Last Friday, the headlines from Rome screamed, “Archbishop Cupich lays out pathway for gay couples to receive Communion at Vatican press scrum,” a story so ribald it reads like something out of the heretical works of the Marquis de Sade. Archbishop Cupich of Chicago laid the whopper on the tableau of reporters that he can see a day when “… people come to a decision [on divorce] in good conscience then our job is to help them move forward and to respect that. The conscience is inviolable and we have to respect that when they make decisions, and I’ve always done that.”
Really, Archbishop Cupich? Is this the inerrant word of the Paraclete or a Vatican version of Bill Clinton’s “that depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is?”According to Webster, inviolable means:
inviolable: adjective in·vi·o·la·ble \(ˌ)in-ˈvī-ə-lə-bəl\
1: secure from violation or profanation <an inviolable law>
Fr Vincent Serpa recently defined “profane” in the context of Church teaching. “Profane” as an adjective is defined:
[S]howing irreverence toward God or sacred things.’ Certainly, there are degrees of the profane just as there are degrees of the sacred. [emphasis mine]
Either Bishop Cupich doesn’t know how to use proper English terminology and we are therefore left only to guess at his non-meaning meaning, or he meant to say that the conscience is incapable of profanity. If the conscience is incapable of profanity or profane thinking, then I wonder what exactly is to blame for actual profane actions? A “bad” god, a la the Manichæan heresy? We might let the Archbishop slip if this was a one-off comment made after a gleeful rally of the Adulterers for Communion Club, but Cupich repeated the statement and applied it to unrepentant adulterers and homosexuals seeking sacraments.
But “profane” has a definition. It has meaning. We should therefore apply these understandings to what is being said and see if the “conscience” is capable of committing or allowing to be committed, profane acts, thus making it the opposite of “inviolable”. We consult thus, St Thomas:
“For conscience is said to witness, to bind, or incite, and also to accuse, torment, or rebuke. And all these follow the application of knowledge or science to what we do: which application is made in three ways. One way in so far as we recognize that we have done or not done something; “Thy conscience knoweth that thou hast often spoken evil of others” (Ecclesiastes), and according to this, conscience is said to witness. In another way, so far as through the conscience we judge that something should be done or not done; and in this sense, conscience is said to incite or to bind. In the third way, so far as by conscience we judge that something done is well done or ill done, and in this sense conscience is said to excuse, accuse, or torment. Now, it is clear that all these things follow the actual application of knowledge to what we do.” [emphasis mine]
St Thomas cannot be misunderstood because his logic is based on the reality of human affairs, not the fantasized version of affairs the Francis modernists dream of, pace Freud. Cupich’s “reasoning” is yet another sad testament to the heresy of Nominalism that has infected the thinking of far too many Catholic clergy. This “puffed up” thinking, as Augustine says, comes from the vice most sin derives from: Pride. Cupich et al concoct “teachings” and “pastoral guidance” on their own, rather than subject themselves to the humiliation of admitting that beyond magisterial guidance and the advice to pursue grace through penance, mortification, and prayer, they are helpless to assist the adulterers and sodomites.
This is precisely what the “Catholic” pro-abortion crowd did after Roe, which culminated in a disastrous series of newspaper advertisements in the New York Times – placed by “Catholics For A Free Choice.” There were 84 “Catholic” signatories, and though they did not sign the ad, prominent Democrat “Catholics” — including New York’s governor Mario Cuomo, Congressmen Tom Daschle, Leon Panetta and Geraldine Ferraro — all signed a brief in 1982 that gave the group an official sounding imprimatur of sorts.
Following the publication of the ads were demands from the Holy See that public retractions be made upon penalty of excommunication. This became a decade-long battle that Pope John Paul II lost and “pro-choice Catholics” won. That I am aware of, there has not been a pro-abort politician claiming Catholicism as their “faith” who has faced excommunication since; and the laity, aided and abetted by a magisterially-anemic clergy have tragically followed suit.
Today, many believe it is perfectly acceptable to be “Catholic” and also “pro-choice.”
This is the Cupich/Kasper/Francis gambit: bring the issue to the Holy See’s level, accept doctrinal defeat and then wage an all-too-easy PR war on behalf of “Catholics For a Free Marriage,” – a name I admit to coining, but will not be shocked to see actually used. If you think this is just the column inch of a desperate Catholic media hack, consider this from über feminist “theologian” and pseudo-Catholic, Rosemary Ruether, written at the time of her aforementioned NY Times ad. (Ruether was ring-leader of Catholics For a Free Choice.) Note the laughable fear that Vatican II could be “put back in the toothpaste tube”:
“The Second Vatican Council, simply by being a church council, represented a reassertion of this more pluralistic approach to teaching authority, over against the papal absolutism of Vatican I. Thus, if the Vatican conservatives intend to rescind Vatican II at the November synod, they will be endeavoring to bury the conciliar tradition itself once again, as an alternative source of teaching authority which can check and balance papal power. It is almost certain, however, that the ‘toothpaste cannot be put back into the tube,’ as one nun expressed the question of getting American nuns back into habits. The same slogan can apply to the efforts to get Catholics in America, and throughout the world, back into the habit of unquestioning obedience to authority, once they have gotten used to thinking that they too are the church.”
Ruether’s conclusion is the precise Nominalist gibberish we should expect to appear in newspapers and TV ads starring Susan Sarandon, Ellen DeGeneres (raised Catholic in New Orleans), and Justin Bieber the moment the Synod concludes. From this, the de facto policy of American Catholics will be asserted as “accommodating” homosexuals and serial adulterers (which an unrepentant adulterer will surely become). It will be the vocation of the Church Militant and her orthodox faithful to piously stand athwart this apostasy, yelling “STOP!”
Here’s more from Ruether:
“Catholics are thrown willy-nilly into deciding for themselves which parts of the Christian tradition are meaningful and which are not, with little guidance from bishops, priests or theologians. Thus Vatican absolutism promotes the very chaos which it most fears. There is no way back to the absolutism of the past. There is only a painful way forward to a church in which people try to listen to and respect differing opinions and to work, through a combination of experience and tradition, to develop teachings that have authority because they are credible to most Christians.” [emphasis mine]
If you are not mortified of the thought that Modernists will be roaming Catholic vestibules creating “teachings” based on Americans’ “experience,” then you haven’t been to a typical Novus Ordo Mass on a Sunday during NFL or NASCAR season. We are at a time as a “Christian nation” that — to channel British essayist Gerald Warner writing at the dawn of President Obama’s coronation — “will end in tears.” Warner continued:
The Obama hysteria is not merely embarrassing to witness, it is itself contributory to the scale of the disaster that is coming. What we are experiencing, in the deepening days of a global depression, is the desperate suspension of disbelief by people of intelligence – la trahison des clercs – in a pathetic effort to hypnotise themselves into the delusion that it will be all right on the night. It will not be all right.
Replace “Obama” with “Pope Francis” and you have the recipe for moral disaster. Rosemary Ruether’s campaign of death to the unborn with a Catholic/Christian imprimatur reached critical mass in 1984. Barring a divine intervention, 2015 will be remembered as the Francis cabal’s “1984.”
Mike Church is the host of the Sirius/XM talk-radio program, “The Mike Church Show.” He is a filmmaker, singer-songwriter, author, and passionate Catholic.
Nice essay. One amendment, though: I think Mike Church is anticipating a future papal elevation when he refers to “Cardinal Cupich” near the start of his second paragraph. No doubt Cupich’s yeoman’s service for Team Bergoglio will merit the hat soon, but no sense in getting ahead of history.
And, speaking of gibberish, here is this morning’s report from the VIS, seemingly an inexhaustible source of the stuff. (You have to wonder if these prelates talk this way or if they limit this kind of excruciating periphrasis to what they write.)
The Circuli Minori conclude their examination of the Instrumentum Laboris
Vatican City, 21 October 2015 (VIS) – On Monday and Tuesday this week the Synod Fathers examined the third part of the Instrumentum Laboris, which deals with, among other themes, irregular family situations, admission of divorced and remarried faithful to communion, the pastoral care of homosexuals, and responsible parenthood.
The working groups analyses the special needs of families in irregular or difficult situations, acknowledging, as affirmed by the English-speaking group C whose rapporteur is Archbishop Mark Benedict Coleridge, that “those cohabiting are in a quite different situation from those who are divorced and civilly remarried. We also agreed that cohabitation, though very widespread in many cultures now, could not be considered a good in itself. We were prepared to recognise that there may be good in the relationship of those cohabiting rather than in cohabitation in some quasi-institutional sense”.
“We know that that are many other families who feel they are far from the ideal model, and others who to a greater or lesser extent do not even think it is for them”, comments the French group represented by Bishop Laurent Ulrich. “Divided families, mixed families, single parent families, families without marriage, even civil only; we cannot reject them, and we do not wish to think that their path does not lead them to God, Who loves and draws all people towards Him. We believe that in them we see the Spirit of the Lord Who inspires much of their behaviour in their lives, and this detracts nothing from Christian families whom we support and encourage”.
With regard to the divorced and civilly remarried, there is general agreement about the need to provide more effective pastoral accompaniment for these couples, and especially for their children who also have rights. Some groups express perplexity, however, in relation to what the Instrumentum Laboris refers to as a “a penitential path”. “It is not clear to name the journey taken by the divorced and remarried as a ‘penitential path’”, remarks the Spanish-speaking group represented by Archbishop Baltazar Enrique Porras Cardozo. “Perhaps it would be better to speak about itineraries of reconciliation, as there are some irreversible situations that cannot be subject to a penitential path without the possibility of overcoming this”.
“It would appear that, with regard to the issue of closeness, we are all in agreement, but what happens when we consider access to the sacraments?” asked the Spanish-speaking group whose rapporteur is Cardinal Jose Luis Lacunza Maestrojuan, O.A.R. “Without doubt, we need to set in motion a generous movement removing many of the obstacles from the way so that divorced and remarried faithful can participate more widely in the life of the Church: at the moment they cannot be godparents, they cannot be catechists, and they are not able to teach religion. … We must show that we are listening to the cry of many people who suffer and who call to participate as fully as possible in the life of the Church”.
“With regard to the discipline of remarried divorcees, at present it is not possible to establish general criteria covering all cases, which are very diverse”, observes the Italian group represented by Cardinal Maurizio Piacenza. “There are divorced and remarried faithful who apply themselves to following the path of the Gospel, offering significant witness of charity. At the same time, it is undeniable that in some circumstances, factors are present that limit the possibilities of acting differently. As a consequence, the judgement on an objective situation cannot be assumed in the judgement on subjective ‘impunity’. The limits and conditions thus become an appeal to discernment – primarily on the part of the bishop – which must be accurate and respect the complexity of such situations”.
The English group A, whose rapporteur is Archbishop Joseph Edward Kurtz, expresses the view that “pastoral practice concerning admission to the Sacrament of the Eucharist by the divorced and civilly remarried ought not to be left to individual episcopal conferences. To do so would risk harm to the unity of the Catholic Church, the understanding of her sacramental order, and the visible witness of the life of the faithful”.
The English group represented by Archbishop Diarmuid Martin requests that “the Holy Father, taking into account the rich material which has emerged during this synodal process, consider establishing during the Jubilee Year of Mercy a Special Commission to study in depth the ways in which the disciplines of the Church which flow from the indissolubility of marriage apply to the situation of people in irregular unions, including situations arising from the practice of polygamy”.
There are many references to this issue in St. John Paul II’s encyclical “Familiaris consortio”.
The condition of homosexual persons is considered primarily from the perspective of the family context. The English group C insists that “we address this issue as pastors, seeking to understand the reality of people’s lives rather than issues in some more abstract sense”. The group also asks that “the final document include at an appropriate point a clear statement of Church teaching that same-sex unions are in no way equivalent to marriage”.
On the same issue, the English group A reiterates that “the Church as the spouse of Christ patterns her behaviour after the Lord Jesus, Whose all-embracing love is offered to every person without exception. Parents and siblings of family members with homosexual tendencies are called to love and accept these members of their family with an undivided and understanding heart”.
Some Fathers suggest that the issue be eliminated from the discussions in this Synod as its importance would call for a specific Synod on the matter.
The theme of responsible parenthood has given rise to lively exchange, and is of great current importance in relation to the dignity of the person and of life. The working groups also considered mixed marriage, and called for greater pastoral focus on the defence of women and children in precarious situations.
With regard to the Synod methodology, the French group represented by Archbishop Paul-Andre Durocher writes, “like agronomists who talk about different methods of irrigation, we have talked about the method of our Synod. Is it well-suited to its purpose? We expend an enormous amount of energy, from all points of view. People are exhausted from the work they are doing. Will the result be worth the effort? Perhaps we could have identified some specific themes to examine between the two Synods, so as to have more time to study. Will Pontifical Commissions be appointed to carry out the work we hope will be done? … We have enjoyed the greater amount of time given to us in small groups. From our exchanges, there strongly emerges the ministry of communion that is ours as bishops”.
“The theme of mercy has run throughout the Synod, challenging our pastoral ministry”, concludes the Italian group B. “We are aware that the mystery of the Incarnation fully expresses the salvific will of God. This divine determination has also been entrusted to our mission and to the sacramental means that find their true hermeneutic in the sense of being an appeal to conversion, support, a medicine and an aid for our salvation”.
The “Cardinal Cupich” thing is a typo that I thought I had removed from an earlier draft. Will fix it.
As for the rest, I got maybe four paragraphs in before I realized I’m fresh out of bourbon and needed to stop.
The Synod is wrecking so much havoc that Buffalo Trace cannot keep up with the demand for bourbon…does the evil of this circus know no bounds?
Apparently yes, it’s a 9-ring circus.
“Perhaps we could have identified some specific themes to examine between the two Synods”—there’s an understatement!—”so as to have more time to study. Will Pontifical Commissions be appointed to carry out the work we hope will be done?” Meaning: Dracula or the Wolfman always returns. Always.
…and meaning that what is un-discussable will still be discussed…it’s going to get much, much, much worse because it will be off-stage. We’ll have to send Edward Pentin undercover.
It would appear that no mind has been changed. The ideas of the evil doers are still evil and the ideas of the warm and fuzzy are still warm and fuzzy. It’s still the same mess.
Good stuff. I mean bad stuff really, but well explained.
Only God’s Intervention can rectify this extremely sad Church Crisis! Thankfully because of His infinite Mercy we shall have Illumination first before The Great Chastisement. You may need to increase ur bourbon supply for the duration?.
An excellent article from THE voice on Sirius for reason, Liberty, and the Faith. Long live the King Dude!
Benedict XVI spent his entire papacy fighting against the dictatorship of relativism, and his successor has either allowed or encouraged the spread of relativism throughout the Church. The inviolability of conscience and the devolution of doctrine to national bishop’s conferences are pure relativism.
Yes, right. And so, what’s the logical conclusion to draw from this?
Gus, one conclusion is that Our Dear Father in Heaven is letting us go our own way as far as we can – before He comes to the rescue. Read more Old Testament chapters where we see the Hebrews doing all sorts of terrible things, being carted off to captivity in punishment, moaning to God for help for centres – and He comes to rescue them. But first we must go through the punishment….
It all goes back to Vatican II. That’s where the breach began.
That’s where Archbishop Cupich and Francis and others get their version of the doctrine of the Primacy of Conscience. Their view of the Primacy of Conscience really IS there in Vatican II, especially in Dignitatis Humanae, Nostra Aetate, Unitatis Redintegratio, and Gaudium et Spes.
For 50 years now the popes have made the poisonous novel doctrines of Vatican II an integral and necessary part of the official Magisterium of the Church.
Given that, how can there ever be any removal of these poisonous doctrines from the Church?
I am really asking. This not just a rhetorical question.
All the brilliant analysis and condemnation of the fruits of Vatican II is of no use if there isn’t actually any solution, if the teachings of Vatican II, the teachings of “Saint” John Paul II “the Great,” and the teachings of Francis, are with us as long there is the Roman Catholic Church.
If there isn’t any realistic hope of any official condemnation of the poisonous novel doctrines of Vatican II, if there isn’t any realistic hope that the canonization of “Saint” John Paul II “the Great” will be officially revoked, then it seems like we might as well go ahead begin worshiping and serving God as some sort of non-Roman Catholic Christian.
There are many churches that have NEVER had any leader like Francis, Archbishop Cupich, Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Marx, John Paul II (publicly kissing the Koran, etc,), Cardinal Mahony, Cardinal Bernadin, etc., etc.. There are many churches that never endorsed or permitted the poisonous anti-Christian doctrines of Vatican II.
What good is an unbroken lineage of bishops in succession from the original Apostles if for 50 years now the successors to the apostles have not handled on the teachings of the Apostles?
The Protestants have a doctrine of Apostolic Succession: They believe in a succession not of PERSONS, but a succession of the Apostolic DOCTRINE (as found in the Bible, and in the first 7 ecumenical councils, and [for some] in the teaching of the early Church Fathers).
Let’s all admit that brilliant analysis, commentary, and condemnation, of the teachings and actions of our pastors, from the sidelines, is not normal, is not healthy, and probably accomplishes nothing. It surely cannot be God’s will that we just keep doing this for ANOTHER 50 years!
“Given that, how can there ever be any removal of these poisonous doctrines from the Church?”
Given that, how can there even be a Church?
There are Bible churches that would have fired and disfellowshiped Francis in 5 seconds for his infamous “Who am I to judge?” comment. Right? Yet in OUR church, Francis just continues on in his office with full authority.
There are Bible churches that would have fired and disfellowshiped John Paul II in 5 seconds for his infamous public kissing of the Koran. Right? Yet in OUR church, John Paul II is canonized as a saint and declared to be John Paul the GREAT.
There are Bible churches that would NEVER meet in a council or synod to discuss whether to allow homosexual couples to participate as regular members of the congregation without abandoning their homosexual union. Yet OUR church has done exactly that.
SO, what is the logical conclusion to draw from all of this? I’m really asking?
Having been a Protestant for most of my life (barring the last seven and half years as a Catholic), I can assure you that the sects you speak so highly of are exceedingly few and far between. If they were so wonderful, we would be hearing their denunciations right now, trumpted to the east and the west. The logical conclusion is to calm down, have a drink or three, and cry it out. People in high places are corrupt. So? Is Christ? People in high places do evil things. So? Does Christ? “Be angry, but sin not.” This blog has been a soft place to land in cyber space. At least for me. Let’s not get so upset that we begin acting like opponents, or God forbid, lose our faith. The Faith is not changing, no matter what evil bishops are doing or how far they lead others astray. Christ is our rock, no matter how few of us or how ‘powerful’ the bad bishops are. I highly recommend reading the Psalms, one after another until you start feeling better. Evil cannot win. Also, Benedictine is a fantastic nightcap. Expensive, but worth every penny and good to the last drop. 🙂
Er, Protestantism is not the only option. Sedevacantism and/or SSPX are also options.
I can assure you, Monsieur rkat, that sedevacantism is NOT an option at this site. If it were, I wouldn’t be here.
Great. Then keep agonizing for another 50-100 years, about whether or not homosexually obsessed bishops have your true interests at heart. See if your kids and their kids can be bothered to do same. By the way, I’m not a “monsieur”. You make a lot of assumptions, don’t you?
Perhaps not so many as you, Mme. I never presume to know more than the Church.
Neither do I. I just question where and who “the Church” is now. I’d be an idiot not to.
You maka me laugh.
Laughing doesn’t get you to heaven. Too bad.
Neither will sedevacantism or other idols.
Gus, even though our Church seems to allow these popes to do horrible things, ours is still better than the Bible churches. We have a 2,000 year old Tradition of doctrinal and disciplinary treasures to use, Bible churches have ‘yesterday.’ Our Church also has Jesus Christ’s promise that He will always be with us. The Bible churches, not so much.
It seems like something has really gone wrong in the Roman Catholic Church. Everything has been bad for 50 years now, and there really are no signs that this dark period will ever end. The popes and the bishops keep reaffirming their commitment to the new doctrines of the Vatican II Council.
The logical conclusion is that with Vatican 2 and the new mass, a new religion was created that worships man and not God, and is not Catholic. This is why we should refuse to participate in the vatican 2 religion and should not be funding it.
A good succinct summary. You know well the True Faith and its enemies.
If Abp. Cupich had a logical bone in his mindless body, he would realize that his position on these matters, divorce, abortion, and so on, need not end at those matters. He has essentially declared that any Church, but especially the very Church foolish enough to have elevated him where he’s in a position to speak “authoritatively,” is a frivolous and supererogatory redundancy.
His Grace has written his own pink slip. Let him act accordingly.
“We provide our content for free, but it isn’t free to produce. We need your help!”
That message popped up while I was reading on OnePeterFive.com
Here’s what would move me to become a financial contributor to OnePeterFive.com: If OnePeterFive.com would organize Catholics to actually refuse cooperation with priests and bishops who disseminate or accept bad doctrine.
1 Peter 5, the namesake verse of this web site, says: “Your adversary THE DEVIL prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. RESIST him, FIRM in your faith” (see verses 8 & 9)
How are faithful Catholics RESISTING the Devil and remaining FIRM in their faith if they continue to go to mass at parishes where their faith perishes under the relentless assault of the doctrines of the Devil? (The “involiablity of conscience” as taught by Vatican II is a doctrine of the Devil). All those diabolical doctrines are being forcefully pushed by bishops at the current Synod on the Family. They may or may not get those doctrines officially recognized in any final document issued by the Church.
But that doesn’t matter. These diabolical doctrines (such as the erroneous view of the Primacy of Conscience that was taught in the Vatican II documents) have been taught relentlessly in Catholic parishes and Catholic schools, seminaries, and universities for the last 50 years, ever since the Vatican II Council.
The only solution I see if for an organization to lead and inspire Catholics to “vote with their feet,” and only attend Masses and Catholic schools that refuse to disseminate or accept bad doctrine.
If OnePeterFive.com would organize such a project, I would send cash money.
Otherwise, it’s just blogging.
My, you have a tall order for a blog that exists in time and space. Somehow it must organize people in diverse places at different times to resist the devil on a large scale. Isn’t that really your obligation, my obligation to do so at the parish level? Perhaps you should start your own blog in your own parish and implement the ideas you are suggesting here. The possiblities are endless, really; of course, the trouble that comes with stirring things up will also be right in your face…
I agree, Gus, that it’s back to you. And to all of us. That’s the harder part, to actually talk to your priest, and fellow parishioners and make the resistance real. Gus, you have some good ideas and bring up good points – help us all by coming up with ideas just as you want OnePeterFive to do.
The effort that is needed needs to be carried out by an international organization of thousands of lay Catholics.
Nothing can be accomplished with one, two or three faithful Catholics opposing the parish priest, the deacon, and the 99% of the laity in the parish who are happy with watered-down religion.
Wanna bet? I was personally involved in an extremely small parish group that managed to save a church building — one that had been “sold” to a charity by the diocese. We had the local press and a Fortune 500 company in collusion with parish/diocesan officials to get the deed accomplished. I could write a book. Buck up, youngun.
Thistle that’s a nice story about the church building, but if your local church already looks like a UFO and the teaching is obviously heterodox then activism at the parish level is just going to cause a great deal of unpleasantness and go nowhere. Gus, I’d advise looking into the SSPX. They are already doing what you seem to be looking for. I view them as an activist organization (one I’m not part of officially, by the way) — activism by omission, not commission, if you will. At this point, I’m really glad they exist. As for the rest: arguing with uncatechized laity and modernist priests about what constitutes real Catholicism is pretty much shadowboxing. They literally don’t want to hear it.
I lived in the Diocese of Rochester. Was that UFO enough for you? You have an agenda, and it shows.
That’s BS. My only agenda is expressing that I am done being patient regarding the RC Church, because for me it has been almost 50 years of puzzled and appalled astonishment regarding the vast majority of my clerical “shepherds”, not to mention the docile laity. I also grew up on LI which is probably 100x more heterodox than anything in Rochester, and consisted of people who grew up in Catholic “ghettos” of NYC and didn’t even understand the possibility that their catholic culture could and would be dismantled before their very eyes. So get off your high horse.
Yeah, and I suppose your inviolable conscience is working right along with your impatience.
“Impatience”? I just told you I’ve been dealing with this for almost 50 years! That’s funny.
But you said, “My only agenda is expressing that I am done being patient regarding the RC Church…” I understand where you are coming from — after a 40-year search for the Catholic Church I finally came home to….what is going on now. The temptation to bitterness and cynicism is great. One good thing from my days as a Protestant was a firm knowledge that Jesus Christ is the rock. I do not put my trust in princes, so I am not overcome by their corruption. Sometimes I feel discouraged, but I try not to take it out on others. If I have caused you anger, I apologize.
Look, I haven’t even left “the Church” as you define it. But if you talk to people who have gone sede or with the SSPX, they maintain they haven’t left it either — they’re just no longer following people who claim to be leading it. And let’s face it, the sedes looking smarter every day. There is common ground between those trads “in” and “out” of the Church, and it needs to be made fruitful in some way, instead of the automatic “I won’t even go there” attitude.
And when did I “define” the Church? I wonder, so much, why you continue to link together the SSPX and the sedevacantists? In fact, you even maintain that both are “no longer following the people who claim to be leading it.” Please give specific examples of how the SSPX is the same as the sedevacantists. Yes, you have an agenda. It is clear as a bell.
I never said they were “the same”. As far as linking them to make a general point about the Vatican alienating Catholics, I hardly think that’s novel. I think our little exchange has run its course, go start a fight with someone else.
Meanwhile, Gus, you are content to leave Steve Skojec and a few others foot the entire bill for establishing a site where Catholics can inform themselves about what is afoot in the Church? That doesn’t seem very fair to me. You start out by saying the 1P5 should be organizing Catholics for something or another, but you fail to tell us how that will happen if everyone is like you and uses the site but refuses to help pay for it.
The SSPX was started because two seminarians who were dissatisfied – scandalized is probably a better word – with the formation they were receiving, asked Archbishop Lefebvre to help. Now look at it. I mean, look:
Nothing can be accomplished with one, two or three faithful Catholics …
“Where two or more are gathered together in My Name….” 😉
“If OnePeterFive.com would organize such a project, I would send cash money.” What other kind is there? You say otherwise, but I suspect it is very much the case that you wouldn’t send a thin dime to support any project, especially if you can get its services free anyway. Put your money where your mouth is, as the adage goes. Otherwise it’s just hot air.
1P5 exists, if I may put it this way, to inform and exhort, not to organize. We take the information so graciously provided for free (contributing where means permit) and run with it. We must each work out our own salvation. In some cases that may well mean finding a good parish with the traditional mass, home school for kids (there are many home schooling groups one can find, or if not, start one). It may even mean moving house, taking a crummy job, all sorts of things if only to have access to the sacraments properly celebrated by good priests in an environment conducive to the faith. Our brothers in arms from the 4th century heard mass in the desert because their churches were taken over by the Arians (read about St Athanasius when you get chance) yet the Church came down to us inviolate 1600 years later.
We must do what must be done. This isn’t the time to think about running from the faith, but rather working out how we can play our part in the fight to preserve it. 1P5 and other orthodox blogs are here to inform us as to what we are fighting for, and to expose what we stand against, but ultimately the fight is one that each of us must wage from our own particular circumstances.
Don’t lose hope, my brother, God knows your anxieties and your fears more completely than even you yourself do. Trust Him, and offer Him all your suffering, that He might unite it all with the passion of Our Lord Jesus, give it real merit, and reward you both in this life and the next. May God Almighty bless you and keep you.
You want some honesty? I’m one guy running a website with enough demands for a full staff. Our donors have been incredibly generous, but this is my full time job, and I make significantly less than the last job I had. Bills go unpaid. My credit takes the hits. I’m not sure how I’ll handle self-employment taxes. And to my shame, I can’t yet pay my writers because I can’t pay the basic business expenses and salary of the one and only employee who does everything from ad sales to writing to editing to graphic design to Web administration to non-profit administration to podcast producing to marketing to correspondence.
My family rarely sees me. I work all the time and I never get done. I pray every day that I can make ends meet while following my passion to defend the Church. We raise less capital in 6 months than Church Militant recently did in 24 hours, and we still beat Our Sunday Visitor in Web traffic two months ruming this summer.
This is a hard way to make a living. It’s a difficult and often contentious job. I do the best I can with the resources I have available. I lick my own envelopes when I send out thank you cards, which I only wish I could send to everyone.
I can’t take on any more. Some of my writers have faced threats to their own careers just for telling the truth. We’re fighting a ten-round fight that’s in the 19th round, and we’re vastly outgunned.
Cut us some slack.
I’ll send some bucks when I get paid on Friday. Keep up the fire.
I believe that it would be a good idea to charge for some content, Steve.
And I also believe that this post should be a separate “sticky” at the top.
Thank you for all you do.
Steve, thank you very much for all of your sacrifices. Your apostolate is a true blessing for the faithful searching for the truth. I’m in for a recurring monthly donation. P.S., I’m ecstatic that Mike is aboard as a contributor now as well. His speaking about the beauty of the Traditional Latin Mass on his show is what led me and my family to Tradition so I am forever grateful to him. God Bless.
You are most welcome my friend. God Bless.
This headline (below) in the WSJ is revealing. News sources outside the Church have no trouble labeling some things going on in Rome with the pope’s name, the Bergoglio Brand as it were. Yes, they cite Cdl. Marx in the article and quote his nonsense, but it is Pope Francis who, according to these seasoned pundits, will suffer a loss if fundamental aspects of Catholic teaching aren’t “modified” after this Synod. Now, wherever did they get that notion?
Here is the headline:
Catholic Bishops Likely to Deal Pope Francis Setback on Family Issues
By FRANCIS X. ROCCA in Vatican City and
TAMARA AUDI in Los Angeles Updated Oct. 21, 2015
Newly released documents show Catholic bishops are unlikely to back Pope Francis’ drive to let church members who have divorced and remarried receive Communion, threatening to set back one of the pope’s signature initiatives…
The full article here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/catholic-bishops-likely-to-deal-pope-francis-setback-on-family-issues-1445454479?alg=y
Good article Mike. Agree completely. One Peter 5 is a great way to learn more about the faith that isn’t tainted with Papal worship. I suggest everyone make a contribution to help Steve keeping up his most helpful and selfless enterprise.
Well, if we have “inviolabilty of conscience”, then what if my conscience says I should
only attend Traditional Latin Mass, receive Holy Communion on the tongue, kneeling,,
and I should not be subjected to error being spouted from the pulpit? MMMmmm…….
Yes, I’m sure Cupich would be fully in favor of that….. (and I have some ocean front
property in Arizona to sell you too……
All this “inviolability of conscience” boils down to is of course liberal garbage (or normative gibberish, if you like) used to “justify” their destruction of the Faith
The Church is one universal body but this also means that there are diverse circumstances in this body. The Church has to deal concretely with situations, with individual consciences. By integrating the experiences of its members into the common conscience of the Church as a whole, we enter into greater communion with the call of the Spirit, whose voice is crying out to us from the peripheries. Thank you.