Since the publication of the Correctio Filialis, the public Filial Correction of Pope Francis, some things seem to be accelerating in the Catholic Church. As I dared to say on the night of the first breaking of the news – on the eve of the 24th of September – there was before our eyes a perceptible and great moment of Grace. Fully unexpected, this document, which then had been signed by 62 signatories (the number of signatures has now reached 233), was at once reported on a worldwide scale, at least within hours of time, for the whole world to read and to savor.
It is as if some of the asphyxiating rubble – under which we for too long now have had to live – is cracking, and ventilating, and breaking loose.
And this perceived loosening does not constrict itself only to the papacy of Pope Francis. On 5 October 2017, Professor Josef Seifert – who had published his second 2017 critique of Amoris Laetitia after having been punished for his first 2016 critique, demonstrating thereby his willingness to suffer for the truth – published an excellent article at First Things. In this article, Professor Seifert deals primarily with the fundamental problems of Amoris Laetitia with regard to Catholic moral teaching as well as the growing persecution of orthodoxy in the Church. He also makes, in passing, a noteworthy comment:
Moreover, the pope [Pope Francis] himself told the SSPX [Society of St. Pius X] that they did not—and Pope Francis acted quite rightly in this—have to subscribe to all non-dogmatic documents of the Second Vatican Council in order to be fully reintegrated in the Church. [emphasis added]
While Professor Seifert makes a reference to the SSPX in order to point out that he himself is also thus permitted to make criticisms about a non-infallible document (i.e., Amoris Laetitia), his remark has an even greater meaning. With one stroke of a pen, he defends the SSPX from the denunciations and suspicions which have lain upon them for decades. And with it, he has also pointed to the freedom that should exist in Catholic discourse about many important matters of doctrine and morals with regard to the Second Vatican Council and its aftermath.
Josef Seifert is not the first in the recent past to have made this claim about being able to criticize certain documents of the Second Vatican Council. We remind our readers here of the important statements of Archbishop Guido Pozzo – Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei – and of Bishop Athanasius Schneider, as well as of Professor Roberto de Mattei, all three of whom have articulated the same principled guidance.
For example, Archbishop Pozzo said, in August of 2016, the following with regard to these Vatican documents: Nostra Aetate about interreligious dialogue; the decree Unitatis Redintegratio on ecumenism; and the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty:
They are not about doctrines or definitive statements, but, rather, about instructions and orienting guides for pastoral practice. One can continue to discuss these pastoral aspects after the canonical approval [of the SSPX], in order to lead us to further clarifications. [emphasis added]
And in December of that same year, Bishop Schneider made similar comments about the SSPX and their reasoned objections against some of the documents of the Second Vatican Council:
If the Society [of St. Pius X] has difficulties in accepting certain documents of Vatican II, one has to place that into the context of the pastoral objective of the Council. The Dogma has not changed. We have the same Faith. Thus, there is no problem to integrate canonically the Society of St. Pius X. [emphasis added]
Bishop Schneider also said that an agreement with the SSPX “would only be an act of rendering justice – quite belatedly – to the unjust suppression of the Society in 1975 on the part of the Holy See.” What Bishop Schneider shows here is that the SSPX has not objected to elements of the Church’s teaching that are infallible and binding upon the faithful, but only those that are parts of pastoral considerations that very well may be publicly criticized. The parallel to our current resistance against certain statements of Amoris Laetitia is based upon the same logical foundation. We, too, are not objecting to any infallible doctrines of the Church.
In February of 2017, Bishop Schneider further explained his position with regard to the Second Vatican Council. As we then reported, Bishop Schneider said the following:
When asked about the Second Vatican Council, Schneider showed that “the Council was primarily – as repeatedly stated even by Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI – a pastoral council; not a doctrinal or dogmatic council;” and he added “so it was the intention of the Church not to give with its documents a definitive teaching.” Schneider continues: “And so when there is no definitive teaching, there can be some development of these issues still, or even some corrections. And this is normal.” [my emphasis]
With his repeated comments, Bishop Schneider also invites a freer discourse about matters of moment for the Church which will have lasting effects on the very life of the Church. He continues, saying: “And so we should create an atmosphere of discussions even on the issues of Vatican II. It is not against the authority of the Magisterium [to do so].” [emphasis added] In Schneider’s eyes, we have had, in the last 50 or 60 years, “a very unhealthy, extreme attitude to accept or to interpret and look at Vatican II and its documents almost as infallible, ex cathedra. And this is not true.” [my emphasis]
Last but not least, Professor Roberto de Mattei wrote in August of 2017 the following trenchant words about the Second Vatican Council, also in light of the message of Our Lady of Fatima:
On the historical level, however, Vatican II constitutes a non-decomposable block: It has its own unity, its essence, its nature. Considered in its origins, its implementation and consequences, it can be described as a Revolution in mentality and language, which has profoundly changed the life of the Church, initiating a moral and religious crisis without precedent. If the theological judgment may be vague and comprehensive, the judgment of history is merciless and without appeal. The Second Vatican Council was not only unsuccessful or a failure: it was a catastrophe for the Church. [emphasis added]
So now that we have four eminent and loyal Catholics – two clergymen and two lay professors – speaking thus to us, let us open up a full and free debate about what in the recent teaching of the Catholic Church has brought good fruit and what has rendered the Catholic Faith hampered and more lifeless. Here we can even refer to Pope Benedict XVI, who, after his very controversial retirement, himself pointed to the consequences of some of the new teachings when he said, in March of 2016:
The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced that the unbaptized person is lost forever. After the [Second Vatican] Council, this conviction was definitely abandoned. The result was a two-sided, deep crisis. Without this attentiveness to the salvation, the Faith loses its foundation. [emphasis added]
Pope Benedict – who had eight years’ time in his papal office to correct all these deviations with authoritative force, but who also seems, at the same time, to have been himself a major figure during the conduct of that that consequential Vatican Council – adds that this “evolution of Dogma” (an impermissible thing in itself) has now manifestly led to a “loss of the missionary zeal” in the Catholic Church. And he then asked the piercing question: “Why should you try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it?” [emphasis added] But the pope does not stop after posing that question, and he even goes one step further, saying that when there are those people who are able to save their souls without the Christian belief, “why should the Christian be bound to the necessity of the Christian Faith and its morality?” [emphasis added]
Here Pope Benedict, unfortunately, does not continue his candid path of speaking the truth, but he, rather, keeps this challenging discussion somewhat abstractly open to further reflection and dialogue, instead of forcefully calling and requiring the Church to return to her infallible doctrines, among them being that there is no salvation outside the Church. At the same time, he points to the moral consequences of an “ecumenism” of “openness” and “plurality” which have had adverse effects, not only with regard to the missionary zeal of the Church, but also with regard to the specific conduct of the Catholic faithful themselves. When a Protestant can save his soul even while his own denomination teaches him that one may break one’s marriage, why, then, should a Catholic hold himself to a higher standard? Thus, the doctrinal, historical, and cultural relativism with regard to ecumenism and ecclesiology has also had an effect upon the moral teaching of the Church.
As I wrote recently:
Here, I would like to add one last question. How is it that, in 2000, the Vatican would declare that the Protestant and Orthodox churches are still, somehow, members of the Catholic Church, while these same churches do not abide by Our Lord’s specific teaching on marriage? Neither its indissolubility nor its sacramentality, for instance?
Brother Andre Marie, M.I.C.M., recently made a similar point, putting it in much better words, in view of his own theological learning:
The attack on marriage and the family is a mystical unfolding of the attack on the exclusive relationship of fidelity between Jesus Christ and His Spouse, the Catholic Church.
Terrestrial marriage — even as a Christian Sacrament — is an image of this greater relationship between the Divine Bridegroom and his mystical Bride, as Saint Paul shows us (Eph. 5:22-33; cf. Also, Cant. 6:8 and the way this passage is employed by Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam).
When the faithful are lied to and assured that Jesus Christ can have “multiple wives” in all the heretical Christian sects (some of whose anniversary is wickedly being celebrated by Catholics now), and that even the unbaptized are “God’s children,” then it is logical and reasonable that Christian marriage cannot be long protected. [emphasis added]
Brother Andre Marie points out here that the doctrinal crisis precedes the current moral crisis (the latter of which, as Josef Seifert highlights in his First Things article, also goes back now for some decades).
It is my experience in many conversations with well-meaning, courteous and generous high-ranking Catholics with influence over Catholic discourse – clergymen and laymen alike – that when one starts asking such questions to them as were put here above, they often softly agree or at least do not really know how to respond amply and honestly. It is a sign for me that they, too, have been caught in this sort of skewed or attenuated teaching that is not fully based on Catholic truth and reality. As with every ideology, however, it will not abide and persevere for long – as our friends and acquaintances from former communist countries can confirm – because an ideology is contradicted by reality and because Grace is not attached to it. (I for myself have experienced in my own lifetime the point where ideologies fell off my soul, as it were, as soon as I came in touch with grace-filled truth. That has occurred in many areas!)
I am thus encouraged also by OnePeterFive’s 5 October 2017 article written by Whispers of Restoration about the parallels between Lumen Gentium and Amoris Laetitia. So many Catholics, from so many directions, are starting to ask clear questions, to express criticism and thus to contribute to an honest, loyal and well-reasoned discourse within the Faith. We may not fear that such discourse would undermine the Catholic Church’s authority. On the contrary, only if we return to the fullness of her teaching – as taught infallibly by many popes over the centuries (also in the form of the ordinary universal magisterium, as Father John Hardon, S.J., used to highlight*) – will we gratefully gain the fitting fruits and the fullness of the Faith and help increase the radiant life of the Faith.
This form of free and disciplined discourse should not shun someone’s speaking out about the recent popes and about some of their own confusing or erroneous statements. While I well understand that some conservative Catholics have considered it wrong in any way to criticize their popes publicly at a time of cultural upheaval, I do think that the same principle is to be applied to them as it is to be applied to Pope Francis: the truth, as well as our loyalty toward Christ’s teaching, comes first. The basis for unity is truth. It is, for example, in this context, to be discussed why certain progressivists who are now taking the lead under Pope Francis were ever made cardinals in the first place. Why did Walter Kasper and Karl Lehmann, for example, receive the “red hat” from Pope John Paul II in spite of their known and public heterodoxies?
There are so many aspects that could still be discussed. There are, indeed, so many elements to be re-discovered. I remember one priest – from a diocesan parish – who had finally turned to the traditional Latin Mass. He once gave my family and me a blessing, saying that ever since he discovered how highly the stigmatist Therese Neumann of Konnersreuth valued the blessing of a priest, he is much more inclined generously to give out those blessings. The Catholic Church has so many ways to extend blessings and Grace to mankind. May she soon more fully find her way back to her own old and enduring convictions that stem from Christ Himself (“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by Me.”) and may she soon give us back all the devotions, liturgies, blessings, prayers, words and silences that the world so direly needs.
Let us thus come out from under the stifling rubble and, on the way, also clear our minds of cant, often asphyxiating cant!
* I would now like to quote here, ten years before he died in late 2000, Father John A. Hardon’s own 1990 criticism of the final draft of the proposed Catechism of the Catholic Church, which he once also shared with my husband, Dr. Robert Hickson. In that commentary the Jesuit priest and teacher of dogmatic and moral theology said the following:
As already noted, the authors of the “Revised Draft” [of the Catechism of the Catholic Church] do indeed speak of “the infallibility of the apostolic magisterium.” But this minuscule statement not only fails to explain the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium. It ignores such infallibility with devastating consequences to a large part of the Church’s irreversible teaching, especially in the vast area of personal and social morality.
Most of the dissenters from the Church’s teachings in the twentieth century have rejected the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium. Every single moral law governing the fifth, sixth and ninth commandments has been called into question. Contraception and abortion, fornication and adultery, masturbation and homosexuality are being defended by nominally Catholic writers and educators. Why? Because it is claimed that the Church has never spoken infallibly on these matters.
The “Revised Draft” of the proposed Universal Catechism supports this view by its silence on the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium. [Even] The Second Vatican Council’s teaching on this crucial matter [in Lumen Gentium 25] is by-passed as though it did not exist.
(25-26) [Moreover,] The Church has the divine right to defend the unchangeable natural [moral] law, as Pope Paul VI declared in Humanae Vitae. It is irrelevant that so much of this doctrine has never been taught by the Church’s extraordinary magisterium. It has been taught infallibly by the Church’s ordinary universal magisterium. Yet the “Revised Draft” has chosen to ignore this indispensable truth of the Catholic faith. One plausible reason for this omission is to avoid taking a definite stand on such allegedly controversial matters as contraception and extramarital sexual relations. [emphasis added]
Thought provoking. Consoling. Brilliant.
Thank you.
Thank you Mrs. Hickson for this beautifully written piece. It truly brought tears of joy for me.
The time is coming for old wounds to be put aside,as we live and suffer for the Truth to be seen from near and afar…….for the moment has come; that defining moment for each of us………to put Christ’s Church First. ” The ordinary universal Magisterium is what we all must unite and defend.” The Ordinary Magisterium – Thank you Father Hardon.
IT is not about me, or you, or us or them……It is about Christ, His Beloved Bride: The Truth.
And so, if our brothers and sisters attend a Novus Ordo Mass filled with reverence, that abides in Christ’s Church, let us offer a word of support to them. If our brothers and sisters attend SSPX and find it best sustains the faith in the Universal Magisterium, then let us offer a word of support to them. And let us pray for those priests who are alone in their parishes, who strive to be faithful, and for those laity, alone in their parishes, without the faithful priest.
I do not know what lies ahead, but I do know that God promises that those who are faithful to Him; He shall be faithful in return.
This is the Church’s defining moment, yet another one in her history, perhaps in some ways her greatest and ours as well.
May God be with us.
Their can only be one Mass.
Yes. I preached today on the errors of Vatican II and asked the faithful if they could consider themselves good parents if they only proposed the ‘good’ without anathematizing the evil of man. What kind of parent refuses to rebuke their child in the face of evil? What kind of parent only loosens without binding? What kind of parent speaks ambiguously to their child regarding salvation? An evil, or sorely misguided one!
Fr. Hardon is a blessing for the Faithful and they should read his numerous and invaluable writings. I have posted your husbands correspondences with Fr. Hardon, and they are true food for the faithful.
Unfortunately, the listlessness of the Church, which Pope Benedict referenced on occasion, is no longer for her sails are filled with an evil wind which bloweth her to wreckage on a far more wicked shore.
The Modernists within the Church see Vatican II as the only Council of the Church, and even then, they only regard certain elements of that council as good, the majority of it is ignored or denied. And, to the detriment of salvation for many souls, the average Bishops is a benighted simpleton who only listens to the voice of modernity, not to mention the hordes of heterodox priests under his tutelage.
May the Blessed Lord deliver us from these vile men and their unknowing idiot accomplices.
Thank God for you Father… truly, I thank God for priests like you, so few in number, who speak the truth without equivocation. Too often we hear the nuanced exceptions, the theological “perhaps” on matters such as extra ecclesiam nulla salus, sins against the 6th commandment particularly sodomy, fornication, and masturbation… Thank you for not bending to the will of the powers that be. May God encourage, console, and strengthen you and all good priests. Thank you!
“Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God.” -St. Paul
I join you, Jafin, in thanking Fr. RP for his unflinching defense of the Catholic Faith. I pray his words reach the eyes of at least some of those heterodox priests and bishops he admonished and they come to their senses.
O Mary, Queen of Heaven, pray for us; pray for the Catholic Church.
“….average Bishops….”
IMHO, Father, that’s tautological.
As has been revealed to secular and religious media, the Lord Himself has made statements regarding the council among other things.
Though what are we to make of Cardinal Burke’s recent condemnation of the SSPX’s being in material schism with the Church? Does the SSPX’s involvement with the Correctio now taint the entire effort? Why was this announcement of “material schism” timed to coincide with the announcement of Cardinal Burke’s return to the Signatura?
Also, given Fr. Hardon’s involvement in the Jesuit McGuire scandal (the extent of which still has not not been fully disclosed) I find the inclusion of his comments in this article to be quite unfortunate, even if they are theologically accurate. With an issue of such grave importance to the Church, scandal must be assiduously avoided—both in fact and appearance.
What began as an issue of great moral clarity is now becoming muddier and muddier by the day. I’m sure that’s the plan. I can personally relate to the headline image in the article—chaos.
I know a man who took information about McGuire directly from a victim to Fr. Hardon in the 1980’s. He said Hardon refused to do anything. A Catholic who can do nothing else can at least refrain from recommending or citing Hardon in the future.
I also know of a priest that knew both Fr. Hardon and Fr. McGuire quite well that claims there was proof that the Church ‘coerced’ ‘victims’ to testify against McGuire. If that really happened, (and the key word here is IF) the only vehicle I can imagine would be with MONEY. Supposedly Fr. McGuire was trying to change things they didn’t want changed and was becoming a little too successful at it. Not saying I believe this is absolutely true, but I do think it is food for thought that we really can’t judge situations on the surface. Both Fr. McGuire and Fr. Hardon are dead now, so, justifiably the only thing left to do is to pray for their eternal salvation. As it is said, and rightfully so, I think we will be a little surprised just who will be in Heaven and who won’t. Another ‘lesson’ from this (for me anyway) is that things aren’t always what they appear to be on the outside. Maybe they are and maybe they are not, but we sometimes don’t know the inside track, therefore cannot judge. I also know that the only reason I find this ‘story’ plausible is because I know the capability of Church leaders to ‘eat their own’. Again, not that this actually happened, we don’t know. But Church leaders have certainly done it in the past, and it stands to reason why a good number of our priests now are in great fear to ‘rock the boat.’ Church leaders can and have ruined the lives of their own priests and people would be naive to think they are not still doing that either covertly or openly.
SSPX were never in schism. They retained the Faith. Cardinal Burke is still trying to force feed us the old “interpret VII in light of Tradition” b.s. Until someone fully admits that VII must be tossed into the dumpster, their opinion can’t be taken seriously.
The heretics of 1992, led by the sainted John Paul II, were the ones in schism. Archbishop Lefebvre never left the faith and defended Catholic dogma and doctrines to his last breath.
Cardinal Burke’s thinking is a little muddled on this issue.
Cardinal Burke on this one is wrong… plain and simple. Besides the “recent” remarks are actually from July. I find it odd that it was brought up now though, with the Correctio signed by at least one bishop and priest of the SSPX, with is appointment to the signatura, and rumors of the fraternal correction coming sometime very soon… seems almost deliberate.
As regards Father Hardon… he was a great theologian, one of the last good Jesuits. As for the McGuire scandal… well, from what I can tell he made some mistakes, but that doesn’t taint the entirety of his work.
Thank you for defending +Fr. Hardon. I never heard of anything bad about +Fr. Hardon until reading the comments on this thread. We’ll find out everything about everybody on Judgement Day.
You can look up the details, but in short, it seems Fr. Hardon made a mistake back in the 90’s as regards a fellow Jesuit and child abuser. He misjudged the suitability of Fr. McGuire for ministry. It sounds like a very difficult situation, but it does seem Father Hardon made a mistake… a big one, but a mistake nonetheless. As I said, though, it by no means undermines any of the rest of the wonderful work by Fr. Hardon.
McGuire’s abuses are just another example of the prophetic accuracy of St. Peter Damain’s words in his treatise “The Book of Gomorrah”, which exposed clerical sexual abuses in the 11th Century:
“For it is this (sodomy) which violates sobriety, kills modesty, slays chastity. It butchers virginity with the sword of a most filthy contagion. It befouls everything, it stains everything, it pollutes everything, and for itself it permits nothing pure, nothing foreign to filth, nothing clean.”
Indeed, the very soul of human civilization seems to have been sodomized in recent decades, and the intensity and frequency of this molestation’s fetishistic escalation is as breathtaking as it is appalling.
Holy Family, pray for us and deliver us from all harm!
Since the Dubianists – as the signatories of the dubia and their supporters might be called – are thinking as ABL did, except that they are going further, the situation is incoherent. Why are the 3 surviving original Dubianists not suspended a divinis by the Pope as he was ? If his treatment was just, it would be equally just to punish them in that way ? It is a gross miscarriage of justice to fail to punish troublers of the peace and unity of the Church – so if he was in the wrong, why was he punished ? If they are not punished for their disobedience, rebellion, and giving of immense scandal – why was he ?
The Church today is in a spastic condition, and it seems to be the chief occupation of recent Popes to aggravate this as much as possible. How apt that Popes since JP2 should harm the Church so well, when they speak so highly of the 16th-century German heresiarch, schismatic and forerunner of Antichrist they so much admire, who tried so hard to destroy the Church.
I think spastic is an appropriate adjective.
Complaints about how the so-called internal forum should have been registered back in the 1990s when the practice became commonplace in the U.S. Problems within civil marriage should have been exposed when no-fault divorce became all the rage, not only after gay civil marriage was being implemented by a growing number of states. There are probably hundreds of examples of this type of thinking and inaction.
Yet, the Church (and moreover, a proportionately tiny number of voices within the Church) only speaks out after the situation becomes utterly bankrupt—and even THEN in a very select and oblique manner.
Another plausible reason is the guilt associated with the child abuse scandal and the courage to pronounce anything as a moral authority.
I don’t believe that’s so, Stephen Bender. In the guilt associated with the sexual abuse scandals we find that true moral teaching was absent and moral practice, especially in regards to sexuality, even more so. What would have been free-ing and what still is freeing now, is the Truth- in all its forms! Teach chastity and that it’s everyone’s role to defend it. That’s liberating! Any priest who comes out and does that, has nothing to be ashamed of. Courage is from the Lord and comes with a clear and well-formed conscience.
Best statement in essay: “The Second Vatican Council was not only unsuccessful or a failure: it was a catastrophe for the Church.”. Vatican II was little else than the heresy of Modernism dressed up to be presentable. It should be cast out of the Church in it’s entirety with a Council of Trent II. As things now stand the Catholic Church has become largely Protestant and corrupted by Pastoral Practice. Let us pray for divine intervention and for the entire Church.
In a book I have recently finished, I make the following statement:
“If the revolt of Martin Luther from the Catholic Church was the most grievous would inflicted on the Body of Christ since the crucifixion, and I say it was, then Vatican II is a good bet for second place.”
I like your statement better. Great comparison. The corollary statement would be: if Martin Luther was the worst heretic in the history of the Church, Pope Francis is running a close second.
I have Bergoglio ahead by a lap and a half. At least Luther left the Church and attacked her from the outside so there’s a kind of twisted integrity there. The Pope’s insidious heresies are diabolical and traitorous. The only way he follows Christ is to stab Him in the back.
Not Francis. At his worst, he is merely continuing the work of P6 and JP2. They are the real wreckers, with B16 as an imitator of JP2. PF is in part a victim of the damage caused by Paul VI and JP2.
“The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced that the unbaptized person is lost forever.” In fact, didn’t this opinion endure until Vatican II? However, what I would like to know is whether this was always a teaching of the whole Church, or whether it was a time-limited passing opinion. I think that is the point of the Correctio Filialis, isn’t it? That if something has been believed by the whole Church in every epoch and from the very start, then it is true, and even a Pope cannot change it or declare it no longer true. But I am not certain at all that this opinion, that the souls of all those not baptised are lost forever, is true. did, for example, St Augustine pronounce on this? I’d really like to know…
I can only answer one part of your question. Jesus said to Nicodemus “unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot SEE GOD”. That’s one translation. Baptism was the entry point to the Beatific Vision – hence the hope but yet uncertainty of the fate of unbaptised infants, and the Church explained unbaptised infants go to some place of natural happiness which they used to call “Limbo”.
From where most of the world’s one billion, plus, Catholic folk stand, any definitive fracturing and crumbling of these past fifty years (the final curtain will be both lifted and pulled down) will create confusion and, most likely, panic. How will one billion+ Catholics be shepard across the landscape, and past the ravishing wolves who will lose their ideology and their livelihood in the demolition of the fifty-year edifice.
Don’t get me wrong, much looking forward to the ball-wrecking. Still, I’m a practical man, maybe, too commonsenical for my own spiritual good.
Brass tacks and all that, how will it all play out in my parish. Point of fact, assuming the ball-wrecker also takes out a certain bridge, how will Fr. James Martin (S.J., of course) be otherwise employed.
The wrecking boy’s must crew up. The Queering of the Church, under this papacy, has steamrolled at an alarming rate. More so than most are willing to admit, or just plain see. At my conservative parish a twelve-year old boy announces, publicly,
” how will Fr. James Martin (S.J., of course) be otherwise employed.”
He could become an interior decorator. Or maybe a hair stylist?
He’s a priest. The pre-V2 Church was very big on respecting priests. It is one of the many ironies of the present situation that priests are as likely to be despised or mocked by Catholics as respected. The Church can take the “credit” for that, by allowing these “other Christs” to get away almost scot-free for over 60 years, before it deigned to admit that clerical and religious paedophilia was a serious and exceedingly damaging problem.
Yes the Church has been climbing out of the rubble for some time. I have often thought about all those who grew up pre-VII, who suffered
through the changes in the Church to remain faithful to Christ’s one true Church, but who never lived to see Summorum Pontificum, but prayed for it- God bless them!
For myself I have to say that although Saint Pope John Paul II as we know was not perfect, as no human being ever is or will be, outside of Our Lady, he was a light in the tunnel of darkness (Pope Benedict XVI still is today!) that was threatening the Church at that time, as it is today. So many who may have not lived through these times or were not old enough to be aware, tend to be more critical of him, that he didn’t go far enough or he could or should have done this or that, but the pew sitters like me saw unbelievable pushback to the progressives in the Church who thought they had already won. I do not think the Church can ever go back to Pre-Vatican II, just as it will never be 1950 in America again, those times had their problems as well and all was not rosy and perfect. Some may find it distasteful to think about, but there are many beautiful documents that came out of that Council, besides the well planted seeds of dissent, and as the Church moves forward in reclaiming Her liturgy, the documents of VII will be developed and clarified in line with Tradition as I have heard Bishop Athanasius talk about. Declaring the entire Vatican II Council anathema I think is unrealistic and would be an injustice to the many faithful Bishops who helped to write the documents.
Vatican II belongs in the dumpster, where it will eventually be. It was designed by liberals and Freemasons, with many ambiguities to create confusion and protestantize the Church. Ratzinger and JPII were a big part of the
problem. They helped bring us to this point with their disastrous Pontificates…look at the crap Cardinals they both promoted, and the mostly useless bishops they selected. Both men have lots if rotten fruit hanging from their tree.
And two of those liberals were…..Fathers Ratzinger and Wojtyła, two future Popes, who, when Popes, were still liberals.
I Lateran Council – If anyone does not profess properly and truthfully all that has been handed down and taught publicly to the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God, to the last detail in word and intention: let him be anathema. (HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS, Bishop Karl Joseph von Hefele, Edinburgh: Clark Company, 1872-1876)
“Better that only a few Catholics should be left, staunch and sincere in their religion, than that they should, remaining many, desire as it were, to be in collusion with the Church’s enemies and in conformity with the open foes of our faith.”
Peter Canisius
Very true!
Fr. Hardon’s criticism of the 1992 revision of the Catechism is news to me, but it is consistent with what I, as a layman, have myself perceived: the Catechism’s section on homosexualism (CCC 2357-2359) uses language that seems alien to the Church; instead of speaking of the evil of this terrible sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance, the 1992 section quickly dispenses with the religious context of the moral evil of sodomy with a nod to Scriptural condemnation of such “grave depravity”, and shifts the language to that of modern psychology, describing homosexualism as “intrinsically disordered”. The section goes on to say of homosexual acts simply that “under no circumstances can they be approved”, instead of being something that can lead the soul toward hell. The writer/s of the section then presume to somehow know that the “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” experienced by some people is an inclination that “constitutes for most of them a trial”. How is this conclusion drawn? Is this a statement that the Holy Spirit has inspired? Or is it a political statement that seeks to redefine certain persons as a separate caste or sub-species of the human race
You are right about the Catechism regarding the sections dealing with sodo-mites. Too much psychology babble.
“Contraception and abortion, fornication and adultery, masturbation and
homosexuality are being defended by nominally Catholic writers and
educators. Why? Because it is claimed that the Church has never spoken infallibly on these matters…”
This all started with the widespread acceptance of contraception, all of it, every bit of it… it is that, that must end.
Actually it started with the acceptance of breaking the commandment of thou shalt not steal by entitlement and wellfare programs.
“Who is going to save our Church? Not our Bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops like bishops and your religious act like religious” – Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
“It is hard for many in the free world to believe that there are not only bad men, but evil men. Bad men steal, rape, ravage and plunder. Evil men may not always do these things, but they seek to destroy goodness, virtue, morality, decency, truth and honor. Bad men who steal admit honesty; evil men who do not steal, call dishonesty “honesty,” totalitarianism “democracy,” slavery “freedom.” Evil men can be nice at table, polite with women, courteous in Washington, refined in London and calm in Geneva.” – Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
“Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil… a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. Tolerance applies only to persons… never to truth.” – Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
“Only a live fish can swim against the current, the dead go with it.” G.K. Chesterton
“Whoever does not hate error, does not love the truth”. – G.K. Chesterton
“I want a Church that moves the world not one that moves with it.” – G.K. Chesterton
This is a perfect example of the clergy – especially the highest ranks of the clergy – dumping all over all things Catholic, and expecting us laity to clean up the mess they have left. The arrogance of this fairly takes one’s breath away. He cannot possibly have been unaware that the laity can do next to nothing if the bishop wrongs them, and absolutely nothing when a Pope does. Such mockery from a bishop is beyond infuriating. Nor is it possible for him to him to have been unaware that for a layman to sue a bishop was formerly, before 1983, an offence incurring excommunication. So that first quotation is cruel and meaningless mockery. Supposed Saints do not do that. He said some good things. This is not one of them.
His words would make sense if the Church were structured in a way that allowed the hierarchy to be accountable to the laity, but it isnt. So they dont. The Church is an absolute monarchy, not a constitutional monarchy. It was not always so.
Boy are you people gonna be surprised at all the people in heaven you’ve condemned.