. I wasn’t aware of such masses in Dublin until this weekend, and as you can read from the article the first mass was celebrated by Archbishop Martin. I was shocked that the rainbow flag was on the altar as noted in the article. Perhaps ye already know about this. I was aware of them in London but not Dublin.
http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/gay-catholics-pray-2015-will-be-the-year-of-the-welcome-1.2035620
I do enjoy the blog and as I said I’m beginning to see things from ye’re side now. However, the only thing I don’t like is when members don’t call people by the correct titles or name call countries.
Keep up the good work.
I’m not aware of anyone not using “correct titles” – perhaps she doesn’t understand the blogging convention of usernames, and I’ve no recollection of anyone name-calling countries, but, hey, I’m not the patriotic type, so I don’t suppose I’d notice!
The fact that Pope Francis’ farcical, fraudulent, sham synod concluded on the eve of the Feast of Christ the King must be seen, in this blogger’s opinion, as adding one more insult to injury.
One of the most egregious errors of the modernist shepherds over the last five decades has been the very deliberate, pre-meditated abandonment of the Church’s constant teaching on the Social Kingship of Christ, a teaching which is of central importance in these days when the world is drowning in the filth of satan.
One of the great nineteenth century defenders of the Social Kingship of Christ, and a prelate whose work was amongst the regular reading of Pope Saint Pius X, was Cardinal Pie of Poitiers. The quotations underneath are taken from a sermon which he preached twice at the Cathedral of Chartres in 1841 and 1847.
There is a great deal that could be quote from the sermon (published by the Angelus Press in the book entitled, Reflections on the Kingship of Christ) but the following should prove a sufficient indictment of, and antidote to, the Modernist mindrot that is infecting Rome in these days. On a more positive angle, they should remind us that sinister enemies and challenges to the Faith are nothing new for faithful Catholics.
“Truth in the mind and virtue in the heart are things that correspond nearly inseparably; when the mind is delivered to the demonic lie, the heart, if by chance the obsession has not seized it first, is close to delivering itself to demonic vice. Intellect and Will are two sisters between which seduction is contagious; if you see that the first has given itself up to error, throw a veil on the honour of the second.”
Get that, Cardinal Kasper?
“Among this confusion of ideas and false opinions, it is up to us, priests of the incorruptible truth, to intervene and to protest vigorously and vocally; fortunate we are if the rigid inflexibility of our teaching can stop the flood of error, dethrone erroneous principles which are reigning superbly in minds, correct deadly axioms which already assume authority with the sanction of time, finally enlighten and purify a society which threatens to sin, in growing old, into a chaos of darkness and of disorders where it would no longer be possible to distinguish the nature, and even less the remedy , of its ills.”
Any comments, Archbishop Cupich?
“It is of the essence of every truth not to tolerate the contradictory principle. The affirmation of one thing excludes the negation of this very same thing, as light excludes darkness. Where nothing is certain, where nothing is defined, the sentiments can be divided, opinions can vary…To condemn truth to tolerance is to force it to suicide. Affirmation kills itself if it doubts of itself; and it doubts of itself if it leaves indifferently the negation to pose itself beside it.”
How about trying a bit of genuine Catholic affirmation, Cardinal Marx?
“But if it concerns religious truth, taught or revealed by God Himself; if it is a matter of your eternal future and of the salvation of your soul, then there is no more compromise possible…It is the condition of every truth to be intolerant; but religious truth, being the most absolute and the most important of all truths, is consequently also the most intolerant and the most exclusive.”
Did you see that, Cardinal Schonborn: it mentioned “the salvation of your soul”.
“The establishment of the Church was a work of dogmatic intolerance, the whole history of the Church is likewise only the history of this intolerance. What are the martyrs?- People intolerant in the matters of the faith, who preferred torture than to profess error. What is the Creed?- Formulas of intolerance which regulate what it is necessary to believe and which impose on the reason necessary mysteries. What is the Papacy?- An institution of doctrinal intolerance, which through hierarchical unity maintains the unity of the faith. Why the Councils?- To stop deviations of thought, to condemn false interpretations of dogma, to anathematize propositions contrary to the Faith.”
With fidelity and filial respect, Pope Francis, is there any possibility of you including the above words in any future Motu Proprio?
There might be an interesting compare and contrast to be done. In any event, those words should serve as some relief from the repulsive, ambiguous, fuzzy, mushy, human respect-oozing, truth-evading, “inclusive”, cream puff language that is gushing from the mouths of the shepherds in these dark days.
Editor
I’m guessing that your Irish correspondent’s remark about “name-calling countries” might have something to do with my use of the term “Republic of Sodom”. Look, to put it as briefly as possible, I’m as patriotic as anybody, and rightly proud of the part my nation has played in preserving, defending and spreading the Faith. Just so there is no doubt here, my loyalty is to the dead generations who held the Faith through centuries of dungeon fire and sword, those who never abandoned their love for Ireland and the freedom of her people, and those recent generations who stoically endured real hardship with dignity and humour, and Christian faith and fortitude, and who contributed worthily to the salvation of souls, and society wherever they were forced to emigrate. I’m also proud to be one of the 38% who opposed the blasphemous abomination that took place five months ago, and one who actually did something to try and stop. I don’t have a loyalty to an ungrateful, ignorant, group-think led, pathologically self-hating, spoilt, materialistic, hedonistic, apostate generation who think it is height of sophistication and “cleverness” to sneer at those priests, brothers and nuns whose sacrifices they benefit from, and to choose to define unnatural vice, a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance, as constituting a “marriage”, the institution defined in our constitution as the fundamental unit of society. Let me be clear about this. I don’t have a loyalty to a masonic controlled, anti-Catholic statelet that spits on its own. No can do. For the last five months, I have been very tempted to burn my passport. Just in case anyone is interested.
Now, I suppose, I’m going to find out your correspondent had something else entirely in mind.
As for the story about the “All are Welcome” sacrilege, it’s all news to me. Never heard of anything like that happening over here. Not reading the antichrist Irish Times, or the heretical bilge produced by those such as the ACP, I’m a little bit off the pace when it comes to the tracking the scandals of novus ordoism here in the Republic of Sodom.
Will read the story more thoroughly tomorrow. To say that I’m not overcome with shock that Archbishop Martin was involved in this scandal might just be in the running for understatement of the year. In fact it might be one of the greatest understatements since Noah stood on the deck of the Ark and shouted, “it looks like we’re in for a bit of rain, lads”.
Leo,
Whatever you do, do NOT burn your passport – we need you over here asap, if only to offer some friendly support and hand out tissues to stem our tears! It’s worse for you, of course, given the Catholic history of Ireland – we don’t have that particular cross to bear, although our one and only canonised martyr must be swirling in his grave.
I think you’re probably correct in your interpretation of our Irish correspondent’s email – maybe she did mean “Republic of Sodom” but remember, she is only now beginning to comprehend the nature of this crisis. When the gravity of it hits her between the eyes, she’ll forget the trivia like titles and “name-calling” countries. Never ceases to amaze me that people worry about these irrelevancies in the midst of the severe attacks on Faith and Morals today. But then I’ve been saying that for years now – who listens to me? Rhetorical, strictly, question!
A passport is not required, and never was, for travel between the UK and Ireland.
Leo,
Now that’s what I would call an incendiary (in a good way) post. The next time I see you’ve posted anew, I’m going to make sure that I have a bucket of sand nearby – not, I hasten to add, to bury my head in but just to contain any untoward combustion.
I can confirm that I also number myself amongst those who ARE interested in you being tempted to burn your passport so please allow me to make two points on that score.
Firstly, if you did go ahead with that symbolic bit of fire-starting, you must bear in mind that it could then prove quite difficult if you ever decided to up sticks and escape to a civilised country like, er ……..let me get back to you on that one.
And, secondly, if you can finally see no alternative and are compelled to do the deed, please don’t burn it – RECYCLE. Did you not read that right riveting recently published volume called ‘Laudato Si’? (The author’s name escapes me for the time being). I would offer to send you a copy but I believe it’s quite weighty so I must confess prohibitive postal costs preclude but I’m certain there must be plenty of copies available on your tragic, blighted isle. Probably only a matter of time before Matt Talbot Bridge is renamed Rainbow Bridge……
spudeater, that’s a very funny post! I agree, I wouldn’t burn a passport. One never knows there just might be a refuge out there. Why not stick a firework under Dail Eireann? It might work despite Guy Fawkes’ English attempt!
Spudeater
That is classic comedy. Brilliant.
Keep quiet about the bridge business, though. Those bug- eyed, watermelon (green on the outside, red inside), perversion promoters are capable of anything.
I see what you mean about the recycle versus burning thing. How very “ungreen” of me. And I’d forgotten, after much effort, about all those poor unfortunate cuddly polar bears supposedly drowning.
By the way, don’t anyone across the Irish Sea get too jocular. Cop a look at this.
https://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/british-judges-plan-to-outlaw-climate-change-denial/
As for passports, I still don’t know why they actually need four photographs with an application.
Crofter Lady’s suggestion about doing a Guy Fawkes on the Irish Parliament has some merit alright. Exorcism is another urgent consideration. In fact, Dublin could do with something like this:
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.ie/2015/07/exorcism-by-helicopter.html
Leo,
“The establishment of the Church was a work of dogmatic intolerance, the whole history of the Church is likewise only the history of this intolerance”
Fantastic! That is a great one-liner. I must learn it by heart and use it as much as possible! LOL!
Your two posts tonight are super, Leo. Thank you yet again for educating me.
Leo,
If you are a priest, have you considered contacting the District Superior of the SSPX with a view to becoming an associated priest in the UK like the brave Fr. Rolph who gave wonderful service until illness intervened?
Fr. Brucciani is at a priests’ retreat in Bristol until tomorrow afternoon, but here is a contact link for use later:
http://sspx.co.uk/page_contact.htm
Your fervour and manifest good grounding are sorely needed.
Leprechaun,
Leo isn’t a priest – he is a zealous lay man, who, despite his extremely busy professional and personal life, gives of his time and talent to help educate us all on this blog. Occasionally, his profession keeps him from us for a spell, but he more than makes up for it when he pops in here, as I’m sure you will agree.
However thanks for the link – it may prove very useful to other readers.
Madame Editor,
Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more – know what I mean?
Who knows what priestly lurkers frequent this thought-provoking blog and who may find the outcome of the synod to be the straw that broke the camel’s back?
Yes Father, I mean you.
He’s also a rather dashing, eligible fellow! But, he would make a great SSPX priest…………..
Helen
I hope I’m not being an idiot here, and mixing up identities, but some little birdy must have been whispering (one of those yellow smiley faces should be here). Well, “dashing” is a new one, alright. I believe you. There’s lots wouldn’t, but I believe you.
I’m trying to think where we met, Helen. Your face is very familiar.
Sorry about that.
Leo, you asked me out once, remember? I was so foolish to refuse!
Editor,
I just decided to make a guest appearance on the blog! The link of the Irish Time Article was not my own idea and I became aware of this fact from reading a really good newspaper called Catholic Voice, which featured an article called ‘Another Humanae Vitae Moment’ by John Lacken. This newspaper is sold in Ireland for €1.00 and the UK for £1.50. As far as I’m aware you can subscribe to it. The articles are in-keeping with the subject matter being discussed on this blog, I believe. The website is http://www.catholicvoice.ie but unfortunately, they only put up a very limited selection of articles on the website. I didn’t believe the Catholic Voice article but I googled it and found the Irish Times article for myself.
I was paying a complement to the blog in the email I sent you as I found the blog quite informative. I don’t follow all the time the blog or every single entry, but I link into the blog now and again. I found some of the arguments made persuasive and thought provoking.
In relation to ‘titles’ what I meant by this is if a Bishop/Archbishop/Pope is one than they should be called by the correct title. I think it’s important to have respect in the language used for the office that they hold, irrespective of what I personally feel about them or their opinions and beliefs. Also, it leaves the door open that they may convert and change their opinions, but when they are publicly ridiculed using childish remarks (which is different to disagreeing with their views) than one closes the door to the possibility that they could change. The same applies to countries.
I’m in 100% agreement with Catholic Convert viewpoint. Perhaps it was not meant the comment but it’s important to be aware of the language used on the blog, to avoid flippant remarks about people which distract from some very good and valid arguments featured elsewhere on the blog. These remarks can be obstacles to converting people’s hearts.
Marie,
I don’t see any cause for concern in the language used anywhere on this blog. The opposite is the case, IMHO.
The preoccupation of some people/bloggers with titles always surprises me. Personally, I don’t really like some of the titles, e.g. Your Grace/My Lord, that sort of thing is very worldly, IMHO and not befitting a man of the Church. That’s just my opinion. I do like the “Holiness” titles for popes because that is obviously the office, not the man being shown respect but there is no rule that says we must use any of these titles. It’s just etiquette, protocol, the done thing. The people I know who like them and use them as much as possible are snobs, I’m sorry to say – “His Grace is a lovely man” – that sort of thing makes me squirm.
I agree with you that it is important to disagree with the views or whatever, not call anyone childish names but I really don’t see any of that on this blog. I saw only people mentioning possible outcomes if the pope has another stroke. They say few people survive two so it is not outrageous to comment on the pope having another stroke. Nobody was being flippant or anything. I think you have to read into the comments to reach that conclusion. I didn’t see anything untoward at all in any of them.
Also, I don’t think speaking about bishops using their titles etc will make them change. It’s much too late for that. The devil is in their souls, I fear.
I also cannot see anything wrong with writing Republic of Sodom after the disgraceful same-sex marriage vote in the Irish Republic. Why should we always have to watch our every word while the homosexuals can say what they want. If you’ve ever watched a Pride march you will see that they don’t worry about offending anybody, not by their words or the way they dress (many half naked). So, I wouldn’t worry about calling Ireland the Republic of Sodom.
If we believe in free speech then we have to allow people to express themselves freely. People take offence at the slightest thing these days and it is making it so difficult to have a conversation about anything let alone post a comment on a blog. Someone always picks up on a word of phrase that they find offensive. I’d rather study the point being made than worry about the language or whether someone uses a title for a bishop – especially if he’s a heretic! LOL!
I hope I haven’t offended you by anything I’ve written here. If so I apologise.
Michaela
I don’t think I am a snob, but as a point of principle I do think it’s important to use correct titles; to address a bishop as”My Lord” does not automatically imply respect for the person, but definitely does so for the office which he holds. While I agree that free speech is desirable, I think it behoves us to respect that privilege and make our points without denigrating others by mocking their names/titles. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t call a spade a spade, and a heretic a heretic, but I just think that it is demeaning to oneself, and to the point one is making, to sink to insulting diminutives/nicknames when making that point.
Funnily enough I’ve just been clearing out some old correspondence, and re-reading my letters to former bishops/priests. I think I can say without fear of contradition that no-one could describe my missives as being overly deferential(!), but I’m glad to say that I never forgot to use their correct titles!
Therese,
I looked up how to address a bishop and found this link
http://www.debretts.com/forms-address/professions/religion/roman-catholic/roman-catholic-bishop
I don’t have much of a problem with other people using My Lord etc but I personally don’t do it. I don’t meet bishops much anyway! When I have written to them in the past, I just begin Dear Bishop X which I don’t think is disrespectful and when I have spoken to them in the past I just say “Bishop, e.g. I agree, Bishop, or thank you Bishop”. I really don’t think it comes across as disrespectful. I sincerely hope not.
I’d be interested to know if you think it is disrespectful.
Margaret Mary
No, I don’t think it’s disrespectful to address a bishop as Dear Bishop – not at all. I’m a little old-fashioned in such matters and prefer the formal use, that’s all. However, what I was referring to was something different, for instance, I don’t think it’s right to refer to the pope as “Frankie”, or the “Argie” – I’m not saying that anyone here has done so but I have seen it on other blogs, along with similar examples. I think it’s childish and unbecoming to a Catholic to use such language, along with being disrespectful to his office. It’s fine to describe him as the worst pope in history and a disgrace to Catholicism though – as that is the truth.
Therese,
I totally agree with everything you say, especially about “Frankie” or “the Argie” and such like. That’s definitely not on. I’ve actually never seen that myself but I wouldn’t like it one bit.
I do respect your opinion very much so I am very pleased that you don’t think I was being disrespectful by using “Bishop”. To be honest, though, I don’t see any point in writing to my bishop now. There probably wasn’t much point before, except I didn’t know it, LOL!
How very kind of you, Margaret Mary, and may I return the compliment?
I don’t see any point in writing to “my” bishop either, but I’d be up for marching to his palace with a lit torch, a large stake and sporting a mad grimace….
Margaret Mary
Thank you once again for your kind comments. There are certainly a great many very useful one-liners amongst the writings of Cardinal Pie.
Another point that the Cardinal made in the sermon that I quoted from is relevant to the growing evil that we are living through, including banishment of faithful Catholics to some sort of “catacombs”, as well as pagan persecution, and martyrdom, be it white or red. His eminence made the point that the early Church was persecuted in pagan Rome, not for believing in Christ, but for refusing absolutely to tolerate error and concede recognition to the many false religions that the Romans were prepared to tolerate and “collect” from throughout the empire.
QUOTE
“Rome, accustomed to receiving and to reconciling all religions, at first welcomed, without too much fright, the religion coming out of Judaea…But it did not take long for the word of the prophet to prove correct. The multitude of idols, who usually saw without jealousy new and strange gods come to take place near them, suddenly sent forth a cry of fright at the arrival of the God of the Christians, and…tottered on their threatened altars. Rome was attentive to this spectacle. And soon, when it noticed that this new God was the irreconcilable enemy of the other gods; when it saw that the Christians whose religion they had accepted, did not want to admit the religion of the nation; in a word, when it had undeniably established the intolerant spirit of the Christian faith, it was then that the persecution began.”
“…The principle grievance against the Christians was the too absolute rigidity of their creed, and, as people said, the unsociable disposition of their theology. If their God had been only one of many, there would not have been complaints: but it was an incompatible God who was driving away all the others.”
END QUOTE
Do we need to mention Dignitatis Humanae and the current modernist episcopal compromising with, “walking with”, and “accompanying” of, moral evil? Do we need to point out the imperative of refusing to burn even one pinch of incense to the masonic gods of the enemies of Christ?
Leprechaun
I see that Editor has supplied the necessary clarification, and in doing has joined others who can expect to be in trouble with the flattery police.
Thank you for your kind words, but in the interests of accuracy I wouldn’t hold claims to anything approaching above average “fervour” or “zeal”. Going by your blogging name, I’m guessing that you’ll understand when I say that Celtic blood might be a contributory factor, but honestly, as with anyone else, it’s just a case of “when I’m riz, I’m riz”. And what Catholic with an ounce of fidelity to the Faith and concern for souls wouldn’t feel the ire burning right now?
I’m probably one of those Irishmen who has a bit of difficulty with the Latins’ “manana” attitude and its urgency.
“What do you mean, tomorrow. Sure wouldn’t Friday week do grand”.
To be serious, it doesn’t take any courage to sporadically vent a bit of spleen at a keyboard. It’s not quite comparable to the life of Saint Nicholas Owen. As a matter of fact, in these days of antichrist secular powers and treacherous bishops, brushing up on the lives of the countless martyrs might serve as useful reading time for a lot of us. I’m reminded of what the late America writer, Flannery O’Connor, who described herself as a “hillbilly Thomist”, once said: “I could be a martyr if they killed me quickly”.
As for “good grounding”, Leprechaun, all I can say is that like many others with similar stories, no doubt, I’m incalculably indebted to all those Catholics, clerics and lay, who guarded the flame of Tradition in the post Vatican II catacombs and who passed the light around to others. And I’m sure we could all compare similar names, if we were to draw up lists of the modern day heroes of Tradition.
Also, I’m absolutely certain that unmerited graces obtained through the Rosary played a large part, in my own case.
The bottom line is, burying the gift we have received, and looking on from afar in silence at the raging revolution in the Church, is something to be mindful of when thinking about the particular judgement. Who knows if someone, reading this blog or one of the other truly Catholic websites, maybe by accident, will read just a few words that will suffice to bring them to the great treasury of the Faith.
Well done, Leprechaun, on providing the link to the Society’s website. I hope it bears fruit. I’m sure there are good and holy priests out there who are facing major challenges and who deserve all the support that faithful Catholics can give them in standing in front of the tanks and defending Tradition.
The following article about an Italian priest, Father Massimo Sbicego, who joined the Society, should be of interest.
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/priests-we-are-looking-doctrine-4042
Leo,
A fab post again and the link is so informative. It was really interesting to read of the diocesan priests who said they wanted doctrine from the Society not just to learn the old rite Mass. The admission that they couldn’t answer questions from the Catechism because they’d never been taught, just beggars belief.
However, I do know some priests who have thought of joining the Society but were put off because the Society priests don’t think it necessary to do apostolic work in the community. Priests I know who work with the Legion of Mary, even go into the streets to speak to passers-by about the faith for instance, wouldn’t be content with racing around the country to supply the sacraments, without being able to do a proper formation of the people. I think if there was a policy change more priests might join them.
Michaela,
That comment about “apostolic work” tends to confirm the impression that mainstream priests, deprived of their traditional role as alter christus in the Novus Ordo Church, have increasingly replaced their true vocation – the salvation of souls via the dispensation of the sacraments, esp. of the Holy Eucharist – by an alternate vocation: social worker. Having said that, I know of no policy within the Society that discourages apostolic work. Rather, SSPX priests are so busy traveling great distances to service multiple chapels, not to mention responding to phone calls and emails and drop-in visits from parishioners, that I suspect they have little or no time for “apostolic work” outside their chapel communities. Their workload, in fact, is overwhelming.
Christmasliszt,
I strongly disagree that zealous diocesan priests who engage in apostolic work are, de facto, “social workers”. That would condemn all of the Church’s canonised saints, including the Society’s own patron, Pope Saint Pius X. I cannot think of a single priest saint who was not a zealous apostle. It is a grave mistake to think that priests are only ordained to dispense the Sacraments. Important as they are, we must never forget that Christ is not bound by His sacraments.
I understand that the Society priests are very busy but, frankly, there are occasions when they make extra work for themselves because they do not appear to understand the lay vocation and how to use the laity properly.
For example, not long ago I heard of a Society priest who announced that there would be no weekday Mass that week because he had to travel to another country altogether to give instructions to a would-be convert.
I’m sure there must have been at least one lay person who could have helped out, perhaps a soundly educated (in the Faith) teacher who could have assisted the priest in the instructing of his convert. Somebody he could trust to take the convert through the catechism/other appropriate texts? If not, what does that tell us about the Society congregations?
Such Catholic Action is routine in mission lands. I know of at least one instance where it worked very well here in the UK with the lay teacher able to arrange a flexible meeting timetable with the would-be convert to fit in with her busy professional and family life. As long as a sound catechism is used, there is no reason why the basic tenets of the Faith can’t be passed on by a lay person, with the priest overseeing the sessions and meeting separately, on occasion, with the person receiving instruction.
So, let’s not fall into the fatal trap of making a false dichotomy out of the priestly works of dispensing the sacraments and leading/overseeing apostolic lay activity. Both are central to the life and work of priests.
And let’s never forget that old and very true saying “If you want something done, ask a busy person.” In other words, busy people get MORE work done than non-busy people, so being busy is never an excuse not to do something.
Can you tell I’ve got a huge dose of Irish blood in my veins? 😀
Dear Editor,
Irish blood, and a wee bit o’ insomnia to boot, I’d say! Your excellent points taken, but just to clarify, I meant that in the modern Church, I have noticed that priests seem to spend more time being worldly than in their (formerly) sacred pursuits. But perhaps it would help me understand what you, and esp. Michaela, meant by “apostolic work” – what sort of lay activity is meant? The example you give of a priest who had to cancel Mass to travel to another country to instruct a convert, would, it seems to me, qualify precisely for the kind of apostolic work that the SSPX allegedly dismisses, even if it is also an example of poor use of lay resources…
Christmasliszt,
I don’t suffer from insomnia – believe me. Minute my head hits the pillow, I’m out like a light. I explained some days ago that I have a particularly busy week this week dealing with major domestic matters so will be looking into the blog only occasionally, probably last thing at night and first thing in the morning, in the hope that peace is reigning supreme! Technically, “last night’s” post could pass for first thing in the morning, as well but, hey, who’s splitting hairs?
Anyway, before I disappear for the day, allow me to (I hope) answer your question by explaining what I mean by “apostolic work” in the context of our conversation.
I agree with Michaela that there are priests involved with the Legion of Mary, a pre-Vatican II organisation (launched in 1921, if my memory serves me correctly) and those priests both oversee the laity visiting the sick, visiting people in their homes to encourage the Rosary etc. Any work that is spreading and strengthening the Faith. I have one photo (taken some years ago) of a group of Legionaries standing at their makeshift bookstall in Glasgow city centre, from where they approached passers by to ask if they could interest them in a pamphlet about the Catholic Faith. I would hope they would still do that sort of thing but of course, who knows these days.
I’m also aware that one of the diocesan priests who offers the TLM in Scotland and who is known for his sound orthodox sermons, regularly visits various venues where a Protestant group hand out their literature. He, in the company of a lay member of his congregation, go to these venues and speak with the Protestants who are seeking converts to their sect.
So, any of the above – and indeed, any other means of reaching out to spread the Faith beyond the congregation, is what I suggest is “apostolic work”.
Remember, we have the sacraments in order to make us holy and strengthen our Faith. In turn, that should – by spiritual logic – inspire us to want to spread the Faith. We don’t do that by “preaching to the converted” as the saying goes, although in England I believe they say “preaching to the choir”. Same difference, innit?!
So, priests must be trained to be zealous. That is, they must not see their role as “merely” to administer the sacraments, central thought that clearly must be to their work.
For the record, I do sympathise with the SSPX priests in that they are travelling all over the place to provide the sacraments and see themselves as having that emergency role in this crisis. That is fine insofar as it goes, and they must be applauded for their dedication, no question about it, but I think we need to recognise that it is a minus, so to speak, for some priests and even possible future priests, who understand the importance, too, of apostolic work and a proper use of lay people. The Society priests frequently refer, in sermons, to the laity’s role in this crisis in the Church as being “just pray” – a real novelty in the Church where there isn’t a single saint who “just prayed”! Now, to be fair, when I’ve discussed this with some of the priests they say they don’t really MEAN “just pray” – so maybe I’m not the only one with a ton of Irish blood in my veins!
The above is all written at top speed so forgive me if not too clear. I really am pushing it for time.
Now you see me, now you don’t ! I’m done here! For now… But I will be back!
Dear Editor,
Thank you, that helps. Upon spending a sleepless night considering my own experiences with the Society, I could add this: 1. It took at least 2 years for me to get a response to my email inquiry about joining the Third Order, until I finally complained to our Prior, who then volunteered to be our District Chaplain himself. 2. Almost a year ago, I inquired, also via email, about joining the Militia Immaculatae. I received a reply from somewhere in Europe that my inquiry had been forwarded to my District. Well, no one in my District seems to know (a) where that email went, and (b) who the contact person in my District is! 3. This summer, I requested that the Third Order members in our parish, in order to promote our role as the “spiritual leaven” of the parish, be given the opportunity to participate in monthly study groups, hopefully as a prelude to days of recollection and even retreats. Our Prior liked the idea, but has not followed up on it (he would have to lead the group) because he is much too busy. So, there does seem to be quite a bit of room for improvement in these matters, though as far as I can tell, said room is due to their workload, not to any intent to dismiss the importance of it (I myself have never heard the “just pray” statement). Now, if this workload is at least partially due to poor organization, I couldn’t say. But I will say this: “O Lord grant us priests! O Lord grant us holy priests! O Lord grant us MANY holy priests!” (especially well-organized ones…)
Leo,
Thank you for your most informative posts. I found the article about Father Massimo Sbicego most interesting indeed, that he has now made his way to the SSPX is heart warming. May God give him many graces.
It seems that we are living almost in the catacombs at the moment.
“It seems that we are living almost in the catacombs at the moment”.
This is it, Thersa Rose.
Lionel (Paris)
Hear hear! We are definitely “almost living in the catacombs at the moment”.
Michaela and Theresa Rose
Thank you both very much.
Father Sbicego’s story is indeed an encouraging and exemplary one. Also, not surprisingly, the Society’s seminaries are thriving with plenty of vocations.
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/53-new-seminarians-for-the-sspx-11518
Léo,
I send Father Sbicego’s letters to the Archbishop of Paris and to the Nuncio and to the Congregation for the Cause of Saints.
United in prayer LD
Lionel
Very well done.
That was a very good idea. Please let us know if you receive a satisfactory reply.
God bless
Michaela,
I’m Irish and I do care what my country is called on this blog and I make no apology for that!! As for titles, we don’t have those ‘worldly’ titles over here as my previous post mentioned I was simply referring to the names and titles for religious e.g Archbishops and Pope etc.
Marie,
I think we always refer to religious/archbishops/popes by their titles.
I’m just catching up with the blog now and have read your original post and see that Michaela has responded in some detail. I can only add that in the great scheme of things, with the Church in meltdown following that scandalous synod, the least of our worries is whether someone omits the title of a prelate – I don’t see that as a regular occurrence on this blog anyway – in fact I can’t recall ever noticing it at all, but if someone has written without applying “Archbishop X” or “Pope Francis” it’s not the end of the world. Indeed, the Pope himself has said that he prefers to be known as the Bishop of Rome, not Pope Francis, so really you need to take it up with him! 😀
As for the “Republic of Sodom” – well, that was Leo’s description and he’s an Irishman, so it’s his country, too. “A rose by any other name is still a rose” – while a formerly Catholic land where the majority of the population, encouraged by their bishops and priests, endorse a sin crying to Heaven for vengeance, can no longer be named “Catholic”. I would spill tears over that fact, rather than worry about Leo’s righteously angry description of the land which now mirrors the notorious Sodom, thus dethroning Christ the King. Because, make no mistake about it, that’s what happened in May when your country men and women and your complicit hierarchy, legalised evil in defiance of God’s Law. They chose to promote – as a good in itself – behaviour which is gravely sinful, and seriously offensive to God. Forget about titles for the hierarchy and patriotism. These things will pass away. They’re dust.
At his judgment, take it from me, Leo will not be hauled over the coals for his description of once-Catholic Ireland as the “Republic of Sodom”. However, I wouldn’t have the same confidence about the judgment facing those bishops and clergy who, whether by their public support for the legalisation of same-sex “marriage” or their complicit silence, enabled that evil YES vote. “Coals”? You’d better believe it!
Anyway, thank you for your “guest” appearance(s) – you are welcome here anytime.
God bless.
Dear Editor,
Thanks very much for your post and allowing me on the blog. I’ve to take a break after this post as explained I’ve a heap of stuff to do this week. I seriously didn’t mean to cause trouble. I’ve fallen into the trap that I was on about myself!! It’s so easy! Seriously, you’d need the patience of a Saint to deal with blogging and bloggers, myself included!
I completely agree with you that there will be serious consequences for Ireland because of last May. More for us, as we voted personally it in and it’s in our Constitution, the same one that calls upon the Blessed Trinity at the start of the Constitution. I guess that is why I’m so sensitive to what my country is being called on the blog because it is so sad really what has happened to Ireland and we have to live in it.
But the Irish were manipulated. This is why we had a yes vote. Honestly, we’d really poor Leadership here at every level. Not by all but a good sizeable number of our leaders! The only diocese in Ireland that returned a no vote majority was the one where the bishop came out publicly on the radio, Bishop Doran, and called for a no vote. You don’t need to be good at Maths to see the correlation. The media and investment into the other side of the campaign was enormous. Even in the media, one of the newspapers admitted in print that there was bias in reporting after the campaign had ended. The media reported on all the priests who urged for a yes vote. They were never reprimanded but Bishop Doran was made apologise for insensitive language on family on TV news RTE with Archbishop Martin on one side and the Primate of All Ireland on the other. I don’t exaggerate in the very least.
Also I think the media has been conditioning the Irish thinking in the last 10 years but it was really intensified in the last 5 years. Prominent people who supported the yes campaign had been promoted and got very high profile positions in the media and Irish mainstream news in recent years. They have got great air space to promote a certain agenda and message even if it was in an indirect way such as guest appearances on cooking shows, reality shows etc. This yes vote didn’t happen out of no where. It was a long slow campaign. Also the media manipulated and understood well the fact that the Irish culture have a great empathy for the ‘underdog.’ They used this understanding of the Irish culture to call for a yes vote based on the lie of ‘Equality.’
I don’t think the scandals in the church in Ireland played a part in why people voted yes except that perhaps maybe priests felt they couldn’t really talk about the issue of how to vote because of them. I think the scandals may have caused the priests to lack courage. Finally, it’s a lie to think it was all the young that voted yes, surprisingly there were a lot that I know of Catholics middle age and older who voted yes and they would be practising Catholics. This is why the voice of the leaders of the Church was crucial for this vote. Look at the example of Bishop Doran and the result there in his diocese. It may have been a different outcome!
Anyway, I just wanted to explain the position of the Irish and why there was a yes vote from my viewpoint. This is why I was perhaps sensitive to what Ireland was being called but it’s sad the outcome of last May. And yes Editor you are completely right there are more serious consequences for Ireland more than any other country as we voted it in ourselves.
Marie,
Please don’t think you have caused trouble – not at all. You’ve made a very interesting couple of contributions to the blog and sparked discussion. That means you’ve made us think and for certain of us, that’s quite an achievement 😀
I take all the points you make about the media/money funding the YES campaign, but no Catholic should be so poorly instructed in the Faith and so ignorant of the natural moral law, that anything – ANYTHING – would make them vote for same-sex activity under any guise, whether civil partnerships or same-sex “marriage”.
As you have pointed out, “a no vote majority was the one where the bishop came out publicly on the radio, Bishop Doran, and called for a no vote.”
That’s it. Proof positive that where the bishop is faithful, the faithful will follow (if you get my drift!)
Anyway, thank you for taking the time and trouble to contribute to our blog and be assured of a warm welcome if you ever choose to return.
God bless you.
Well, I’m certainly not retreating to the catacombs! No way!! I’ll tell it in season and out of season, the way it is AND loud and clear! So many traditional Catholics “keep their heads down”; I’ve actually heard some say that. It seems they are awaiting Judgement Day when it will be all over. When I attend certain SSPX chapels, I get a sort of “incestuous” feeling, the overall vibs saying “I’m alright, Jack.” I also sense a lack of apostolic zeal amongst some. And, dare I say it, a lack of hospitality. I met one lady who had travelled all the way from Elgin to attend Mass in Edinburgh. She said nobody spoke to her or invited her into the tearoom!
CrofterLady,
I hope that if you meet the lady from Elgin again, you will introduce her to some well chosen fellow Traditionalists, and that she will persevere now she has taken the first step.
Mrs. Leprechaun and I had quite a long spell in limbo after returning to Tradition. Our large circle of Novus Ordo friends dropped us like lepers when the news got round and it took several months before we were accepted at our local Chapel and I was able to dispense with the handbell and “Leper” placard that used to keep people at their distance.
Now we go out of our way to speak to newcomers and, at least, to invite them to come and have tea/coffee after Mass.
As Mrs. L. has said of our early days: “They just didn’t think to think”.
Leprechaun,
That is a good one – “they just didn’t think to think”. Good on Mrs L – LOL!
Leprechaun
I imagine that handbell and placard made you seriously consider changing your name to LEPERchaun…
Crofterlady
Excellent post! I heartily agree with everything you’ve written.
Crofterlady,
I am surprised at the lady from Elgin’s experience of the SSPX chapel in Edinburgh, because I know for a fact that the very kind gentleman who runs the bookshop over there, goes out of his way to speak to newcomers and invite them into the tearoom. Perhaps she didn’t wait long enough to be “noticed” so to speak, and went off before anyone had a chance to invite her for tea.
In any event, I get a little bit impatient with people who expect to be “invited”. If they have travelled a bit and would benefit from a cup of tea or coffee, juice, water, milk, whatever, you’ll get my drift, why not just go in and order something to eat and drink without expecting an invitation? Perhaps there would be room for criticism if, at that point, seated in the tearoom, nobody spoke to her, but I think it’s a bit much to expect to be identified as “new” out of what is (when I’ve visited) a fairly large congregation, and invited to go into the tearoom. The Edinburgh congregation is always friendly and welcoming in my experience… But then chances are none of them want to make the front page of the next edition of our newsletter!
Editor, I can second that. I met the kind gentleman referred to who invited me to the tearoom and so also did the lady who was next to me during Mass. I am grateful for their kindness and hospitality, but when all is said and done, I am included and welcomed, as years ago I would have been in any Catholic church in the world, as soon as I hear the words “Introibo ad altare dei”. But when, in these penal times, I have to travel a long way to Mass and feel the need for a drink afterwards, I ask someone myself if a drink is available. Why on earth should I expect refreshments to be laid on after Mass anyway, and why should anyone be expected to notice that I’m a stranger – after all, in my own usual church I’d rather be making my thanksgiving after Communion than be looking round for anyone I haven’t seen before.
Crofterlady, I’m sorry the lady from Elgin had that experience but perhaps she didn’t hang around long enough for someone to speak to her. If she goes to the Novus Ordo she is probably used to the hasty rush to the door the minute Mass is over, whereas most folk who attend the Traditional Mass kneel down to pray. There are people in the congregation who make it their mission to try to speak to visitors but there is always one who slips the net. As the church is on a busy main road we get a lot of passing trade, people who were just passing and see the church and stay for Mass. If there are a quite a few visitors it’s not always easy to catch them all.
As for not being invited for coffee, there are notices above the Holy Water stoups advertising the café and giving directions to the hall and there are visitors who have seen the notice and make their own way there without being asked. I don’t actually invite people but mention that we have a café serving soup, sandwiches, pizza, etc as well as tea and coffee, if they are interested.
Here is the SSPX declaration on the Synod.
http://www.dici.org/en/news/declaration-concerning-the-final-report-of-the-synod-on-the-family/
That you for posting that Lily, I found it very useful.
Above I had described the final report as “weak but fundamentally orthodox” – but Bishop Fellay is bang-on by highlighting “ambiguities and omissions”.
I think it is what the document doesn’t say (in some areas) which can give cause for concern, rather than what it does say*.
(*Cardinal Wuerl – a known liberal and Francis supporter – has openly said “there’s no new recommendation” regarding communion for the divorced and remarried).
With Bishop Fellay’s informative analysis, we can all improve our efforts to resist the distortions liberals inevitably try to attach to any document or statement.
“In this utter confusion it is now up to the pope—in keeping with his responsibility, and within the limits set on him by Christ—to restate clearly and firmly the Catholic truth quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus,[8] and to keep this universal truth from being contradicted in practice locally.” (the conclusion of Bishop Fellay’s observations) Does anyone really expect THIS Pope to do that? A Pope who has clearly declared open war on the Faith, on faithful Catholics and on the structure of the Church itself? A Pope who stacked the Phony Synod deck with apostate and heretic prelates bent on concocting more mealy-mouthed time bombs? Or better yet, stink bombs?
Thank you Lily for that most enlightening link.
It really only adds to my confusion.
You see, after over 70 plus years (baby child and man) of strict adherence to my Catholic faith, I found our present Pope Francis’s “coming out” as a believer in the pagan Man Made Global Warming scam, coupled with our (otherwise) wonderful Parish Priests adherence to the same cause, I could no longer attend Mass.
Living, as I do, over 70 miles from the nearest Church celebrating the traditional Mass, what is one to do?
It is fine and dandy (a Dundee comic) for the elite on here to lecture us poor souls about the wonderful celebrations in which they glorify, but please spare a thought (and a prayer) for us disfranchised mortals. Should I (we including Mrs Waterside) continue attending a celebration knowing that our Pastor is a fully paid up member of the SCIAF communistic religion.
Bearing in mind that he is (was) a close adherent to our erstwhile Cardinal O’Brian at Blair’s Academy.
On a vaguely connected note, I must jump to our estimable Leo’s defence in regard to Maries “upsetment” about his categorising mother Eire as the equivalent of Sodom.
I am sure that Leo does not require a Goban like myself to ride ‘shotgun’ for him, but I was the one to use the Sodom appellation to the land of my birth on this site on Oct 22nd @1014pm in a piece of doggerel “How are things in Sodom and Gomorrah”
Being a 100% proof Galwegian domiciled in bonny Scotland for nearly 40 years, I think I have a valid input in this dog fight. The tactics used by the adherents of homosexual “marriage” were/are inimical to the tactics used by the believers in the Popes new religion of the pagan Man Made Global Warming scam.
Being fully in tune with Maries and our Editors viewpoint about the abject surrender of the Hierarchal quislings in the recent Irish referendum, it should be remembered that our Lord promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (us).
Mae culpa if I have indulged in any uncalled for name calling, but if the caubeen fits we have to wear it.
As an old wrinkly, that is the only consolation I have, that and the hope that a Catholic Pope would once more sit on Peters chair before I receive Extreme Unction.
kind regards to all.
Waterside4
Thank you for another excellent post. “The West’s Awake”, alright.
I’m sure other bloggers will agree that you are very welcome to “ride shotgun” for anyone here. I might have known you are a Galwegian. As it happens, I qualify for a Connemara passport.
Speaking personally, shame and ire are perfectly valid and appropriate when talking about the overwhelming majority of the present incumbents of our benighted land. And saying that is in no way to lack patriotism: on the contrary. True, Faith- inspired patriotism could just about be called a sort of secondary “virtue”, based on justice and charity. The nation, under the reign of Christ the King, should be the “family of the family”. I’ll just add that I certainly don’t want to be upsetting Marie, who is definitely on the side of the virtuous, and who will hopefully be blogging again.
I had intended posting this when comments on the synod had died down a bit but it ties in with what I posted concerning Ireland. The following link gives an example of the thoroughly evil work of Amnesty International, an organisation that looks to the public for financial support. It wouldn’t be a cause of surprise if they get some sort of approval, and support, financial or other, from the State. The remote chance of media or public outrage at this hate-filled propaganda is a point that hardly needs to be made. I don’t know what the results of an impartial, scientific polling of the Irish public on this piece of obnoxious, ignorant bigotry would yield, but they might not make for very comfortable reading. AI obviously doesn’t consider it a financial and reputational risk to spew forth this vile puke into the public square.
https://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/horrific-anti-catholic-amnesty-international-ad-in-favor-of-irish-abortion/
I most certainly don’t want to distract everyone from Pope Francis’ farcical, fraudulent, sham synod here, but it might explain some of my language in my earlier post (October 26, 11.13pm).
May God, through the intercession of Our Lady, and Saint Patrick free us from these demons and snakes.
“When all beside a vigil keep,
The West’s asleep, the West’s asleep –
Alas! and well may Erin weep
When Connacht lies in slumber deep.
There lake and plain smile fair and free,
‘Mid rocks their guardian chivalry.
Sing, Oh ! let man learn liberty
From crashing wind and lashing sea.”
Leo,
Mrs. Leprechaun is a Galway girl and on a visit to Bohermore a few weeks ago she declared how appalled she was at the religious apathy of her friends and relatives, and how readily they had accepted the decline in moral standards. There was not even any attempt by them to blame the clergy for letting the situation arise.
It is as if their brains had just switched off. What a lot the clergy will have to answer for in abandoning the spirtitual welfare of their flocks.
If only the West would awake!
Leprechaun, too true! I didn’t want to enter into a sensitive discussion above, but I can’t get out of my mind the argument that the Irish were ‘manipulated’ into voting ‘yes’. WHAT, I thought, was there more than a grain of truth in all those Irish jokes? Are the Irish (and so a quarter of me) really that thick? The answer of course is ‘No’. Long before the referendum they had, like the whole of Vat.II, world-wide, Novus Ordo Land, given in to the zeitgeist and embraced the entire wallowing in self, celebrity, lustful perverted ‘culture’ that surrounds them on every side. I can’t give links on this device, but the sixth verse of ‘St. Patrick’s Breastplate’ might be a good insert here.
I’m sorry, one and all, that I’ve not had time to respond to all of the excellent comments on the blog today. I’ll do my best to catch up properly tomorrow at some point.
At the risk of turning this admirable site into a retirement home for disaffected geriatric Galwegians –
Go raibh maithe agut Leo agus Leprechaun.
I was not surprised at the contents of the link you provided above to the Liam Neeson rubbish.
Sadly it is symptomatic of many so called charities and NGO’s to spout such anti human hubris.
Catholic so called charities are by no means exempt from telling lies about the causes of poverty and conflicts throughout this sad old world.
Just look to the nonsense emanating from the Vatican in the parts of Pope Francis recent Green Encyclical, dealing with the issue of non existent man made global warming. Presumably he is trying to gain some converts for his new religion of the goddess Gaia.
I would recommend you look at one of the fine Catholic Bloggers sites dealing with this.
Three of the best practising Catholic bloggers are
Anthony Watts : http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
Marc Morano : http://www.climatedepot.com
William Briggs : http://www.wmbriggs.com
I am sure our hostess will not mind me giving those links as they are bona fide agnostics on the great global warming scam. In particular have a look at http://www.wmbriggs.com/an exchange with news day about Pope Francis
Having recently been to Galway for a short holiday I was particularly struck by the number of exotic pupils around the old Bish secondary school enjoying their lunch time break. It would appear that the Galway girls are very internationally l minded with their favours. I was wondering if this had any bearing on the recent anti-Catholic flavour of Irish politics.
And another thing ….. I heard that the nauseating Norris the Senator, recently suggested that he could see no reason why homosexual cousins (male and female?) could not now be “married”.
I also noticed that the Abortion Bus tried to park by the Spanish Arch on its ‘grand tour’ of Ireland.
On the news this am was a suggestion that China was to ‘allow’ mothers to have 2 children due to the fact that not enough young ‘productive units’ are available for their economic miracle to progress.
I fancy this will come as a shock to those 40,000 gathering in Paris for the IPPC jamboree.
One of the main planks of those Malthusian mirage miscreants is that the carrying capacity of the world is ideally not more than 1 billion. They say that the present 8 billion is ‘unsustainable’ and is one of the main reasons for ‘run away man made global warming’.
Just ask Mary Robinson or Mary McAleese or your present Lilliputian President how they can reconcile their positions, and pay-packets, with fossil fuels bringing millions of third world people out of grinding poverty.
It certainly will not be achieved with solar panels and windmills. Mirrors and Unicorn farts are more useful.
Ah! Leo, the great Thomas Osbourne Davis
“But hark a voice like thunder spake
The West’s awake! the West’s awake!
Sing oh hurrah let England quake
We’ll watch ’till death for Erin’s sake”
I had better finish now, ‘ere our effervescent hostess returns from her gardening leave and censors me (with her thurible?)
Just how long does it take to dead head a few geraniums?
It’s her gardening shears and your own head you’d better think about. 😁
Waterside4
Thank you for the Gaelic thank you to Leo and me.
I was just listening to RTE1 when it got to 6pm and they sounded the tolls of the Angelus bell.
How can they call the faithful to the saying of the Angelus – those same faithful who have just voted in favour of same-sex marriage?
What is the Nation coming to?
I hear footsteps. Whatever you say, say nothing about you know what!
Waterside4
Thank you for another brilliant and amusing post, with all the info. Beannacht De leat.
Only please, don’t remind me of those three disgraceful Heads of the masonic Irish State. There must be something gone wrong with the atmosphere. I’m still trying to forget that the sodomite icon of the New Apostate Ireland, Norris was, for a long time front runner for the last Presidential election. At that time I really had vowed to emigrate if the worst came to pass. I shouldn’t have spoken.
Leprechaun and Christina
You are both absolutely correct. Mrs. Leprechaun’s first-hand experience of apostasy can in no way be explained as “sampling error”. It’s the same everywhere here.
I’ve made the point before that although we have no claim to sympathy or concern on the part of anyone else, Ireland is a perfect, working, ongoing example of the nuclear destruction caused by the conciliar revolution. Excuses are still excuses, and to be quite honest, apart possibly from the case of the modern education system-brainwashed under 35’s for whom endless reruns of Father Ted is just about the nearest they get to “Catholic instruction”, I have no desire to make any excuses for apostasy, and certainly not for the “oldies” who are very well represented amongst the chin in the air, “no priest is going to run my life”, idiots who are aggressively driving towards perdition. Original sin, the devil, the flesh, and the world certainly don’t pass Ireland by, but everyone is answerable for offences against God and His Law, written in our hearts.
Maybe no more than anywhere else, people here are very quick to shed scruples, practice “independent thinking”, or plain free will, when it accommodates the desires of their fallen nature. Well, we know how that worked out for Adam and Eve. Everything has consequences. “One soul, one life to save it, and after that Heaven or Hell for all eternity”, as the much maligned old time Redemptorists used to teach. Hell? Sure we have an Archbishop of Dublin who last year, on national radio, had to be asked three times if he believed in Hell.
I understand your use of the term “sensitive discussion”, Christina. It’s easier for me. Be assured that your comments, and those of Leprechaun, are quite reasonable.
A few years ago, a now retired liberal bishop scandalously said the clerical abuse scandals “gave permission” to Catholics to give up practicing their faith. Irish joke it’s not. No, you couldn’t make it up. Massively illogical and tedious as it is, the “what about the abuse” line continues to be trotted out, rehashed, and reheated ad nauseum, ad infinitum, after well over two decades. It’s the ever reliable conversation stopper, and used like an ever valid “don’t give me morality” voucher. If I had a euro…Well, would the same hedonistic, materialistic, self-obsessed, neurotic, apostates favour closing all schools on account of the misdeeds of some teachers, would they make a case for anarchy because of a small number of bent coppers, would they abolish elections because of corrupt politicians.
As Saint Thomas Aquinas said somewhere, when people give in to the sins of the flesh, their intellects become rotten, or words to that effect. Come to Ireland, anyone, if you have doubts.
Finally, as regards the clergy, there were very clear warnings. Hamish Fraser published a report on the ongoing problems in Maynooth seminary in 1973. Six years later, Patrick Cremin, Professor of Moral Theology and Canon Law wrote very clearly about the disintegration of the Church in Ireland.
Christina
What chance does a poor old pensioner stand against a pair of gardener gloved beauties of the distaff side ?
Here’s Cardinal Nichols giving the impression that the “case by case” method of deciding the teaching of the Church on marriage, is wholly traditional. For sheer nerve, top of the class…
From the Catholic Herald…
Taking part in the synod of bishops on the family has been an exhausting and enriching experience. Now is the moment to reflect on it carefully, getting beyond the immediate reactions and dramatised headlines.
On the last evening of the synod, Pope Francis posed this question: what does this synod mean for the life of the Church? His answer was incisive and decisive. I encourage you to read his speech. It sets out his priorities and the temptations we face at this time.
For me, the first answer to his question is this: the synod teaches us to think about the family in new and rich ways. For a start, we are invited to see in the family “an image and likeness of the Blessed Trinity”. This springs from the understanding that at the deepest heart of God are relationships of love and truth between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As one of the bishops at the synod said, when we look at family life we should marvel at its resilience, its beauty, its sheer goodness to which every member has to contribute and from which everyone draws strength and life.
The synod described family life as a blessing for the Church, a place where the Gospel is lived, where forgiveness is offered in love, where prayer is learned, where care for others is born, a care reaching out to others, beyond the family, in their need. Indeed, throughout this synod there was great emphasis on thanking families for the witness they give, for the courage they show and for being living examples, icons, of God’s faithful love for us, His holy people.
For me, then, this synod has opened up a new appreciation of family life in the Church, highlighting the inseparable bond between the Church and the families of which the Church is made. There was one phrase which sums up this fresh insight: families are the flesh of the Church.
It was in this light that I stood in St Peter’s Square on Sunday morning, seeing so many families gathered for the blessing of the Holy Father. Children in prams, in their fathers’ arms, crawling round on the floor; two or three generations together; groups of families on pilgrimage or holiday – the very flesh of the Church, to be treasured, honoured and encouraged.
But we all know that such outward appearances are often not the whole story. Family life can be hard going and during this synod there was keen awareness of the crises and difficulties of family life.
So we pondered on the ways in which poverty, war and migration all have an impact on many families; on families torn by violence, facing the perils of being refugees, separated by the need to find work. We talked about loneliness, about the domestic dramas that demand forgiveness and acceptance, about political pressures that work against the family, about the huge diversity of circumstances of marriage and family life across all five continents. We were intensely aware of the changing patterns of marriage, with many people choosing simply to live together, to marry civilly and not sacramentally, and of the consequences of painful divorce, with many entering a second civil marriage.
The second significant meaning of the synod for the Church is the way in which our response to those situations was fashioned. The key words used by the synod were “accompaniment”, “walking with”, “reverential listening” and “discernment”. These are not new words. They direct us to the rich tradition of the Church in the work of spiritual direction and confessional practice, as found, for example, in the works of St Ignatius and St Alphonsus. These are the treasures we have now to recover and develop anew. The Year of Mercy is surely a providential opportunity for doing so and for putting them into practice.
Last October Pope Francis warned the bishops at the extraordinary synod to avoid two serious temptations: first, of thinking that every problem and situation could find its answer in the letter of the law; and secondly, that quick solutions could be applied without healing the deep wounds in the family, in the flesh of the Church. I believe that these temptations have been avoided.
In the pathway of accompaniment that is being laid out, especially for those in second marriages, there will be a step-by-step journey to be made, seeking God’s mercy for every hurt inflicted and damage done, trying to grow in maturity of conscience in the light of God’s law, and finding proper ways of living in the community of the Church as baptised disciples, truly our sisters and brothers.
In Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis called for the Church “to advance along a path of pastoral and missionary conversion which cannot leave things as they are”. It is clear that this synod has pointed out the pathway of this conversion. It is up to us to take up this path with fresh hearts and real commitment to the unending mercy of God. Walking this path involves us all, listening humbly and patiently, supporting and encouraging each other within this great family of the Church. Source
Cardinal Vincent Nichols is the Archbishop of Westminster
This article first appeared in the Catholic Herald magazine (30/10/15)
http://www.boston-catholic-journal.com/myth-of-the-church-non-militant-why-the-catholic-church-will-always-prevail.htm
Was any doctrine actually changed at the Synod?
Helen
Apparently some of the key paragraphs in the final document were ambiguous to attain the two thirds majority. So don’t be surprised to see Pope Francis take advantage to further his own agenda.
Vatican2 replayed same modernist tactics?
Helen
A very good and long statement by Bishop Athanasius Schneider can now be found at rorate caeli
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/11rorate-exclusive-bishop-athanasius.html#more
Sorry must have made a typing error but you can find the article on the rorate caeli webpage
John,
This link is meant to point to the Rorate Caeli article you have in mind:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/11/rorate-exclusive-bishop-athanasius.html
Leprechaun
Thanks for the correct link my internet skills ar not improving
I was going to post an earlier rorate link around 4 days ago
Pope to his favourite journalist (all the divorced who ask will be admitted( to Communion.) Pope Francis has been on the phone again to his athiest friend
“Scalfari” same tactics. I suppose he expects us ” Pharasee’s ” to gracefully accept whatever he proposes.
Thanks, John. I’d be pleased to be kept up to date on this matter.
I’d be grateful to hear more about it as well, John. Thanks for the links. Is there any confirmation that the Pope said this?
Christina
The link to the Rorate article is below
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/11/bombshell-Pope-to-his-favorite.html
Christina
My computer is not working so I bought an I pad and have not learnt how to paste and copy on it .
That is the second mistake in a row I have made trying to reprint the webpage.sorry I will have brush up on my computer skills.
Helen & Christina
My son has shown me how to copy & paste I will try to use my new skill on Damien Thompsons latest article in the New Spectator.
http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/pope-francis-is-risking-a-catholic-civil-war/
Sent from my iPad
John, can your very, very clever son explain, through you, how to do that? I’ve been computerless and on i-pad for 6 weeks, and it’s so frustrating not to be able to share all the bad news.😨
Christina
The page/site which you want to post, press to e’mail it( square box on top of page with arrow through it) press mail then webpage appears on screen e.g.http://www.
Tap screen twice black box appears press select all web page is highlighted then press copy. Go to Catholic Truth website write your comments put curser where you want the webpage to be tap screen twice press paste and hopefully it will appear
Christina
A slightly easier way is instead of pressing mail press copy. Go to Catholic Truth tap screen press paste and it will appear. Maybe try it on the latest Remnant article?
An excellent article by Chris Ferrera summarising the Synod is on the Catholic Family News website
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/0a5978b9ea91986e1cc80591331f94ec-487.html
I’ve heard a rumour that editor is thinking of closing the blog down in January. I wouldn’t blame her considering the inertia of bloggers!
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2150-the-synod-on-the-family-business-model-for-the-spirit-of-vatican-ii
Christopher Ferrara’s article in the Remnant Newspaper is well worth reading. He makes a comparison between the Synod and Germany’s Third Reich.
Theresa Rose
Did not most of us on this blog think that the Synod would end badly considering how the Pope stacked the synod in favour of the modernists.
I agree it would be fantastic if the Consecration of Russia was done but did not ‘ Our Lady’ say it would be late (most people may think too late) both of us would probably agree it is not humanly possible for this Pope and all the Bishops in the world to do the
“Consecration” in the present climate. I fear we may have a few years of persecution ahead. Why ‘God’ has chosen us to know the truth is ‘ God’s ‘ mystery most of us on this blog have been given (ten talent’s ) I pray that we all use them wisely in the next few years.
I couldn’t agree more John.Given how bad things were up to the synod this is merely only another chapter off how bad things are and it is like you say unlikely that pope Francis will do the consecration.There always appears to be much speculating why can’t we just accept it will happen but it will be late and in the meantime keep the faith.If our lady or indeed our lord wanted us to know then we would know .
Yes folks, but don’t you think we should BE OUT THERE evangelising? I think we very often keep our heads down which drives me nuts. Maybe we’re “all right jack” but we should be doing something positive as in the Legion of Mary of yore!
Crofterlady,
I agree. Meet you at the corner of Sauchiehall Street and Rose Street tomorrow, 9.a.m. Let’s DO this!
Thank you to everyone who contributed to this thread and to our previous Synod thread. We now await the Pope’s post-synodal statement, whatever form it takes – it is widely expected to be an Apostolic Exhortation, so we brace ourselves. When the statement is published, we will launch a thread to discuss it. In the meantime, with renewed thanks to all who contributed here, I’ll now close this thread.
Comments are closed.