Archbishop Blase Cupich has made some troubling choices over the years. As the Bishop of Rapid City, South Dakota, he decided to bar the parishioners of the local Latin Mass parish from entering the church during the Easter Triduum so that he could provide “an opportunity on an annual basis for us to all worship together, for one moment of unity as a Catholic church.” Evidently, this was so important to him that he physically locked them out of the parish without discussion. He also, according to the local news, engaged in the general practice of forbidding these Catholics from receiving First Holy Communion or Confirmation under the traditional forms.
He made news again when, as Bishop of Spokane, Washington, he was reported to have “told the priests of his diocese not to be involved with the 40 Days for Life campaign” because he didn’t want them to be “identified with the ‘extremists’ of the pro-life movement.” When public pressure mounted, the diocese released a weak statement, falling back on soft language and allusions to conscience to hide a thinly-veiled threat to any priests who wished to participate.
After Cardinal George stepped down in the face of rapidly-advancing cancer, Pope Francis sent Cupich to Chicago. It wasn’t long before the new Archbishop made his mark on his new see. From allegedly going “ballistic” over the dearth of females in the sanctuary at his installation Mass to his near-instantaneous collaboration with pro-abortion politicians (to whom he refuses to deny Holy Communion) to his unruffled, almost acquiescent statement on the SCOTUS ruling on so-called “gay marriage,” the impression is given that Cupich has little real interest in fighting for the Catholic Faith.
This week, Archbishop Cupich has crossed another line. In an op-ed published in the Chicago Tribune, he directly equates the moral severity of abortion (as exposed in the recent Planned Parenthood videos) to other Social Justice issues (emphasis added):
This newest evidence about the disregard for the value of human life also offers the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment as a nation to a consistent ethic of life. While commerce in the remains of defenseless children is particularly repulsive, we should be no less appalled by the indifference toward the thousands of people who die daily for lack of decent medical care; who are denied rights by a broken immigration system and by racism; who suffer in hunger, joblessness and want; who pay the price of violence in gun-saturated neighborhoods; or who are executed by the state in the name of justice.
Perhaps Archbishop Cupich is confused. Perhaps he feels that it is his duty to resurrect the “seamless garment” philosophy dreamed up by his predecessor-before-last, the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. If so, he is mistaken. It is a philosophy as bankrupt as it ever has been, and it looks even more dated in light of the videos from the Center for Medical Progress.
The problem with “seamless garment” thinking is simple: some sins are quite obviously worse than others.
My questions for the Archbishop are similarly obvious: is there some comparable expose, showing the eviscerated remains of those with insufficient medical insurance, or can’t manage to immigrate legally, or suffer from racism? Is there even a shred of evidence that there are really “thousands”of them who “die daily”? Is he aware that over 2,000 abortions in the United States are performed every day?
Has the Archbishop even watched the Planned Parenthood videos? Does he comprehend what the 58 million US abortions really means? How about 1 billion worldwide? Did he watch those dismembered baby parts being picked over with tweezers while resale value was being discussed?
Did he turn away in sorrow and horror from that perfect little hand?
And if he did, how could he write something that so drastically undermines the severity of this atrocity?
Cardinal Timothy Dolan hasn’t been getting many kudos from orthodox Catholics of late, but to his great credit, he did not equivocate in expressing the reality of what we are facing:
“[T]he folks at Planned Parenthood finally told the truth about what they are actually doing when they abort over 300,000 babies each year – that’s more than 20% of all abortions in this country: they are putting an end to an innocent, fragile, defenseless, human life.
The importance of this is made particularly stark in a horrifying moment in one of the videos. A technician is exchanging small talk with the interviewer, all the while as she coldly describes her handling of the various organs of one of the aborted babies.
She is then heard to exclaim, ‘Another boy!’
The pathos of that scene is almost beyond human comprehension. But the acknowledgement of the truth is a pivotal moment. Nobody can hide from it any longer. It comes right out of their own mouths. It’s not a thing. It’s not just some tissue. ‘It’s a boy!’ It’s a human, baby, boy.
Many years ago, during the great moral crusade to eliminate the human slave trade, a medallion was used by men such as William Wilberforce to advance their cause. It depicts a slave, bound in chains, and asks a simple question — ‘Am I not a man and a brother?’
‘Another boy’ now asks us that same question. How will we answer?”
Archbishop Cupich has given his answer. He got it wrong.
Steve Skojec is the Founding Publisher of OnePeterFive.com. He received his BA in Communications and Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville in 2001. His commentary has appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Crisis Magazine, EWTN, Huffington Post Live, The Fox News Channel, Foreign Policy, and the BBC. Steve and his wife Jamie have eight children. You can find more of his writing at his Substack, The Skojec File.
Bless you, Steve. It is hard to follow this topic, but it would be impossible to avoid our Judgement if you and others were not working so hard for us to know and understand these evils.
Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.
Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city… I wonder, did Jesus think about America when He said this? Is every prophecy coming true now?
I think it’s not only for Amerika, but all of the world.
Yes, thought about that after I posted and I would agree.
I remember a video by Fr. Frank Pavone, where he said, “Abortion will never end unless people see it [aborted babies]” or words to that effect. Well were seeing it up close and personal and very few appear to care. And if one is to believe the national media, most people are coming to the aid of Planned Parenthood. And now we have an Archbishop who can’t see the difference berween premeditated murder of innocents and “living” people suffering some type of social injustice. Can’t he see with the eyes of Christ the greatest social injustice is abortion – the sacrament of the demonic? I pray that our bishops start getting their priorities straight before they become even more irrelevant to their flocks. Pray for the strengthening of bishops and priest.
Any Clergy regardless of rank, is a heretic and/or schismatic if he does not adhere 100% to the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition” of 1997 (CCC) which contains the Doctrine of the Faith.
Know your Faith by reading a Catholic Bible and the CCC, because some clergy are “wolves in sheeps’ clothing”.
CCC: ” 1415 Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace.
Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance.”
CCC: ” 1451 Among the penitent’s acts contrition occupies first place.
Contrition is “sorrow of the soul
and detestation for the sin committed,
together with the resolution not to sin again.”
CCC: ” 1355 ….. we call this food Eucharist, and no one may take part in it unless he believes that what we teach is true,
has received baptism for the forgiveness of sins and new birth,
and lives in keeping with what Christ taught. “
And your point is…what?
That Cupich (or others of his ilk) have no authority to provide Holy Communion to anyone known to be choosing to live in the State of Mortal sin.
It is not Pastoral, or Merciful, or Charitable.
I totally agree with you. The position of the comment in the flow of the discussion was confusing.
I adhere firmly to the Holy Catholic Faith as defined and affirmed by the Popes and Councils of the Church prior to 1960…
Then you are a Sedevacantist (one who pretends to be Catholic),
or a heretic and schismatic.
All the Doctrine of the Faith including those to which you refer are contained in the CCC of 1997.
Midwester is perfectly within his rights to adhere to the Faith as he does for there has been no new doctrine since 1960 as Vatican 1 infallibly taught could not happen.
And you are wrong about the crummy catechism which teaches, amongst other things, that Jesus gave scandal, twice, and for those two instances alone, the entire catechism – every single one in existence – ought be burned.
You are a heretic and schismatic.
Jesus did scandalize the Pharisees – proving to them they were hypocrites and not living according to God’s Commandments.
Further do not take the CCC out of context to support your evil, including Jesus eating with sinners, etc.
You will find the Bible references in the footnotes of the CCC to explain your stupidity.
Mike, you are very quick to point fingers at others and accuse them of heresy and schism. These are very serious charges and seem to show a lack of charity.
Not a lack of charity, merely truth. Read what he wrote. It is not true.
CCC: “2467 Man tends by nature toward the truth.
He is obliged to honor and bear witness to it:
“It is in accordance with their dignity that all men, because they are persons . . . are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth.
They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth.”
Actually Mike, a small amount of poison will spoil the whole. If there is a single real dogmatic error in the new Catechism, then it leads one to question the whole. One of the problems of the post Vatican II Church was the demotion of the Holy Office (today known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). Prior to Paul VI it was the most powerful Vatican office. Every document that was to be released to the public in any way was first reviewed by the Holy Office to ensure that it contained no dogmatic or doctrinal error. However, after Vatican II, the Church opened herself to the World, and the Holy Office was demoted and it’s role changed. it is interesting to note that it was replaced in importance by the Vatican Secretary of State. The emphasis of the institutional Church shifted from one of defending the deposit of Faith from error to aggiornamento – bringing the Church up to date with the World. A symptom of this is Archbishop Cupich.
I agree that VII docs have about 5 or 6 sentences that need clarification so that they can not be abused.
This is well covered by Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
There is nothing in the CCC of 1997 that contains error.
There are many errors in the CCC. The following are just a few.
1. CCC. 225: “the fundamental knowledge concerning man: To know the unity and the true dignity of al men: all are made in the image and likeness of God.”
Man, marked by original sin, is born without the grace of God. Therefore, he does not have his true dignity, that of being a son of God. This he receives at Baptism. This fundamental error concerning the dignity of man brings along with it others, for example, saying that the dignity of man cannot be lost. A criminal does not lose his dignity, since this consists in having a spiritual soul; taking this to its limit, the damned in Hell will still have their dignity.
2. CCC. 369: “Man and woman are created, that is to say, they are willed by God, in a perfect equality in as much as they are human persons on one hand, and on the other hand, in their respective being of man and woman. “Being man and “being woman” is a reality both good and willed by God.
As to his equality between man and woman, it exists in the order of grace (in Christ there is neither male or female, St. Paul tells us), but not in the order of nature where there is a natural hierarchy between man and woman..
3. CCC.369: “Man and woman have a dignity which cannot be lost, which comes to them immediately from God their Creator. Man and woman are, with the same dignity, in the image of God. In their “being man” and “being woman” they reflect the wisdom and the goodness of the Creator.”
This is false. It is saying all men have the same dignity. A saint will not be any more worthy than a sinner; the Blessed Virgin will not be more worthy than any other woman.
4. CCC. 872: “Amongst all the faithful of Christ, by the fact of their regeneration in Christ, there exists, insofar as dignity and activity, a true equality, in virtue of which all co-operate in the building up of the Body of Christ, each according to his condition and proper function.”
Although this paragraph founds the dignity of the Christian upon its true foundation, “the regeneration in Christ”, it is erroneous since it draws from this a false conclusion, which is that all Christians are equal. This is contrary to the Scriptures, which warns us that there are all sorts of gifts of grace and that the members of the Church are complementary, but unequal (the foot is not the eye, says St. Paul.)
1) Not only can you NOT take things out of context by quoting only phrases, you must take the entire CCC as a whole in entirety.
” This catechism is conceived as an organic presentation of the Catholic faith in its entirety. It should be seen therefore as a unified whole.” (CCC pg 11)
2) What are you using to promulgate your own religious beliefs ?
Your beliefs are very strange and in error. You are not Catholic either.
The dignity of man starts at conception.
The Baltimore Catechism states:
“Q. 133. What is man?
A. Man is a creature composed of body and soul, and made to the image and likeness of God.”
So you don’t adhere to anything Catholic even that in the 1940s.
You have your own religion.
All human beings have the same dignity. All are loved by God.
with their God given free wills – some choose Heaven, others choose Hell.
Stop making up your own Faith, or stop pretending to be Catholic.
I’m glad you have access to the Baltimore Catechism. Notice how clear each answer is? There is no ambiguity, no way to misinterpret what is taught, unlike the Vatican II catechism (and all of its documents as well) where you have to “take it whole and in its entirety” and then try to make sense of it. I thought the purpose of Vatican II was to make the faith EASIER to understand, not much more difficult.
The errors in the Vatican II catechism I cited were taken from an article written by an orthodox priest Mike. He clearly showed in just the few examples I gave how unorthodox those portions of the catechism are. So you are accusing him, and me, of having our own religion when, in fact, we believe the Catholic religion as taught for over 1900 years.
Please keep the Baltimore Catechism by your side and refer to it as that is where the true Catholic faith is found.
Do some research Mike on what was going on in the world and the Church leading up to Vatican II and your eyes will open to the tragic reality that the reformers, the innovators, the promoters of the synthesis of heresies, Modernism, fighting for centuries to infiltrate Holy Mother Church, finally succeeded in Vatican II.
The Baltimore was and is for children under age 15. (Check out the descriptions in the Baltimore.)
Some Priests make errors in their “personal opinions” as well.
If the Orthodox Priest is from an Orthodox Church, he is not Catholic; if he is from the SSPX he does “not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church”.
If you ever completely read the CCC you would know that it covers Sacred Scripture, and Tradition, and all the Councils going back to
Nicaea I in 325 AD.
The sins of people and some Clergy are not to be blamed on a Church Council, but on the sinners themselves. Passing the buck is dishonest.
” “….the CATECHISM has raised throughout the world, even among non-Christians, and confirms its purpose of being presented as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives, and prays in her daily life.” – Pope John Paul II (CCC pg xiv)
Mike, if truth is to be found, where? According to the Church since Vatican II, it is found everywhere. In all religions and even in a disbelief in any God (atheism) or a disbelief in Jesus Christ (the Jewish religion.)
So if man is bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it – and it can be found in any religion or no religion – they must direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth – which they find in whatever religion they happen to believe in, or in no religion if that is their belief.
Why then should anyone care whether or not they are Catholic? Catholicism is simply some people’s truth while other religions, or no religion, are other people’s truth.
How then can anyone be a heretic or a schismatic? People who believe something other than Catholicism is true are only following the very words cited in the catechism and to them, you would be considered a heretic or a schismatic, wouldn’t you?
False. Vatican II NEVER taught that all religions are the same.
Again you are taking phrases out of sentences and out of context for your own evil of drawing people away from the Catholic Faith.
CCC: “2105 The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially.
This is the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the TRUE RELIGION and the one Church of Christ.
By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live.
The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good.
It requires them to make known the worship of the ONE TRUE RELIGION which subsists in the CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH.
Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.”
You are very dishonest, lwhite.
You are confused Mike.
Notice the sentence which you cited that states the following:
“It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which SUBSISTS in the Catholic and Apostolic Church.”
If the Catholic religion simply SUBSISTS in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, it is only one religion that makes up a portion of the Church. That means there are other religions that must be true since they are a part of this same Church. And the above sentence simply says one must “make known” the Catholic religion. It doesn’t say one must be a Catholic to belong to the true Church, which is already identified as only one religion within the broader and wider church.
In practice as well, under the banner of Ecumenism (false), the popes have publicly (shamefully) practiced idolatry by worshipping numerous false gods, which makes it abundantly clear they don’t believe the Catholic religion is the only true religion. They pray with people who believe all kinds of false religions-Jews, Protestants, Hindus, Buddaists, Muslims, animists.
In any case, the Catholic Church has never taught that She “subsists” in the Church of Christ but that She IS the Church of Christ, outside of which, there is no salvation.
Once you add a false assumption or remove an element of truth from the truth, you end with error. There Is only One Word of God. There Is only One. holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church
You are merely being silly. And wasting valuable time.
There is no other TRUE RELIGION.
You are merely trying to twist words to support your own beliefs and as such you are no better than those who are heretical modernists.
Put the blame on sinners, where it belongs.
Mike, it isn’t charitable to call someone stupid, a heretic or a schismatic.
It would benefit us all if you would do some research into the problems within the Church leading up to the calling of the Second Vatican Council which the popes had found quite disturbing for over 100 years prior to it, rather than citing the 1997 catechism as a document of the true faith.
These popes (Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XI, Leo XIII and Pius XII) all realized there were some theologians and others within the Church who had formulated and were distributing heretical writings that were influencing many people and wrote numerous encyclicals addressing these heretical writings hoping to eradicate them before they became widespread. (In fact, some of these writings were banned by the Vatican or put under suspicion as heresy by these popes but these were the very writings adopted in Vatican II!)
Unfortunately, they weren’t eradicated and gained prominence in Vatican II and Pope Pius IX had exposed them as the synthesis of heresies which he called Modernism. This heresy is evident throughout all of the documents of Vatican II, in the “reforms” of the liturgy, the Sacraments, the Breviary, and in the governing of the Church.
Yes there are some theologians and some high ranking Clergy – such as Kasper, Danneels, Marx, etc., who are heretics and/or schismatics.
Here is the official Church definition:
CCC: ” 2089 ……..
HERESY is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
SCHSIM is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
(Remember that – Jesus even called some living clergy at that time (Pharisees) “hypocrites” on more than one occasion.
Jesus also over-turned the tables in the Temple.)
They are all perfectly good vocabulary words.
I personally have very little patience for those who pretend to be Catholic, and are heretics and/or schismatics (and apparently that includes you based upon your post).
They purposely bad-mouth the Doctrine of the Faith (CCC), and lead people away from the Church.
Mike, how did these theologians and some high ranking clergy who you admit to be heretics and/or schismatics rise to positions of power and influence? Why would the Catholic Church elevate these people to such positions of influence and power? Why would the Catholic Church want its ranks infected with heresies and false teachings?
These theologians and high ranking clergy rose to influence and power because they were elevated to their status by the popes who found their theology and their writings to their liking.
In fact, some of the theologians who are now the darlings of the Church, are those whose theology and writings were condemned for heresy or placed under suspicion by popes prior to Vatican II.
The same way sinners have always been appointed to positions of power within the Church going all the way back to the beginning of the Church.
Btw Jesus appointed St. Peter who denied Him 3 times, and Judas Iscariot as 2 of His chosen 12.
If you expect “perfect” Clergy, you will not find them, even though some are better than others.
What about Pope Alexander VI (Pope from 1492-1503) Borgia, who fathered Lucrezia and others? – Is 1492 traditionally old enough to meet your whims ?
I see you are as fervent a defender of heresy as the Arians were. I pray to God that he will provide another Saint to open the hearts and minds of those who have been deceived. So many Lord. So many.
You don’t like truth.
You are either a Sedevacantist, or a Catholic heretic/schismatic.
Can we all give it a rest, please? MIKE, please stop anathematizing people. Everyone else – just a reminder to steer clear of sedevacantist assertions.
I know these are confusing times and I want this to be a place where people can hash things out, but let’s remember the boundaries.
“ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved … and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine,
attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. ” – Pope John Paul II (CCC pg 5)
The CCC was promulgated as part of the Church’s “Apostolic Constitution”.
There is NOTHING in the CCC that is false. And those that say otherwise is a heretic and/or schismatic.
You’ll have to forgive MIKE. His views are nothing but what he is programmed to believe at another forum wherein the the lies and falsehoods are purported to stop. Unfortunately, they too often stop at a level that leaves adherents falsely declaring other Catholics to be heretics/schismatic etc and for doing little more than acknowledging the crisis in which we all must struggle.
If only the good work which had begun there would be allowed to flourish to encompass the fullness of Faith and reason. But the Powers and Principalities are busy at work.
No, Mike, I am neither Sedevacantist, a heretic, nor an apostate. I firmly believe that the modern Popes have been validly elected (though I suspect that there may have been problems with the election of Pope Francis due to canvassing by Cardinals before the Papal election). I firmly adhere to all of the dogmas of the Catholic Faith, and I belong to the Byzantine Catholic Church. However, I refuse to be mislead by the admittedly ambiguously written documents of Vatican II, and by the quasi-heretical doctrines, such as “religious liberty” and modern “ecumenism” that have tainted the Faith and confused Catholics since the Council. The Catholic Catechism itself contains several statements that several theologians have pointed could be interpreted as being quasi-heretical. Those statements were not included in the summary catechism published by Benedict XVI.
How could I be a heretic or schismatic when I firmly adhere to the Faith, which is unchanging? Tell me what dogmas of the Faith that were held prior to 1960 are no longer dogma. Explain to me what modern dogmas were discovered subsequent to 1960 that were not held prior to 1960? You are making many assumptions that are invalid. The true Faith is unchanging. However, as a result of Vatican II, many errors have crept into the Church as a result of ambiguous or imprecise language that were intentionally ambiguous due to Modernists at the council. For example, to follow is an excerpt from the Vatican II document Declaration on Religious Liberty :
(P.2) “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom… The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person, as this dignity is known through the revealed Word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed; thus it is to become a civil right.”
(P.2) “Therefore, the right to religious freedom has its foundation, not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth… and the exercise of this right is not be be impeded?”. Contrast this with the clear and concise statement OF ERROR from the Syllabus of Errors by Pope Pius IX: “15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.”
Or again, the idea that is current among many Catholics today that one can be saved in any religion whatever with this clear error stated in the Syllabus: ” 16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. — Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all
those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.”
Due to the confusion surrounding the documents of Vatican II and the manifold confusion surrounding words and actions of modern Popes (such as Pope John Paul II kissing the Koran, or the statue of Buddha placed above the tabernacle containing Our Lord at the ecumenical gathering at Assisi), I choose to study Catholic Dogma and Doctrine from documents I am sure reflect the Magisterial teachings of the Church, because then I am confident that I believe the truths of the Faith and will not be led into Modernist error.
….a wise course considering the changes that came after that time were by the very premise of the ‘pastoral’ non binding.
Cupich is disobedient. And by his example teaches other Catholics to be disobedient.
Regarding the Latin (Extraordinary Form aka EF) Mass:
” SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM ”
” INSTRUCTION on the APPLICATION of the APOSTOLIC LETTER SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM of HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO ”
Know your rights.
When someone has a bad Bishop like Cupich who violates ” SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM ” regarding the EF Mass,
one need not attend the OF (aka Ordinary Form, Novus Ordo) Mass.
One can also attend Mass of a rite other than Latin provided it is approved by the Catholic Church.
CCC: ” 1203 The liturgical traditions or rites presently in use in the Church are the Latin (principally the Roman rite, but also the rites of certain local churches, such as the Ambrosian rite, or those of certain religious orders) and the Byzantine, Alexandrian or Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite and Chaldean rites.
In faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity, and that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way.”
Know your rights.
…are you saying that the Novus Ordo is not an approved rite, MIKE?
Both the Ordinary Form (aka vernacular, Novis Ordo) of the Mass
and the Extraordinary Form ( aka, Latin, TLM, Tridentine) of the Mass are part of the LATIN RITE.
…then how can you say that in a diocese where the bishop doesn’t obey summorum pontificum, Catholics have a right to go to other approved rites. I found that rather odd and not in light with your position regarding what constitutes obedience, MIKE.
Just because a Bishop is disobedient to “Summorum Pontificum” does not mean that we are required to attend an EF Mass.
We also have the option of attending any APPROVED Rite of the Catholic Church.
We can go to other approved Rites any time we want, for any reason.
…thank you for clarifying your statement. And of course there is the option of attending other approved rites. That was never in question, MIKE.
Many people do not know about the other Approved rites, and our posts must educate those who do not know, and have never read the CCC.
…and yet your insinuation that the TLM rite is preferable is telling, MIKE. For it is and for decided reasons.
Educating Catholics on those realities is necessary too and fruitful, especially when it comes to understanding ‘why’ many bishops, cardinals, priests, etc are so opposed to that which is wholly Catholic.
Bishop Morlino’s coming out and stating for the record that others are not lawfully called schismatic is something that must be taught, too. And the same goes for Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s get-real assessment of others.
Education, education, education. That, consistency, and the whole truth. Very important.
The EF (TLM) is preferable for me.
Accurate and complete education is critically important, especially when so many Bishops and Priests can not or will not do their jobs.
Unfortunately, the idea of preference is taking the fore instead of that which is by its construct and clarity, better. And more fully conducive to displaying the fullness of that which is Catholic.
That is why accurate and complete education is necessary, so folks don’t opt for that which has proved vague and dangerous as preferable.
I am of the view that the TLM is hands-down superior in form. That is why I opt for full education on the matter.
Then starting educating on all the positive aspects of the EF Mass, without bad-mouthing the OF Mass.
If you can not say something positive about the OF Mass, say nothing at all.
And this is the reason why – approved by Pope Benedict.
Start with ” III SPECIFIC NORMS ” –
#13 “….guarantee the common good and to ensure that everything is proceeding in peace and serenity in their Diocese. ….. In cases of controversy or well-founded doubt about the celebration in the forma extraordinaria, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will adjudicate.”
#19 “The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria
or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.”
If we expect our Bishops to be obedient to “SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM” and the instructions then so must we.
Further those with hateful behavior, are not worthy of the EF (TLM) Mass.
MIKE, I’ll stick to the objective observation that the TLM is superior and not just a preference. You do as you’d like.
Statements such as,”Further those with hateful behavior, are not worthy of the EF (TLM) Mass,” are entirely subjective. I find it hateful that the truth is kept hidden and mislabeled as hateful. Much like the political correct gagging that goes on when speaking about the evils of much of what ails our society. (It is not a matter of being ‘worthy’ of the TLM. Teaching folks to cow and stay mum and be grateful for scraps when they should be banning together and crying for the truth is an unhealthy precedent. Even babies cry to be fed.)
And, sorry, but the Bishops are the ones who need to set the tone for obedience. They are the teachers, MIKE. We are not their teachers. That is like saying if we want mummy and daddy to be obedient to God and raise us as they should then we children must behave – otherwise it’s our fault. (That attitude only underscores the rampant loathing of that which is actually Catholic within the hierarchy of the Church. And promotes an idea of appeasing those in authority so that we can hopefully trick them or please them into giving what, by virtue of Ordination, they should.)
I don’t converse with liars. Go back and read my posts.
I never said we should stay mum about the TLM.
And there is no conversing with blind idealogues.
The Turtles- Happy Together, sing it with me 😀
Imagine me and you, I do
I think about you day and night
It’s only right
To think about the ‘CHURCH’ you love…
And hold her tight
So happy together
If I should call you up
Invest a dime
And you say you belong to me
And ease my mind
Imagine how the world could be
So very fine
So happy together
I can’t see me loving nobody but you
For all my life
When you’re with me
Baby the skies will be blue
For all my life
Me and you
And you and me
No matter how they tossed the dice
It had to be
The only one for me is you
And you for me
So happy together
The entire world is sparing with the Deposit of the Faith, Windsong, and Christ’s gospel. Including many within the Church who would prefer the doctrine of the world, a new and improved gospel. Something we are cautioned to reject.
The term ‘us’ would be realistic if the Popes had stood firm in defending the Faith instead of allowing all manner of nonsense to pass ‘inside’ the Church for fear of schism…. fear of losing donations….. fear of scandal.
That is why, at least to me, when you have a Synod pretending that the doctrine concerning marriage and the teachings regarding homosexual sexual relations are somehow up for discussion, it is disingenuous at best. At worse, at least to me, it would clearly indicate the face of ‘us’. Unless of course the new us is what we decide we want us to be and not what Christ has called us to be. It’s a rerun of Macabees.
I see certain Bishops going down that road…namely the German Bishops and few here in America. I don’t ever hear it coming from Pope Francis. I’m waiting to see what he is going to do with this mess.
….a mess is about right, Windsong. Prayers for Pope Francis that he leads in accordance with grace and not the fear that has thus far allowed for so much confusion – the smoke of Satan – to enter the Church.
I just read this today, so many are worried about Pope Francis’ stand on the divorced/remarried outside the Church and of course the Homosexual issues…but this is what he stated and it in no way goes against the Church.
“Citing statements on the same topic by his predecessor, Pope Benedict
XVI, the Holy Father said that the Church should reach out to help those
who are in irregular marital situations, aware that there are no
“simple solutions” to their problems. Although the Church cannot approve
of their marriages, they are “not excommunicated, by any means,” he
said, and the Church must help them.
“The Church knows well that such a situation contradicts the Christian
sacrament,” Pope Francis told those assembled in Paul VI Audience Hall.
The Church, he said, looks upon those in such situations with a maternal
heart and “always looks for the good and the salvation of persons.”
Citing St. John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio
(no. 84), Pope Francis said that the Church must distinguish between
those who caused the breakup of the initial marriage and those who
…and yet what does it imply to, “… distinguish between those who caused the breakup of the initial marriage?” This is the slope, slippery or not. There are always two sides to a marital story. And yet the integrity of sacramental marriage remains, even if the one suffering is innocent of wrongdoing. That’s the imitation of Christ. And it is just such open door…hmmmm… that has many Catholics concerned.
The Church already exercises sensitivity to abandoned spouses – but to indicate in any way that there may be wiggle room for the wounded party to remarry is not in accord with Church teaching.
It’s kind of like the paraphrase from Sense and Sensibility. “….love was never declared but it was every day implied. He loved you. Of that, I am certain!”
To imply something on a regular basis without being clear in declaration is to toy with people. Pope Francis, whether it is for fear of a German schism or whatever, seems daily to flirt with implying while falling short of declaring. Merely to revisit that which is defined, as with marriage, and the sinful reality of homosexual relations, is, in itself, to pretend that it is up for debate. That’s not a leadership style to inspire confidence in times of crisis – at least not for this Catholic.
Prayers for Pope Francis!
So, why did he recently personally appoint the homosexualist-activist bishop Daneels of Belgium to the synod? Actions speak loudly.
I don’t know why (or even who that Bishop is). I only know I’m in no position to judge the Vicar of Christ or his actions, choices or decisions. God has appointed him as Pope, not me… so I’ll leave that to God.
Both the OF (Ordinary Form, Novus Ordo),
and the EF (Extraordinary Form, Latin. TLM) are both the “Latin Rite”
of the Catholic Church.
….just checking for your consistency, MIKE. Glad you clarified your position.
One thing Soupitch does very well is demonstrate the difference between a “liberal” and a “neoCatholic.” The second thing, the Chaputs, the Georges, even the Dolans… are at least not actively working for the Monsters, seeking whom they may devour and delivering them up with twisted glee.
We are obviously offending God very much as a people to be deserving of such ‘leadership’.
Yes. It makes me weep to realize the beauty of all that has been lost, and the many souls that are hell-bound.
God will bring the good out of it, much like He brought the Hebrews out of Egypt. Allowing all the plagues, in my view, is just His way of assuring that even His people understand the omnipotence of the Almighty and our utter dependence upon Him. Even Moses, when he lost patience and hit the rock more than the prescribed amount of times, was punished for it.
But I pray for the day that we have a truly humble leader who looks fully to God for strength, advice, and ultimate wisdom. In the meantime, we’ve got myriad Aarons running around, building to-order golden calves so the folks can have their way.
And people wonder why abortion is still legal. What Cupich wrote is nothing less than evil. He will have to explain why he was willing to sacrifice the babies hidden in their mother’s wombs in preference for materialistic equivalence and promotion of the socialist’s agenda.
We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.
To deny that God Is The Author of Love, Life, and Marriage makes one an apostate.
Such a politician.
I will give Cardinal Dolan credit when he publicly names and shames Gov. Cuomo and Mayor DeBlasio like he did Trump (who is not even Carholic). Both are rabid supporters of abortion and sodomitic marriage. Until then he looks like a cowardly political opportunist to me.
But oh, that may be hard since DeBlasio was recently invited to a conference at the Vatican.
And now Cupich has been hand picked for the synod by Pope Francis in a transparent effort to “water down” the heretofore orthodox American delegation.
I made a comment alluding to this same sentiment on the Zenit article, it was deleted.
The problem with “moral equivalency” is that Judas Iscariot could then well argue that “All apostles are equal”
Perhaps that is true, in the sense that equal objectivity will be the source of God’s decisions when assigning us to line up with either sheep or goats.
I recall a similar outrageous moral; equation made by some in the Church leadership back when Obama was first elected, telling Catholics that abortion and other social justice issue ought to be considered when voting…ignoring the man’s history as a senator of demanding (abortion survival) babies be left to die by dehydration and starvation if the “mother” so “intended.” (A convenient Harvard law buzzword for the Supreme Court to utilize in their war on life.)
[…] oceans and excoriates those in the U.S. who want to build a wall to secure our borders. This is why Blaise Cupich equates abortion with joblessness and supports giving Communion to the divorced, remarried, and […]
[…] oceans and excoriates those in the U.S. who want to build a wall to secure our borders. This is why Blaise Cupich equates abortion with joblessness and supports giving Communion to the divorced, remarried, and […]
[…] and excoriates those in the U.S. who want to build a wall to secure our borders. This is why Blaise Cupich equates abortion with joblessness and supports giving Communion to the divorced, remarried, and […]
[…] and excoriates those in the U.S. who want to build a wall to secure our borders. This is why Blaise Cupich equates abortion with joblessness and supports giving Communion to the divorced, […]