Yesterday I asked "who's next on the Vatican Mafioso hit list"? We sure learned that in a jiffy, didn't we? In a few days, Cardinal Gerhard Muller will no longer be prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He has always stated that the various screeds proceedings from the Vatican could never trump the Church's traditional teachings on faith and morals. The LifeSiteNews piece theorizes about possible replacements for Muller; anyone of them would wreak havoc in that position.
Of the faithful prelates who headed various offices, only Cardinal Sarah remains - for now. Pray for his strengthening and pray for the Church. If your diocese has not yet had its "Peter's Pence" collection, consider boycotting it. Regrettably the only language they will heed is the sound (or lack thereof) from the cash register.
Cardinal Pell has, over the years, made himself a thorn in the side of progressives in the Vatican who want to mangle Holy Mother Church into a macabre farce. He's done this merely by speaking the truth. Recall how during the October 2014 meeting he forcefully rebuked those trying to manipulate that meeting and made mention of the cabal inside the Vatican. He stated why Laudato Si cannot be taken as Church teaching.
The undermining of Pell's work in the Roman Curia was already underway in 2016. Back in 2015 I opined that soon Cardinal Pell (and others) would feel long knives being plunged into his back. I didn't realize that opinion would actually be a fairly accurate prediction, at least for Cardinal Pell (although the others could be targeted in the future).
The internet is now abuzz with news that allegations have arisen regarding "sexual molestation" committed by Pell on some boys. These incidents are alleged to have occurred in the 1970s. Ladies and gentlemen, we can do the arithmetic. That's forty years ago. What has prompted these alleged victims to come forward after all that time? They remain anonymous, of course, preventing any real investigation into their credibility (or lack thereof). Cardinal Pell is headed back to Australia to deal with the charges. The reform work in which he was engaged will be supervised by (scroll to the very bottom of this link!) Cardinal Marx. Yes this one! This whole thing stinks of a frame job!
So who's next on the Vatican Mafioso Hit List? Bishop Schneider? Bishop Paprocki? Cardinal Sarah? Pray your Rosaries for Holy Mother Church.
Yesterday La Stampa published a letter by Stephen Walford, a British author. He named his article "Open Letter To The Four Dubia Cardinals". It certainly seems respectful enough in its tone, but that's about all that it gets right. As you read it, you'll see his theme of "adulterers are going to receive Holy Communion so get used to it".
Right in the first paragraph Walford says to the cardinals, "you have trouble accepting the two authentic interventions of Pope Francis in which he has already affirmed that in certain cases, sacramental discipline has been changed". He then confirms his own understanding of the pope's statements to the Argentinian bishops. What Walford fails (or refuses) to acknowledge is that sacramental discipline must always conform to the Teachings of the Church and of Jesus Christ Himself. I'll reiterate that those who are civilly married and who have not had their first marriages annulled are living in the mortal sin of adultery. If these people receive Holy Communion while continuing their adulterous conduct, they commit yet another mortal sin of sacrilege against the Eucharist. The cardinals "have trouble accepting the interventions" because they are in contradiction with the teachings of Our Lord as found in Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
He then goes into the gobblygoop about "law of gradualness". Not applicable. The sinner in question must move to remove him/herself from the sinful situation and any near occasions of sin with the greatest speed and alacrity. Any allowance for the sin to continue is to place one's soul in danger (not to mention endangering the soul of the accomplice in adultery). Until the sin ceases and a proper confession is made with absolution given, the reception of Holy Communion cannot happen without incurring guilt of sacrilege. I wonder of Walford would carry on about "gradualness" if the sin in question was not adultery but serial murder. How would one apply this "law of gradualness" to that???
I don't have time to go through that huge tome and pick apart the whole mess (at least not now). I will close with this whopper of his towards the end, when he asks the cardinals, "What do we gain spiritually by fighting against those grace filled divorced and remarried souls who truly desire Sacramental union with Jesus? Do we believe nothing can be gained for them?"
So much error in that - I'm glad it isn't longer.
"Fighting"? What does he mean by that? When we restrain them from making sacrilegious communions, we are sparing their souls from the guilt of yet another mortal sin. When we tell them the truth about their rebellious conditions, the purpose is to call them to repentance and the sacrament of confession so that they can protect their eternal salvation. It would be the epitome of hate to allow them to continue as they are, as Walford seems to be doing.
"Grace-filled divorced and remarried souls"? If they are living in a state of adultery, that is, mortal sin, their souls are bereft of sanctifying grace until they immediately correct their situations and confess the sin of adultery.
Do they truly desire Sacramental union with Jesus? They must desire that more than they desire their mortal sins.
"Do we believe nothing can be gained for them"? That's a question only they can answer, and they must answer it on the terms set forth by God and His Church, not their own.
Walford suggests that the dubia cardinals reconsider their position. I on the other hand applaud the cardinals and strongly suggest that Walford reconsider his stances, for they appear to be at serious variance with the Traditions of the Church.
Recently Michael Hichborn of Lepanto Institute gave a talk regarding the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and of the monkey business that comprises their entire purpose for existence. I'll post it below, but will also link to previous posts of mine in which the content coincides with Hichborn's statements. When we reach the 20:00 mark in the video, Hichborn talks about immigration. So consider:
The role of Catholic Charities in fomenting illegal immigration - see here and here
At the 38:15 mark, consider what Hichborn says about Ralph McCloud being both the director of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development and a board member of Interfaith Worker Justice. Until now, I did not know that this huge conflict of interest existed.
At the 44:48 mark, Hichborn states that "there is no salvaging the CCHD. The only thing that can be done with it at this point is to shut it down permanently." I've been saying that for years. In fact, I've been saying that about the entire USCCB.
Bear in mind the very ending: an exhortation to pray the Rosary daily and maintain testimony to the truth. Please pass this along to your other contacts.
On November 11, 2016 I posted about Alinskyian influence in the US Catholic hierarchy. I had linked to a video entitled "A Wolf In Sheep's Clothing". Shortly thereafter the video was taken from youtube. Happily the video is once again available. I think it's more relevant than ever, since we see Alinskyian influences now in the highest levels of the Vatican. Here it is.
Please see theprevious post for details of Bishop Paprocki's actions - and the vitriol being hurled at him by progressives. Of course they would be full of venom and spite for darkness hates the light and will always rail against it.
New Ways Monstrosity (my new pet name for it - UPDATE: let's make that New Ways Misery) has published an open letter to the Bishop in which they voice their resentment at the truth being spoken by the bishop. I don't have time right now to pick this tome apart. They urge their minions to communicate on their own to the bishop. They give lip service to being civil, but we know what the reality will be.
I will say this much for the progressives, though. Generally when they hear a tocsin for action, they will drop what they're doing and heed the call. We faithful Catholics, on the other hand, tend to demure and content ourselves with watching from the sidelines and remain silent. We no longer have the luxury of being passive - as if that was ever a valid option. It's time we change that and we can start now.
The New Ways Monstrosity letter is helpful in one way: it conveniently provides the contact information for Bishop Paprocki. Please use that to send your own message of support and thanks to the Bishop. Given the hate and spite that the progressives are sending his way, our messages of support will be much appreciated. If you feel tongue-tied and don't know quite what to say, LifeSiteNews has drafted a petition of thanksgiving to the Bishop. Please click here if you would like to sign it. Of course you can sign the petition and write your own message.
Please do not remain silent. No one of us can afford to sit by while others do the "heavy lifting" as it were. We, each one of us, are the Church Militant. Let's stand up and act, and support those like Bishop Paprocki who take a leading stance. Please pass this post to your contacts.
On June 12th the Bishop of the Diocese of Springfield (IL) issued guidelines to his churches regarding those who openly flout Church teaching to the detriment of their souls. I link to the original letter now. Among other things, he has instructed his priests to obey Canon 915. For ease of reference, I'll copy/paste it below.
Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
That's not so complicated, is it? Among other things the canon means that those who are flaunting themselves in their commission of mortal sins are not to be assisted by the ministers of Holy Communion in the commission of sacrilege against the Eucharist. The purpose of this is several-fold:
It prevents the sinner from incurring the guilt of yet another mortal sin.
It protects the Eucharist from profanation.
It prevents scandal to other faithful Catholics
It hopefully will drive home to the flagrant sinner the need to repent and to make a good confession so as to escape the danger of eternal damnation.
With all the talk we're hearing about "mercy", we can see that the application of Canon 915 is an act of mercy. However, some progressives who call themselves "catholic" are in a blather over the good bishop's much-needed directives. I link now to one such hissy-fit at New Ways Ministry. I'll highlight one paragraph that illustrates the author's (Robert Shine) abysmal grasp of both reading comprehension and basic Catholic morality.
It is discrimination to target LGBT people when, in a certain sense, all Catholics could be deemed “manifest sinners.” Who among us, including Bishop Paprocki, does not publicly sin at different moments? Yet, funeral rites are not denied to Catholics who pay employees an unjust wage, publicly advocate for the death penalty, or deny climate change.
Please refer to Canon 915, as written in its clear, concise manner. Shine completely, and I think deliberately omits key descriptors of the sins that would call for the remedy of Canon 915. Those descriptors are, "obstinately persevering", and "grave". Shine is right; faithful Catholics do openly sin from time to time. However, these faithful Catholics will not "obstinately persevere" and most likely the sins will not be "grave" but venial. As we do have decent dreads of sin and its impact in our lives, we will get ourselves to Confession as soon as possible and we will make amends. Thus the remedy of Canon 915 is not appropriate in those cases.
Shine also makes another error in assuming that liberal positions on several pet issues of the progressives, e.g., death penalty and climate change, are binding on the Catholic conscience. They are not. In fact, I've gone to great lengths to detail why I believe the progressive position on the death penalty may in fact be a sin. To insinuate that divergence from these liberal positions warrant denial from Holy Communion is to sin against honesty and the Traditions of Holy Mother Church.
Let us recall, of course, that New Ways Ministry has itself been condemned by the Church and its dribblings carry no weight whatsoever. However, it is helpful to see the intensity with which they wail and gnash their teeth when a Catholic bishop such as Bishop Paprocki is faithful to his sacred trust and utilizes his authority to protect his flock from the wolves of progressivism and heresy.
If this abomination ever happens in our Catholic parishes, we may need to revisit these concepts and be prepared to take very firm and immediate, on-the-spot action. For now, remain in a state of grace and pray your Rosaries.
A few days ago I commented on an article in Time magazine (online version) about some seminarians from the John Paul II Institute that is adjacent to Catholic University in Washington DC. In that article are featured some young men from my parish - sincere and solid Catholics who are pursuing their priestly vocations. They gave the interviews to Time under archdiocesan direction so they really had no choice in the matter.
I knew Time would chop and dice the words of the seminarians to suit their sick fancies. Sadly, I believe that was the intent of the DC chancery, given the next slop-job synod that is on the horizon. None too surprisingly, other faux-katholyc rags are glomming onto the Time piece. The Not-At-All Catholic Reporter released their screed yesterday, based on the Time piece. I have to hand it to them; at least they're honest about their dreams to tear the sacred priesthood to shreds.
The author of this glop is Pat Periello, a Baltimore native. I wonder if he's related to Tom Periello? If anyone knows, please drop me a line in the comments section. Pat was a former seminarian at St. Mary's in Baltimore. Was he there during the days when St. Mary's was known as the "pink palace"? But I digress.
As you read the NCR piece, you'll see the dubious reasons for Periello's even more dubious "high hopes":
"priests being able to marry"
"priesthood that includes women in significant numbers"
"less driven by doctrine"
"espouse legalization of marijuana"
"position of generally not preaching on abortion"
These are the kinds of "hopes" that will send souls to hell.
Why, oh why, do I think these two articles are part of a coordinated plan to cajole Catholics into accepting pig-slop that will probably emanate from this upcoming synod on young people and vocations?
Earlier today Church Militant TV put out a call for action. Someone within the Archdiocese of Los Angeles leased out some archdiocesan buildings to pro-abortion activists so that they could have a conference that featured Planned Parenthood.
As you can see from the linked article, CMTV produced a fairly detailed analysis of the planned conference and of all the key players involved. They closed their post with a plea to contact Archbishop Gomez and ask him to have the event ejected from Church property. I had planned to have this post be another vehicle to spread the word and to encourage my readers to participate in this effort. Happily I can now amend the purpose of this post.
The update at the top of the CMTV link was put there within the past few hours. Apparently enough faithful Catholics raised the alarm at the LA chancery so that they canceled the event. This incident is evidence that we faithful Catholics do make a difference when we pray and act for God's honor and the upholding of Holy Mother Church. Each and every phone call and email to that archdiocese played a critical role in preventing the planned sacrilege.
When events like this happen in the future (and they will), please take heart and act. Make that phone call. Send that email. Boycott that collection for progressive causes. Picket that pro-abort who speaks on Church property, or that enemy of marriage who is honored by Church officials. Let the Church authorities know you will act. Sometimes the specter of your planned action may cause the troublesome event to be cancelled. Even if the event goes on, your action will at least make the recalcitrant officials uncomfortable in their sin.
Never sit back in indifference and apathy, believing that your voice and actions and prayers won't matter in the midst of so much evil. It will, even if it may not be evident at all times.
Bishop Robert Barron, Auxiliary of Los Angeles, wrote an article on Martin Luther that appeared in Aleteia. I link to it now and will highlight some of the more egregious parts.
"For at the core of Luther’s life and theology was an overwhelming experience of grace." What "grace" leads one to separate oneself from the One True Church? What grace inspires a person to eschew the Sacraments and deposit of faith? I believe apostasy is a mortal sin. By definition, sanctifying grace is absent from one in a state of mortal sin.
"Luther was an ecstatic, and the religious movement he launched was a love affair.” If ever anyone needed proof of the dangers of exalting subjective experience over the immutable teachings of the Church, look no further. What Barron stupidly calls "a love affair" has led to the splintering of the Church and the damnation of perhaps millions of souls.
"At bottom, Luther was a mystic of grace, someone who had fallen completely in love." In love with what?? No one who truly loves God separates him/herself from the One True Church. They certainly don't hold cheap their own sacerdotal orders.
"So overwhelmed are they by the experience of the beloved that they are given to words such as “only” and “never” and “forever.” If you doubt me, read any of the great romantic poets, or for that matter, listen to a teenager speak about his first crush" I think in some convoluted way, Barron is trying to excuse or even justify Luther's mangling of the Bible to justify his sola fide heresy. Look - it's one thing for a person in love to pepper his/her own language with effusive terminology. It's quite another for the person in love to twist the words of the one whom he/she allegedly loves. That's precisely what Luther did when he added the word "alone" to that Romans passage and removed several Old Testament books from his heretical version of the Bible.
"What Ryrie’s characterization of Luther has helped me to see is how the great Solas;of the Reformation can be both celebrated and legitimately criticized. Was Luther right to express his ecstatic experience of the divine love in just this distinctive way?" News flash! One does not celebrate spiritual poison. The answer to that last question is a resounding "NO!" If Bishop Barron is actually regurgitating this crap to his flock, perhaps he should surrender his miter now.
Gloria.tv has some other choice quotes from Martin Luther. Are those "expressions of ecstatic experience"?
Saint John Fisher was a contemporary of Luther's. He wrote several works to refute Luther's heresies. A youtube series appears in four parts. I post the second part below. If you watch it on youtube as opposed to this blog, you can get the whole series. It's worth some time, especially since Pope Francis seems hell-bent on celebrating this heretic during this coming October.
As we all know, Cardinals Brandmuller, Burke, Caffarra, and Meisner issued four questions, called dubia, to seek clarification from Pope Francis regarding the intended meanings behind certain passages of Amoris Laetitia - most notably, chapter 8. These questions were issued last September. To date the "dubia cardinals" have received no reply.
Last April they requested a private audience with the pope to follow up on the dubia. The request was made by a letter penned by Cardinal Caffarra. The blogger Sandro Magister obtained a copy and it has been published on numerous sites. I'll reproduce it below. The letter was hand-delivered to the pope. Sadly this letter is receiving the same treatment as did the original dubia. If the pope grants the audience later, I'll gladly report on that development.
Now the text of the letter:
Most Holy Father,
It is with a certain trepidation that I address myself to Your Holiness, during these days of the Easter season. I do so on behalf of the Most Eminent Cardinals: Walter Brandmüller, Raymond L. Burke, Joachim Meisner, and myself.
We wish to begin by renewing our absolute dedication and our unconditional love for the Chair of Peter and for Your august person, in whom we recognize the Successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus: the "sweet Christ on earth," as Saint Catherine of Siena was fond of saying. We do not share in the slightest the position of those who consider the See of Peter vacant, nor of those who want to attribute to others the indivisible responsibility of the Petrine munus. We are moved solely by the awareness of the grave responsibility arising from the munus of cardinals: to be advisers of the Successor of Peter in his sovereign ministry. And from the Sacrament of the Episcopate, which "has placed us as bishops to pasture the Church, which He has acquired with his blood" (Acts 20:28).
On September 19, 2016 we delivered to Your Holiness and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith five dubia, asking You to resolve uncertainties and to bring clarity on some points of the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.
Not having received any response from Your Holiness, we have reached the decision to ask You, respectfully and humbly, for an Audience, together if Your Holiness would like. We attach, as is the practice, an Audience Sheet in which we present the two points we wish to discuss with you.
Most Holy Father,
A year has now gone by since the publication of Amoris Laetitia. During this time, interpretations of some objectively ambiguous passages of the post-synodal Exhortation have publicly been given that are not divergent from, but contrary to, the permanent Magisterium of the Church. Despite the fact that the Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith has repeatedly declared that the doctrine of the Church has not changed, numerous statements have appeared from individual Bishops, Cardinals, and even Episcopal Conferences, approving what the Magisterium of the Church has never approved. Not only access to the Holy Eucharist for those who objectively and publicly live in a situation of grave sin, and intend to remain in it, but also a conception of moral conscience contrary to the Tradition of the Church. And so it is happening — how painful it is to see this! — that what is sin in Poland is good in Germany, that what is prohibited in the archdiocese of Philadelphia is permitted in Malta. And so on. One is reminded of the bitter observation of B. Pascal: "Justice on this side of the Pyrenees, injustice on the other; justice on the left bank of the river, injustice on the right bank."
Numerous competent lay faithful, who are deeply in love with the Church and staunchly loyal to the Apostolic See, have turned to their Pastors and to Your Holiness in order to be confirmed in the Holy Doctrine concerning the three sacraments of Marriage, Confession, and the Eucharist. And in these very days, in Rome, six lay faithful, from every Continent, have presented a very well-attended study seminar with the meaningful title: "Bringing clarity."
Faced with this grave situation, in which many Christian communities are being divided, we feel the weight of our responsibility, and our conscience impels us to ask humbly and respectfully for an Audience.
May Your Holiness remember us in Your prayers, as we pledge to remember You in ours. And we ask for the gift of Your Apostolic Blessing.
In my parish bulletin this morning was a flyer announcing the upcoming Peter's Pence collection. The flyer states that funds from this collection will support the charitable works of Pope Francis and the Vatican. Some faithful Catholics might therefore believe that this particular collection is fine and won't go towards the more destructive aspects of this papacy. What we must bear in mind, though, is the concept of fungibility. For the sake of brevity, I'll link to another post in which Michael Hichborn explains that concept in detail. Suffice it to say that under this papacy any collection to the Vatican will fund the attacks on Tradition, albeit indirectly.
Last January I closed a post in which I questioned the wisdom of our participation in this collection. This was a post in which it was made known that pro-abortionist Paul Ehrlich spoke at a Vatican conference. There are many more egregious acts of this papacy:
This list is by no means exhaustive. Moreover, with the passing of time it will grow. I for one do not want to finance that growth. I will boycott the Peter's Pence collection and give that money to a local worthwhile charity that honors the Church's mission or at least does not work to undermine it or partner with Church enemies. Please consider doing the same.
Many of us are grappling with the recent spate of violence that seems to have spawned as a result of political differences. We are trying to do so from the vantage point of truth as proclaimed by Jesus Christ through His Roman Catholic Church. The root causes are obviously spiritual. There has been wide-spread rebellion against God's immutable moral laws and against His claims to our worship of Him alone.
How often do we see our churches empty on Sundays? Of those who do go to Mass, how many of them receive Holy Communion while living in mortal sin? How many participate in the wanton slaughter of babies? How many defy God's laws regarding marriage? How many approve of the various perversions of sexuality and even participate in them?
The non-exhaustive list of sins enumerated above are increasing in number and are becoming ensconced in our social and political frameworks. These are sins that, if not eradicated, will cause God's wrath to fall on us.
A facebook friend rightly states that we need to turn back to God and pray for each other. No one gainsays that. The problems of our society are rooted in spiritual malaise. I do find problems with what she wrote. I don't think she intended it, but her language implies that all individuals and/or groups in the U.S. are equally at fault for the current climate in this country. I simply don't think the events of the past few months bear that out.
My blogging colleague at Les Femmes put up a challenge, to show examples of conservative violence. She listed some liberal violence, but that list is not a complete one. For instance, I see no mention of the theatrical farce in which an actor portraying Donald Trump was murdered. At the Congressional Baseball Game (for which House Majority Whip Steven Scalise was practicing when he was shot), President Trump was booed as he walked to the field. In response to the shooting, a New Jersey Democrat operative tweeted messages to "hunt Republicans". If Republicans had engaged in this behavior, they would have been pilloried and their careers, if not their lives, would have been ruined. However, when Democrats do it, they are celebrated by their compatriots.
The fact is that one political party, in its very platform, champions baby-slaughter and the perversion of sexuality and marriage whereas the other party doesn't. The former is the Democrats and the latter is the GOP. The Democrats have made in clear to would-be candidates that they must favor the mortal sins listed above if they wish to have a political career with the Dems.
To pretend that all individuals and groups share equal blame for this societal background is to fall into a simplistic blindness. I can only speculate what the motive for such mental contortions may be but none of them would justify a refusal to embrace the facts as they present themselves.
Such pretensions have strong similarities to a thought-reform technique known as "blaming the victim". It is used by leaders in cults to keep the partially brainwashed members in line, by causing them to think that their pain is at least self-induced and not attributable to the leaders. In this case, it could be unconsciously used to justify not rebuking those who do advocate violence.
Let me tie all this up by agreeing with my first friend in that we must pray for widespread conversion. The Blessed Mother, under various apparitions, said that plainly. But in the meantime, we must name those who oppose Christianity and defeat them by all moral and legal means at our disposal.
Last Saturday, in the Church of St. Michael in the Archdiocese of Cologne, a fashion show took place. It was set up inside the church, complete with catwalks. The thing was dubbed "le bloc 2017" and the (cough!) "fashions" were chasibules that embody and display the spiritual havoc that has infested the Church for decades. It is bad enough that the sacred space of the church was profaned as a marketplace, but to add insult to injury, what was being celebrated was the trivialization of the dignity of the sacred priesthood. To have men strut the catwalk in effeminate manners while wearing chasibules painted with tulips and other garish designs inside a church is nothing short of sacrilege.
This link has videos of the mess (you may need to utilize the translator). Warning - it is an eyesore. Watch closely the top video, the first few seconds. One of the chasibules has the illuminati triangle on it.
The pastor, and perhaps the bishop, should be sacked. Regrettably, under this papacy they will be applauded.
The Remnant has commentary on what Cardinal Burke said in a recent teleconference. They point out that what Cardinal Burke flies in the face of some nonsense uttered in various Church documents. Yes, it's nonsense to claim that Muslims worship the God that we worship. Even Muslims will agree on that point, although they hold erroneously that their false idol "allah" is a deity. We thank the One True God that Cardinal Burke had the guts to go against the politically correct nonsense - no, heresy - that claims that "allah" is just another word for God.
The maxim "personnel is policy" contains much truth. With that in mind, faithful Catholics are aghast at the appointment of a known pro-abort to the Pontifical Academy for Life. Recall that last autumn, Pope Francis dismissed all the members of that academy. Now he is starting to reconstruct it to his liking.
The pro-abort's name is Nigel Bigger. He is an Anglican minister who believes that baby-slaughter should be legal until 18 weeks. He tried to diffuse our incredulity by claiming that is views on euthanasia conforms to Church teaching (forgive us if we look askance at that claim). However, all who rightly claim the label "pro-life" are opposed to all forms of murder (murder being defined in Catholic moral theology as "the deliberate taking of innocent human life"). So clearly Pope Francis could have selected from thousands of faithful Catholics who adhere completely to the Church's Traditions regarding life and family. He might have simply reappointed some former PAL members who were dismissed last autumn. Why, oh why, did Pope Francis see fit to select someone who is at clear, sinful variance with the Church? It's worth a reminder that last autumn Pope Francis did away with the requirement that all PAL members adhere to the Jerome Lejeune Oath. When I wrote that post last November, I asked why the pope saw fit to eliminate that requirement. I think we now have the answer to my earlier question.
One Peter Five has details of others who were (re)appointed to the PAL. Two of the more vocal critics of Amoralis Lamentia were not reappointed. Cardinal Caffarra, one of the four dubia cardinals, was reappointed; but his omission would have stunk to high heaven and would have been a public relations black eye to the pope. Another troubling appointment was made: that of Anne-Marie Pelletier, a professor who joins the pope in dissenting from Church Tradition on family and marriage.
More and more the progressives at the Vatican are abandoning their facades of fidelity to Sacred Tradition. In related news, Rorate Caeli informs us that this past Sunday, the Bishop of Santa Fe in Argentina (a Pope Francis appointee) conducted a Mass that can only be called sacrilege. He announced during Mass that according to the norms of AL, adulterers would be admitted to Holy Communion at that Mass. Indeed they were. While he committed mortal sin, as did all those who received unworthily, he was correct in stating that his sacrilege was in conformity with Amoralis Lamentia.
To my friends who insist on wearing rose-colored glasses with regards to this pope, who persistantly think that starry-eyed naivete is a virtue: please cease lying to yourselves and each other. The sooner you admit the truth, the sooner you can start praying and acting to preserve the Faith in yourselves and those around you.
Who remembers in the early days of Pope Francis' papacy all the talks of "collegiality" and him being just another bishop? Those were the days of the silly clown noses, etc. Well, perhaps the clown noses were just to disarm naive people for now the clown nose has given way to the hard nose.
A number of cardinals reside in Rome. By way of the Dean of the College of Cardinals, Pope Francis ordered those cardinals, if they plan to take a trip outside the city, to tell him where they're going and how long they'll be gone. He's treating these cardinals like minor children subject to curfew.
Of what is he afraid? That more dubia will find their way to his desk? Will he have them followed? The blogger Abyssus Abyssum quips that next the pope will have them where homing tags, similar to ankle bracelets worn by registered sex offenders. It may be farcical now, but farces seem to have a way of morphing into reality at the Vatican these days.
He clearly is afraid. History shows that many of the most fearful, paranoid people were indeed tyrants. Is that what we're seeing now?
In the bulletin of a Washington parish I saw the link for a survey being taken by the Archdiocese of Washington in preparation for a synod next year. The link is www.sharewithfrancis.org. My curiosity piqued, I clicked on it. The meeting will be called "2018 Synod on Young People, The Faith, And Vocational Discernment". The home page shows some categories of folks, with links to their questions: young people, parents, priest/religious. Oddly enough, there is nothing for those of us lay people who are neither young nor parents. So much for "inclusiveness". Anyway, I took the survey in the "young adult" section, giving my actual birth year. I'd suggest that all take the survey to at least make our voices and concerns heard.
Speaking of "vocational discernment", the online version of Time magazine did an article on seminarians, featuring some seminarians from my parish. The title of the piece was really quite ominous: "How Millenials Are Reinventing The Priesthood". What about the priesthood needs to be "reinvented"? Didn't Jesus Christ do a "good enough" job with that on Holy Thursday? Given the left-slant of Time, I suspected it would be a thinly-disguised hit job on the priesthood. Indeed it was. Seminarians "questioning their sexuality"? In a saner time, that would be sufficient grounds to remove such young men from the seminary. Then we read of priests riding bikes through school halls while wearing fake mustaches. Is that what we have to anticipate with all this "reinvention"? The stupifying of our priests?
There's no gainsaying that the Times piece was a hit job on authentic Catholic priests. Let me point something out about the seminarians interviewed for that piece. I know that they are good decent young men who aspire to serve God through their vocations. So why did they consent to being interviewed? For one thing, they are young and may simply not be aware of the malevolence borne by secular media for authentic Catholicism. However, they were also encouraged (if not directed) to give this interview by the Archdiocese of Washington. They are seminarians and they do have to obey their superiors. Now the superiors know full well the machinations of secular media. Did they simply fail to consider how the media would twist this article to the detriment of vocations - or were they collaborators in that aim?
There does seem to be some effort afoot within progressive circles to redefine the priesthood: that is, to fashion the priesthood into something that is quite alien from its place in Church tradition. Consider, for example, the continuing debacle at St. Matthew's on Loch Raven Boulevard in Baltimore. Last week it came to my attention (from LifeSiteNews) that they are openly selling "gay pride" tee-shirts on Church premises after Masses. They are very up front about it and still Archbishop Lori et al insist on turning their blind eyes towards this destruction of faith and damnation of souls in their charge. Father Joseph Muth continues to feed his congregation spiritual poison, with the Baltimore chancery uttering nary a peep. Is that what we should expect with all this "reinventing the priesthood"?
Then we have another clerical train wreck named Father James Martin, S.J. His heresies seem to be the "gift that doesn't quit giving". A few days ago this newly-appointed Vatican communications officials publicly opined that "some of the language used in the Catechism on that topic needs to be updated, given what we know now about homosexuality". That's because we're so much more enlightened than were the Apostles and Church Doctors! Right? Will his next target for "updating" be the Ten Commandments? He too continues to spew heresy. In a saner time he would have been defrocked.
As mentioned in the first paragraph of this post, a synod is being planned to discuss young people and vocations. Given what I've just expounded upon, not to mention the abysmal proceeds of the last synod (and yes, Amoris Laetitia is an unmitigated disaster), I think we can expect the attacks on the authentic priesthood to increase: with many of these attacks coming from Church hierarchy. I truly hope to be proven wrong, but don't bet on it.
As most of you know, President Trump saved the United States from being economically and politically raped by the European Union vis-a-vis the Paris Agreement. Of course this agreement was a darling to the gaia-worshiping wonks who drafted Laudato Si.
That of course means that the USCCB is waxing apoplectic over the withdrawal. The USCCB issued a statement to that effect, showing that they are willing shills - if not full-fledged partners - in the environmentalist scam. Conveniently they overlook (or hide) the fact that Trump offered to re-negotiate the terms of the agreement, but the EU would have none of that, for reasons not hard to fathom.
So now consider: Mass attendance continues to plunge, as do religious and priestly vocations. Those Catholics that do bestir themselves to attend Mass are so poorly catechized that they don't know what happens at the Mass, they contracept and abort and divorce while receiving Holy Communion, they don't know the basic tenets of their Faith. Of course they haven't the foggiest idea of the last four things: death, judgment, heaven, hell and that the choices they make in this life will irrevocably determine their eternal destinies.
At times the USCCB does some lip service about "freedom of conscience". But they were strangely silent when Bernie Sanders flat out told Russell Vought that he would oppose him as a nominee for Deputy Director for the Office of Management and Budget. The latter wrote an article defending the Christian school Wheaton College for its stance on Christian theology. That was enough for Sanders to engage in an unconstitutional screed against Vought. In essence, Sanders told not only Vought but all devout Christians that they have no place in civil government. If that isn't rank bigotry, the first rattlings of a ghettoizing saber, I don't know what is. Yet the USCCB utters not one peep on that? Or are they silent for they too oppose anyone nominated by President Trump?
Doctor Robert Jeffress, senior pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas TX, issued a public call for Sander to either apologize or resign his office - bearing in mind that in his screed against Vought, Sanders violated his oath of office that obliged him to uphold the US Constitution, including Article VI and the Bill of Rights. Will the nation's Catholic bishops bestir themselves to do at least as much?
A phrase I coined a few years ago, "niggers of the new age", comes immediately to mind, for that is how Sander and his ilk would like to treat Christians. Recall that this christophobe was a candidate for the US presidency. These situations will become more and more frequent in this post-modern era unless our bishops start acting like true shepherds of the Church. A good place to start for them might be the emulation of Dr. Jeffress' example.
In his Wednesday general audience, Pope Francis uttered the words above; see the LifeSiteNews article for more context. This is utter heresy. It strikes at the very nature of God Himself. Any theologian worth his salt (and for that matter, anyone with common sense) will tell you that God is all-sufficient. He is all powerful and all-encompassing within Himself. He doesn't need us to somehow "complete" Himself; to insinuate otherwise would be to say that there was a time when He wasn't as omnipotent as He is now.
Read what St. Irenaeus had to say about the matter. It is worth noting that the excerpt comes from one of his works entitled "Against The Heresies". Heresy is exactly what the Vicar of Christ uttered yesterday. If his understanding of the nature of God is so flawed, it's no wonder that he flubs up so much else.
We must educate ourselves in the doctrines and truths of Our Faith. Only very few - even our shepherds - will assist us in that.
Last August Pope Francis appointed Archbishop Paglia to head the Pontifical Council on Marriage and Family. In this post I listed his credentials that must have favorably impressed this pontiff. In a saner time, these "credentials" would have caused him to be immediately defrocked. However, I've no doubt that he was seen as someone who would work with alacrity to undermine the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself with regards to marriage, life, sexuality. Now it appears that he is touting his pornographic sacrilege of his cathedral as an "evangelizing tool". Well, it's a tool for something, alright, but not for the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Church. Whom does he think he's fooling?
Last week I blogged about Bishop John Gaydos of the Diocese of Jefferson City, MO. He is directing his schools to admit children from situations where the adults are perverts or children who think they are "transgender" withouth any direction to amend their lives to be in conformity with Church teaching. Happily it seems that some laity, with the help of one sane pastor, are resisting. Church Militant TV conversed at length with one parishioner about the matter. She is pleased that her pastor is not going along with this demented program devised by Gaydos.
We pray that this Jefferson City pastor does not suffer at the hands of faithless progressives, as this pastor is within the Diocese of Charlotte NC. He is Father Christopher Riehl of St. John the Evangelist parish. A faithful priest, he was appointed to head this parish that had been ravaged by his progressive predecessor. Father Riehl instituted some reforms, causing some progressives to knot their knickers. They went whining and pouting to Bishop Jugis and now Father Riehl is resigning. The article doesn't come out and say that Jugis threw his priest under a bus, but given the way he betrayed Sister Jane Dominic Laurel three years ago, it's a sure bet that is precisely what happened. Either Jugis is using linguine for a spinal column or he himself is a thinly-disguised liberal.
This bishop from England confirms the worst fears that many of us have regarding unbridled ecumenism - that is, when ecumenism doesn't have as its overriding goal the conversion of non-Catholics (including Protestants) to the One True Faith. He is Bishop Ralph Heskett of the Diocese of Hallam. He has released "guidelines" that suggest that in the name of "ecumenism" that Catholics perform acts of worship to pagan idols. In other words, he is suggesting that his flock commit mortal sins against the First Commandment. This is "go along to get along" that will, unless corrected, literally send souls to hell.
I write this not only to alert us to very real perils posed to us by some bishops, but also to advise that they are not proceeding without opposition, such as is happening in Jefferson City and Charlotte. We must pray and support our fellow faithful Catholics and be prepared to put forth resistance ourselves.
This blog and others have decried abuses and lack of reverence at Masses, and we will continue to do so. One unavoidable drawback that we face, however, is that we are reporting "after the fact" as it were. What can the faithful Catholic do to discourage misbehavior and encourage real reverence at Mass? The answer is, "more than one might think". Much of what I'll suggest is simply what was once considered normal behavior at Mass two generations ago. Bear in mind that these suggestions can - and I think, should - be implemented on a regular, ongoing basis. Here goes:
Dress formally for Mass. For men (of all ages), that means suit, tie, dress shirt and dress shoes. For ladies (of all ages), dress or skirt that at least covers the knees, nothing "see-through" nor sleeveless, modest neckline, back covered and no midriff showing. Toe-covered shoes and stockings, no bare legs nor sandals.
Aside from bottles for infants, no food, drink, nor gum.
No chatting in the nave of the church before or after Mass. Even if you "whisper", the sounds carry and you do cause visual distraction. Save the conversation for later. If urgent, take it into the lobby.
While waiting for Mass to begin, look over the hymns to be sung during Mass, lest you wind up mouthing heresy and/or singing works of known dissidents.
If Father tries to institute a "meet and greet" session at the beginning of Mass, don't participate. Save the howdy-doos for later, in the Church lobby.
If Father or Deacon insists on cracking jokes from the pulpit, do not laugh. A somber glare might be in order. If the homilist tries to make it an "interactive" homily by eliciting verbal answers from the congregation, remain silent. Do not applaud.
During the Our Father, keep your hands folded in prayer. The laity are NOT to assume the orans position, nor are they to hold hands.
During the "kiss of peace" (unless you choose to kneel through it), only exchange it with those immediately near you. Do NOT stretch across rows, do NOT cross the aisles. Once the Agnus Dei has started, immediately cease and turn your attention to the altar. If someone near you tries to "exchange" with you after the Agnes Dei has started, ignore them and focus on the altar.
When receiving Holy Communion, always make some act of reverence before receiving the Host (bow or genuflect). You have the canonical right to receive on the tongue and kneeling.
If you see a Host fall to the ground, watch the reaction of the Minister. If he just picks It up and does nothing else, you should act. The Particles left on the ground really are the Body and Blood of Our Lord. It happened at our Church last week. Not knowing what else to do, I got some paper towels to wipe the area immediately after the priests receded at Mass's end. Don't think "it's no big deal". It is. (By the way - if anyone knows what a lay person can do in that situation, please advise).
Mass ends when the Dismissal is given and the congregation respond "thanks be to God". Do not leave before the priests do. However, after that, you are NOT obliged to wait for the entire recessional to be sung. Some "worship aids" erroneously state that Mass ends after the singing of the complete recessional. That is incorrect, according to the GIRM.
If Father insists on recognizing some altar server who is going to college or the cute children's choir, again, NO APPLAUSE. Do not participate in any distraction from Jesus Christ, be that distraction ever so momentary.
You many wish to spend a few minutes in prayer after Mass (bearing in mind when the next Mass is scheduled to begin). When you do leave, do so QUIETLY. Any conversations can be postponed for the few seconds that it takes to walk to the lobby.
They don't sound like radical suggestions, do they? In reality, they aren't. A few decades ago, these were considered normal, expected behaviors. However, in today's all-too-sloppy loosey-goosey culture, the above-stated behaviors will be taken as the "sign of contradiction" against carelessness and unthinking irreverence.
The above suggestions are certainly appropriate for the ordinary situation. You might find, however, that Father decides upon a new procedure that is not authorized in the General Instructions for the Roman Missal (please get yourselves copies, available on Amazon). He might foist liturgical dancing on you. A female might try the homily. During a joke from the pulpit, someone from the congregation might loudly offer up his own. Heresy might come from the homilist. We might see some horrid sacrilege happening to the Blessed Sacrament. We will have to consider what to do, for gone are the days when we could just be silent and claim to "offer it up", taking the coward's way out. We have to think long and hard about our own situations, for under this papacy we may see some glaring monstrosities rear their ugly heads in our parishes.
By the way, feel free to make additional suggestions in the comments section.
Yesterday President Trump announced that the US would be extraditing itself from the hamstring boondoggle known as the "Paris Agreement". As Huffington Post sniffs, this is within a week or two of the pope presenting to President Trump his faux-gospel known as Laudato Si. He must have read it and understood its basis in progressive crap-science. Breitbart News posted a list of harms that have been averted due to our rejection of the Paris Agreement.
The HP piece quotes Bishop Sorondo as whining that Trump's action "would be a slap in the face for us". Truth be told, the whole Pontifical Academy for the Sciences might benefit from some slaps to the kissers. Of course I speak figuratively for I would never assault clergy in that manner. To strike the ordained is an act of sacrilege; even if they don't hold their sacerdotal orders in high esteem, I do. The adulation they have heaped upon notorious baby-killing proponents (Jeffrey Sachs, Paul Ehrlich, Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, etc) betrays their allegiance to progressivism and hatred for western (that is, Christian) culture. I've been following the encroachment of environmentalism in the Church for a while now. To an ever increasing number of people it is becoming clear that environmentalism is a Trojan horse for population control (via contraception, sterilization and abortion), one-world government, with that government encroaching so much on the lives of people that it supplants God in their lives. Here is just one expose of that fact; I urge you also to go to the Vortex link in this article.
The anti-life philosophy behind environmentalism reared its ugly head as recently as last month, when environmentalists tried to maintain the Paris Agreement. You can see that in the video below, seeing how they reacted to the pro-life message. I thank God that President Trump thwarted these people for now.
The Diocese of Jefferson City, MO is now allowing students who consider themselves "transgender" and those from "same-sex families" to enroll in the schools. Bishop John Gaydos has cited Amoralis Lamentia as inspiration for the change. This LifeSiteNews article links to the new policy, calling the sodomite situations "non-traditional families". Of course they aren't true families, but occasions of mortal sin and spiritual destruction of the children.
Read over that policy. Nowhere is there an acknowledgement of the inherent sinfulness of homosexual conduct, fornication, adultery. On page 10 (reads as page 8) of the policy regarding "transgendered" kids, the policy states in section c-ii, "use of hormone therapies and/or gender reassignment surgery is typically not condoned at this developmental level". Pray tell, what the hell does that mean??? Does it mean that there are other "developmental levels" when chemical and/or surgical mutilations are condoned by this diocese??? Nowhere in this policy is there any mention of proclaiming God's truth to these confused youngsters or to their errant parents.
The diocese had a meeting in which they trotted out this policy. One good priest was having none of it. This piece links to the dialogue. I disagree with the priest in his belief that Pope Francis opposes this policy outright, but he is spot on with everything else.
Far from opposing the furtherance of perversion in the Church, the pope, by various appointments, makes no secret of his aim to normalize it within the Church. The latest manifestation occurred just a few days ago when he appointed the gay-enabling Father John Dolan to be an auxiliary bishop for the Diocese of San Diego. Recall that this diocese is already cursed with Bishop Robert McElroy, about whom I've written in the past. While he's just absolutely delighted about Dolan's elevation, he has openly persecuted faithful priests who've had the temerity to write truthfully about Catholic morality, including the fact that it's sinful to vote for pro-abortion candidates.
Within the Archdiocese of New York (headed by Cardinal Dolan) the Church of the Blessed Sacrament is hosting a gay orgy under the auspices of a fund-raiser. Read the details from Joseph Sciambra's site. Here again we see the Commands of Jesus Christ being treated as a pile of dung. Please let's not pretend that Cardinal Dolan doesn't know of this. Of course he does. At best, he doesn't care; I hope he doesn't openly applaud them..oh wait! He applauded the gay group at St Francis Xavier a few years back, didn't he?
But let me end this post on a happy note. We in the Archdiocese of Washington know of Father Peter Daly, pastor of St. John Vianny of Prince Frederick MD. He has openly condoned homosexual conduct, going so far as to offer faulty counsel to gays who have come to him. In the May 25 issue of the Catholic Standard, we see that he is retiring and will have no further pastoral authority. His retirement will be effective July 12, 2017. Let us pray that he will have no further contact with confused individuals and that he will use his time in retirement to seek God's forgiveness for his dissidence.
First, let me give a little personal background information in the interests of making clear my own first-hand knowledge of what I'm about to relate.
During my late teens and much of my early adulthood I was involved with the "Catholic charismatic renewal" as a member of Mother of God Community. There were quite a few other groups like it throughout the United States. Many of these - including MOG - began to behave as cults. In the mid 1990s, much of that came to a halt. In 1997 the Washington Post magazine put out two issues that delved into the history. Normally I don't recommend anything by the Washington Post but I can vouch for the accuracy of this series - based on my own personal knowledge of events. During 1996 I ended my own official affiliation with MOG for many reasons. One of those reasons was my apprehension of their overemphasis on personal "experiences of God". I still count many of the other members of MOG - current and past - as close friends; they are sincere in their love for God and the Church.