We were terrified beyond all else by the disastrous state of human society today. For who can fail to see that society is at the present time, more than in any past age, suffering from a terrible and deeprooted malady which, developing every day and eating into its inmost being, is dragging it to destruction? You understand, Venerable Brethren, what this disease is – apostasy from God, than which in truth nothing is more allied with ruin, according to the word of the Prophet: “For behold they that go far from Thee shall perish” (Ps. 1xxii., 17). We saw therefore that, in virtue of the ministry of the Pontificate, which was to be entrusted to Us, We must hasten to find a remedy for this great evil, considering as addressed to Us that Divine command: “Lo, I have set thee this day over the nations and over kingdoms, to root up, and to pull down, and to waste, and to destroy, and to build, and to plant” (Jerem. i., 10). But, cognizant of Our weakness, We recoiled in terror from a task as urgent as it is arduous.
– Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi
As the Synod proceedings wrapped up last Saturday, Spectator blogger Damian Thompson published a piece entitled, “The Vatican Synod on the Family is over and the conservatives have won.” The headline hovers above a sour-faced photo of Pope Francis, glaring menacingly at the camera.
Thompson explains himself as follows:
I’m going to stick my neck out and say that conservatives basically ‘won’ this synod – they fought successfully behind the scenes and in the debates to block changes to pastoral practice that (a) they believe go against the teaching of the very anti-divorce Jesus of Nazareth and (b) would have outraged the increasingly powerful churches of Africa.
This narrative has been picked up by various Catholic media outlets and bloggers, all of whom seem to be content to celebrate what actually amounts to a small step backwards; not a defense of Church teaching, but not too many inches given.
At the New York Times, Ross Douthat took a more neutral — and sensible — stance, saying that there wasn’t a victor
because there weren’t two “sides” or camps or (heaven help us) factions or anything so nasty as all that. It was all a dialogue, a moment of encounter and discernment, an opening to the Holy Spirit that set the Roman Catholic Church free to be church in a new way for the third millennium. It was a beginning, an overture, the first chapter in a neverending story, the first step on a permanent journey, because we are all sojourners together. So nobody won, because really everybody won.
As Saint Athanasius would say, LOL. No, look, what actually happened is that conservatives won what was probably the closest thing to victory that they could have hoped for, given that 1) the pope was against them, and 2) the pope stacked the governing and writing committees and the voting ranks, and did I mention that 3)the pope was against them. (People who still argue that Pope Francis was studiously neutral, that he just wanted dialogue, or that his views are unknowable, need to sit down and read the tongue-lashing he gave to conservatives in his closing address — and contrast it with the much more evenhanded way he closed last fall’s synod, when conservative resistance to the synod’s intended direction was much more disorganized.) Which is to say they produced a document that used unfashionable words like “indissoluble” to talk about marriage, that mostly avoided the subject of homosexuality, and that offered a few dense, occasionally-ambiguous, slightly-impenetrable paragraphs on welcoming and accompanying divorced and remarried Catholics without offering either a path to communion absent an annulment or proposing to devolve that question to national bishops conferences, as the German bishops and the rest of the progressive caucus at the synod clearly wished.
Not that such a devolution isn’t still in the offing. The final Synod relatio was not a mandate, it was a suggestion. The power to decide what happens now rests in the hands of Pope Francis. And as Douthat reiterated twice, “the pope was against” us. Yes, us – the people who oppose radical alterations to the Church’s teaching AND to her pastoral practice, both of which are inextricably intertwined.
Allow me to pause for a moment to say this: we are not “conservative Catholics.” We are faithful Catholics. The political label carries baggage that distracts from the important distinction between orthodoxy and heterodoxy – a distinction that is critical to understanding the Synod proceedings. I understand that people need shorthand when trying to identify the various factions in what should be a factionless Church. I’ve grappled with this issue myself. But we need to be clear on this point: the people who want to see unchangeable Catholic doctrine and practice left unchanged should just be called Catholics. The people who want to change it should be called something else. I’m not sure what, exactly. They tend to bristle at even the implication that they are heretics, even though that’s what many of them are. But without a formal declaration of heresy, that’s a difficult charge to make stick. “Protestant” might also be a good word, but it’s already taken, and this requires something more specific. “Kasperite” is thrown around with some regularity these days, but it gives him too much credit.
Whatever word we come up with, “Catholic” isn’t it. And with the pope in the corner of the revolutionaries, there are some tough questions that need asking. Since these things are above my pay grade, I’ll refrain from openly doing so here. But those with the competence to do so should, perhaps, be doing so. Sooner, rather than later.
Instead, let me toss out another flaming bag of you-don’t-want-to-know-what’s-in-it. I know there was a spoiler in the title of this post, but here goes anyway:
WE DIDN’T “WIN” ANYTHING.
Yes, the final relatio, so far as we know (since we’re still waiting for a final English version) does not have anything heretical in it. And I guess, if you have low self-esteem, and believe, like a sad but loyal dog, that as long as you’re not being kicked you’re experiencing real love…well, then you might be a little excited about this. But the document isn’t a bouquet of flowers or a box of chocolates on the doorstep of the faithful. After three weeks of trench warfare, it represents — in the most optimistic interpretation — a stalemate. At worst, it’s a significant loss of ground, inasmuch as it fails to address the rampant speculation that has infested the Church for the past 20 months that the pastoral practice on the reception of communion by the divorced and remarried will be changed.
If THAT wasn’t the backdrop for this document, it’d be uninteresting to pretty much everyone. But that is what led to its creation, and we can see just how hard they worked to keep orthodoxy at arms length when they coyly quoted Pope John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio in paragraph 84 – but only the part that said this:
Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.
Somehow they left off part of that same paragraph in Familiaris Consortio. The part that said this:
However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.
This relatio is about as secure a barrier against communion for the divorced and remarried as a front door left open and unlocked in a bad neighborhood. Sure, it has some of the right features, but so what? This thing is primed and ready for exploitation. It has professionally-designed time bombs baked right in. Just like Vatican II. Which, of course, is never fully implemented – even after half a century.
I reached out to Bishop Schneider this week to share something I had written about the Synod. This morning, I received a response:
We have to not be naive, because of the apparently orthodox text. In reality, there are dangerous traps and back doors masked in a very cunning manner, which open the way for the Kasper agenda.
Whatever else you want to say about them, the bishops and popes of the conciliar and post-conciliar Church have learned how to do one thing with astonishing skill: like straw spun into garbage, they churn out official documents full of language so bereft of definitive meaning that it forms a pulsing nexus of perpetual aggiornamento; an everlasting gobstopper of theological novelty that somehow manages to pass the scrutiny of every so-called “conservative” Catholic to come down the pike, solely on the basis that it isn’t explicitly heretical.
We have breathtakingly low standards.
Did anyone truly expect a deeply, openly heterodox text? Does anyone believe that this ends here? Does anyone think that Pope Francis — the same pope who imposed two apostolic letters to streamline annulments without the consultation of any relevant dicastery, without speaking to any of the canonists at the Apostolic Signatura who should have vetted the jurisprudence therein — has really been put in his place by “conservative” Synod fathers? Does anyone think that his concluding speech signaled defeat – a speech which lashed out at those “dead stones” who care about doctrine, promoted cultural and moral relativism, and said that “the true defenders of doctrine are not those who uphold its letter, but its spirit; not ideas but people; not formulae but the gratuitousness of God’s love and forgiveness”?
Wake. Up.
This is not over. We didn’t get the cure to this fatal disease, we got an obvious placebo. Stop celebrating, because the next wave is already coming, and no matter how exhausted we are, the fight goes on.
The heretics in the Church are not cowed. They are more empowered than ever. Those who advanced heterodoxy at the Synod were not disciplined – nor were they, as so many wishful-thinkers speciously tried to convince us, brought to Rome by Pope Francis to be “smoked out.” They are his friends. They helped get him elected.
Do you know who did get “smoked out”? The Catholic bishops.
[Francis] had quite another idea for the second synod gathering, the one that just took place. It seems clearer, now more than ever, that it was designed to help him “take the pulse” of the bishops. And it was successful. In a sense, he has “smoked out” those bishops who, up until now, have not shown their hand.
Don’t believe it?
On Saturday evening, as he brought this latest synod assembly’s work to a close, the pope told the bishops and observers what he believed the exercise had been about.
Among other things, he said: “It was about laying bare the closed hearts, which frequently hide even behind the Church’s teaching or good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families.”
Francis undoubtedly took note of those prelates he had in mind.
And while he thanked the bishops for engaging in “a rich and lively dialogue” through the many “different opinions which were freely expressed,” he lamented that some synod participants spoke out “at times, unfortunately, not entirely in well-meaning ways.”
He surely jotted down the names of a few more bishops.
Jotting down names and making tactical, retributive strikes is a thing that people do when they have the upper hand. Unorthodox clerics in particular are incredibly fond of language like “accompaniment,” “encounter,” “oppenness,” “dialogue,” and “collegiality.” But just like the Social Justice Warriors who crusade for diversity by crushing anyone with an opposing viewpoint, these two-faced clerics turn immediately on those who hold critical views of their pet ideologies the second they think they have an advantage. They then do all that they can to shut those voices down.
See, for example, the Hunt for Ross Douthat, currently underway:
Here the letter J.W. O’Malley SJ and I and colleagues sent to @nytimes about recent comments made by @DouthatNYT pic.twitter.com/kxtDFR5uNU
— Massimo Faggioli (@MassimoFaggioli) October 27, 2015
Ah, the elites do love their credentialism. They think everyone, no matter how ignorant, should have a voice on controversial or even settled topics, unless they are the ones that are precious to them. In that case, they need qualifications. If the New York Times has any remaining integrity, they’ll ignore this little paean to censorship on the part of those who think conscience is inviolable — until, at least, your conscience tells you to say something they don’t like. We can’t have truth being bandied about willy-nilly, after all. Someone could get hurt.
This may be a notable example, but it’s hardly an isolated one. This sort of battle is being waged on smaller fronts, hidden from the public eye. Several of our writers (or would-be writers) have felt the sting of Cathinform – the religious thought police who demand conformity to the paradigm of papal positivism, or there will be consequences. I’m sure there are countless scenarios playing out along the same lines in parishes and dioceses and colleges and publications across the world. And depending on the degree to which one of the unwashed critics’ livelihood depends upon the benevolence of the Church, the noose can be pulled incredibly tight.
Meanwhile, there are no shackles in sight for Kasper, Daneels, Marx, Cupich, Bonny, Forte, Baldisseri, Koch, Coleridge, and the whole wretched hive of scum and villainy who can’t seem to leave Christ and His Mystical Bride unmolested. In fact, Kasper feels that the Synod was a win. Cardinals Marx and Schönborn and Archbishop Koch were pleased. Fr. Thomas Reese was pleasantly surprised by the real exploitability of the “internal forum” language:
What is remarkable about the three paragraphs dealing with divorced and remarried Catholics is that the words Communion and Eucharist never appear. Yes, that’s right, they never mention Communion as a conclusion of this internal forum process.
So what does it mean? A conservative might interpret it as closed to Communion because it was not mentioned in the text. A liberal might interpret it as including Communion since it is not explicitly excluded in the text.
I think that the truth is that Communion was not mentioned because that was the only way the paragraphs could get a two-thirds majority. Like the Second Vatican Council, the synod achieved consensus through ambiguity. This means that they are leaving Pope Francis free to do whatever he thinks best.
Hats off to the drafting committee that found exactly the right language to achieve consensus even if it does not give a definitive answer to our questions.
And that brings us right back to the real heart of the problem: when two diametrically opposing sides both claim victory, one of them is wrong. (Just ask Aristotle!) This was a Rorschach Synod put on by a Rorschach papacy, but just because everyone who felt so inclined could project what they wanted onto it doesn’t mean the inkblot didn’t form a rather suggestive picture. Sometimes when one looks at a shape and sees something that makes them blush, it’s not just a Freudian contortion of the mind. This Synod has been called the “Synod of Sex” by a number of commentators, and with good reason: the forces of the Devil and the flesh — most of them pelvic in nature — have waged war against the ancient and sacrosanct bastions of the Church, and those able defenses have cracked, if not crumbled.
But there are more engines of the siege en route.
Sexual violence of a certain character is known by a rather unambiguous term in the English language: rape. With the barely thwarted attempt to force upon the Church an acceptance of sexual deviation that would have compromised the purity of her teaching, what we witnessed at the Synod was nothing less than an attempted rape of the Mystical Bride of Christ. The perpetrators — those whose very job it is to defend her from such violence, no less — were allowed to walk away from the scene of the crime untouched, to continue seeking opportunities for their lecherous desires to reach fruition.
Pope Francis is the guardian of the Church. He has allowed these rough men to attempt to violate Christ’s sweet spouse, and has raised his voice in protest not against those seeking to have their way with her, but against us – the very ones who would protect our mother from such an outrage.
We will not forget the neglectfulness of our spiritual father in this moment of need. Pray for the conversion of this pope, that in his heart he may come to repent of his refusal to stand for Christ’s truth in this vital matter at the heart of our faith — a denial of his Lord in a moment of crisis as surely as was that of St. Peter’s on the night of The Passion. Pray for the Church, for she is even now the subject of malicious designs by the wolves who have entered in among her shepherds. And pray for the poor man who will be elected to the papacy next, whoever he may be, that he will be terrified by the responsibility, inspired by the love of Tradition, emboldened by his veneration of the Church, guided by the holiness and wisdom that come from a true love of God, and resolute in the task that will urgently befall him: the restoration of not only the dignity of the papacy, but of all things in Christ.
In the fine article above, Mr. Skojec called us to “Pray for the CONVERSION of this pope, that in his heart he may come to REPENT….”
That reminded of what two bishops of the Orthodox Church wrote in their letter to Pope Francis in 2014:
“We unceasingly pray that our Lord Jesus Christ gather together the deluded “Pope” and his followers, through repentance and the renunciation of your delusion and heresy….”
I read their entire letter and found it very interesting. Here it is:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/epistle-to-pope-francis.pdf
Oh my. This is a profoundly dense letter. I skimmed through it just now. I’m not sure what to make of it…
The second section of their long letter is titled:
“THE SECULARIZATION AND SPIRITUAL DECLINE OF THE VATICAN”
The first paragraph of this section says:
“It is a general conclusion and universal axiom that evil and corrupt dogmas give birth to
an evil and corrupt way of life. As well, the reverse is true that an evil and corrupt way of
life gives birth to evil and corrupt dogmas.”
Because Holy Mother Russia, bastion of Christian civilization, a city on a hill, has done a bang up job. Wonder if Benedict said Orthodoxy’s support of Eucharistic sacrilege accounts for the Bolshevik revolution. Really, Dostoevski is such an insufferable bore because of his Orthodoxy. The Orthodox are iffy on transmitting the faith, but stellar at perpetuating their mindset.
The Orthodox consider ALL popes deluded and Catholicism heretical.
Especially the nutcases at orthodoxinfo.
The people who want to change it should be called something else. I’m not sure what, exactly.
Jacobins?
Freemasons?
Or perhaps Montagnards (radical element of the Jacobin Club).
A dear old friend of mine, now deceased, had a favorite word for such clergy: slobs.
The faithful are orthodoxies and the unfaithful are simply doxies. It really suits the likes of Cupich and Wuerl especially, who are on the next level…simpering doxies, followed by the foxy doxies such as Marx and Kasper and their followers, the loxie doxies. You can spot a doxie immediately by their mincing mien, spittle laced epithets like inclusive and sustainable and coy grins.
Well, I live in Dixie, and the local ordinary seems to be of the same type as Cupich.
I wonder. Does that make him a Dixie doxie?
Sad, isn’t it? Such an affront to the masculine gifts from God. To see priests as the butts of humor must tickle the devil, but we laugh because laughter is more effective than tears …satan hates being mocked. The lesson is, keep effeminate men out of seminaries for the same reason that women are not allowed to be priests. Otherwise you end up with the likes of a Wuerl sashaying his way up the hierarchy to Cardinal! Ugh!! I suppose then we redefine it from heterodoxy to homodoxy. ?
Thank you for this forceful piece. This truly is a terrible time for Holy Mother Church. To have to pray for the Pope’s conversion is a great sorrow – but one that can be offered up just for that conversion – good out of evil.
What to call ‘them?’ Faux Catholics? Neo Catholics? Nouveau Catholics? Pseudo Catholics? The Others? The Faithless?
I’m fond of the simple term “Heterodox.”
Aposstates.
Novus Ordo Sect — (aka the N.O. sect), or the Nervous Disorder sect.
The word, “Catholic” shouldn’t be used when speaking of them.
Look to that dark cloud for a silver lining. At least now none but the incurably gullible can assert that this pope is impartial, above the fray. He is an embattled partisan on behalf of positions that every sentient and truthful Catholic knows in his heart contradict the very words of Jesus and 2000 years of teaching about them. All also have to recognize that, like other run-of-the-mill liberals, he is willing to stoop to purposeful ambiguity and obfuscation to achieve his goals; he knows there is no other route but subterfuge because, exposed to the light of day, his pet propositions are patently absurd.
So, Jorge Bergoglio may have smoked out a few cardinals whom he will treat as pariahs just as he did Cdl. Burke, but orthodox Catholics have also witnessed the “smoking out” of a pope; he leaves this Synod with his portrayal of a humble dispenser of mercy in tatters.
And faithful laymen and women will continue to exercise the rights to which they are specifically entitled under Canon Law:
“According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which [the laity]
possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the
sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the
Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful,
without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward
their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”
(Canon 212 §3)
You bet, but we have to add this admonitory comment about those faithful laymen: “So few, so confused.”
So true. While many many well-intentioned laymen and women (bless them all) feel compelled to speak out over the heterodoxy and heresy, I often cringe at the illogical and unsupportable emotional outbursts which are easily batted-away by their opponents.
Not to dampen anyone’s justifiably holy outrage, but the cautionary maxim to keep in mind ought always be:
“Better to remain silent and be taken for a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”
Contrariwise, however there is this little bit of advice:
“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”
― Carl Sandburg –
Peace but gird for battle.
Another great post, Steve.
As a descriptor, I’m fond of Aggiornamentism. Pope St. Pius described its adherents quite accurately:
“They [i.e. the Aggiornamentists] arrogate to themselves the right to ‘correct’ this revealed wisdom as if it were something corrupt, to ‘renew’ it as if it were something that had become obsolete, to ‘improve’ it and to ‘adapt’ it to the dictates, the progress, and the comforts of the age as if it had been opposed to the good of society and not merely opposed to the levity of a few men.”
Of course, Modernism is the poison at work; but Aggiornamento is the name on the package.
The Bishops who spoke heresy in the Synod will be allowed to return to their sees to continue promoting their heresy thus destroying what is left of the church.
Even though the redoubtable Mundabor claimed a victory on the 25th, this entire Synodal process is just the weak of tea of the Lambeth Conferences and so the ONLY permanent feature will be that the problems of creating Doctrine by Democracy will be readdressed repeatedly in Synodalism until the modernists/liberals win.
And the Triumphs of the modernists/liberals will never be allowed to be debated (Lil Licit liturgy, Communion standing, Communion in the hand, Faltars, Faltar girls etc etc etc) and so we are stuck with the permanent revolution destroying the Church.
Near the end of time, Catholic Prophecy tells us the Church will no longer be in Rome, it will have had to have flee that city owing to the hatred of it and the Synodalism will hasten that day.
Leslie Tentler looks like Monty Python’s, Terry Jones, in drag; and her middle name, priceless.
That was the only person on the list of signees that IANS googled but are there any negroes on the list or this this just another example of credentialed white privilege?
I beg your pardon, at first, but isn’t National Catholic Reporter is an illegitimate Catholic news center, or do I misunderstood what I may had read from another blog?
Yes, and?
I saw there are many references of National Catholic Reporter…, and I’m terrified in two-fold fears; losing the Refuge of Sinners and swarm of ambiguity.
I’m still not completely sure I know what you mean, but keep something in mind. Just because a paper often lies does not mean it ALWAYS does. It is liberals who regularly “shoot the messenger” (notice how they treat organs like National Review, Fox News, etc.). Theirs is not an example to follow….in anything.
Yeah…
Anyway, thanks for the explanation.
SYNOD’S “INTERNAL FORUM” DOCTRINE ORIGINATED WITH THE SERPENT IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN
In 2014, Steve Skojec quoted Cardinal Kasper: “Life is not just black or white; there are, in fact, many nuances.”
Mr. Skojec quoted the Bible passage of the Fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and made this comment: “The serpent is a creature who moves with careful tact. Eve was not coerced, she was…seduced. It was the slow, slippery insinuation of ideas that led her to The Fall. The devil is in the nuances.”
http://www.steveskojec.com/2014/03/something-wicked/
The doctrine of the Internal Forum, also called the doctrine of Primacy of Conscience, as taught by Francis, Kasper, Cupich, et al, constitute a COMPLETE OVERTURNING of the moral doctrine of Christ.
Here’s how it works:
Francis, Kasper, Cupich, et al, aren’t saying that the Commandments of God are invalid or revoked or need to be modified. On the contrary, they affirm the objective moral law, and affirm that it can never be changed.
They are merely saying that any individual person’s obedience of the Commandments of God is purely optional, to be regulated within the Internal Forum by the individuals Inviolable Conscience.
For example, Francis, Kasper, and Cupich aren’t saying that the commandment against suicide is wrong. They are just saying that if an individual in his or her particular circumstances decides that suicide is right for him or her, then neither the Church nor God can judge or punish him or her for committing suicide. Period. End of story.
This doctrine isn’t new to the Final Relatio of the Synod. It modern times it originates in the documents of the Vatican II Ecumenical Council, particularly in Dignitatis Humanae, Unitatis Redintegratio, Nostra Aetate, and Gaudium et Spes.
But the real origin of the doctrine of the Primacy of Conscience is with the Serpent in the Garden of Eden. The Serpent advised Eve that she was free to disobey the Commandments of God, and that if she and Adam did disobedy, then nothing bad would happen. The Serpent advised Eve that if they ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they would “be like God, knowing good and evil.”
The doctrine of the Primacy of Conscience, as taught by Francis, Kasper, and Cupich, attempts to make each person “like God, knowing good and evil,” i.e., deciding the moral law for themselves on an individual basis.
Penultimate Conclusion: The doctrine of the Primacy of Conscience is a Satanic doctrine. The Synod in its Final Relatio teaches a Satanic doctrine.
Ultimate Conclusion: “Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve.” (Luke 22:3)
“For example, Francis, Kasper, and Cupich aren’t saying that the commandment against suicide is wrong. They are just saying that if an individual in his or her particular circumstances decides that suicide is right for him or her, then neither the Church nor God can judge or punish him or her for committing suicide. Period. End of story.” Does this not then state that man is equal to God? Let’s poll every sinner out there – most of us would love to weasel our way out of the punishment and responsibility, would we not? Do Kasper and his posse believe that the Son of God suffered and died for our sins so that we continue on with business as usual? It is clear that they do.
“Satanic doctrine”. That it is. Along with:
1. Religious Liberty
2. False ecumenism
3. The Catholic Church merely “subsists” in the greater Church of Christ
4. The covenant with the Jews was not abrogated by Christ
5. The United Nations is the only earthly institution capable of bringing peace to the world.
6. Sins can be forgiven without true contrition or repentance
7. Hell may be empty and the doctrine of the existence of Purgatory silenced into non-existence
8. God is pleased by any kind of man-made worship
9. Sacred Scripture must be re-interpreted to fit the “evolution of man’s conscience”
10. The hierarchical structure of the Church was not instituted by Christ and therefore, can be changed.
11. Contradiction of doctrine is acceptable because what was true in one age isn’t necessarily true in another.
And many, many more.
But the eyes do not see and the ears do not hear.
By their fruits ye shall know them.
I am in sad agreement that this is only the beginning; we are seeing/feeling the first contractions of a full-blown schism being born. My charity is gone, it’s over. I will not pray for Bergoglio and his limp-wristed minions of perverted destruction; I will pray for their individual chastisements and their exit – by whatever cause or means – from Holy Mother Church as soon as Our Good Lord sees fit.
I just wanted to add, separately from my rant above, that this piece by Steve is uniformly superb. Not surprising because everything he writes is worthy of all serious Catholics’ careful consideration and contemplation and he is easily one of the best Catholic writers online today. I hope you keep gaining steam, Steve, and I also hope that you might consider writing a book someday.
Yeah, I’ve lost that lovin’ feelin after the Saturday scolding.
I am praying for an imminent retirement a la Benedict and the suppression of the Jesuits.
I hear ya…I am praying for conversion…but I will not pray for the Pope’s intentions. Sad to say, I do not trust him.
I really should retract my statement about not praying for the pope and some of the cardinals and bishops and what I said about them. I was in quite a stir when I wrote that and I’ve begun to regret it. It will come up in my next confession.
These are difficult times. God bless.
We are with you. I’d venture to guess many, if not most, of the regular readers of this site have struggled with the same issue, CR89. I know I have. I have re-worded again and again the part of my daily intentions that deals with the Pope and the bishops. Right now I’m using a compromise position of sorts–asking Our Lady to pray for the Pope’s intentions insofar as they are consistent with Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the historical Magisterium, and for his conversion of heart should any of his intentions not meet that standard. I do this because Our Lady instructed us to pray for the Pope and all priests in her apparition at Akita. Maybe she said that at Fatima, too; I forget.
But we are all feeling hurt and somewhat abandoned by our earthly shepherds right now, with a few notable exceptions such as Bishop Schneider, Abp. Cordileone, etc.
Pray, hope and don’t worry, said Padre Pio. I’m trying, really. St. Pio, ora pro nobis!
Great post, Frank. I’ve been doing the same thing with “compromising” my prayers during my Morning Offering, even after being told by my good priest friend/confessor during confession last week that the Holy Father and “the German cardinals” (as he worded it) need our prayers more than ever right now. He’s right and I should’ve known better than to type something so uncharitable. I’m going to delete it if I can.
A schism occurred 50 years ago when the hierarchy denied the entirety of the Deposit of Faith and created a new religion based upon Masonic/Modernist principles.
The primary dogmas of the so-called “conservative” movement (or really the anti-tradition movement) in the Church since Vatican II, formed and headed by Pope John Paul II “The Great” was never really the phony “pro-life” movement against the so-called “culture of death” (abortion, sodomy, etc.) although so many Catholics have fallen and still do fall for that bait “hook, line and sinker.” The “pro-life” vs. ” culture of death” conservative movement was just used as a smokescreen to distract while PJPII advanced his VII “conservative” dogmas of ecumenism, religious liberty, and collegiality. All the so-called “conservatives”, even Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius accept and promote these three modernist errors from VII. So since none of these three VII anti-traditional teachings were even up for discussion at the Synod because they are now pretty much considered Church dogma by everyone to begin with, especially “conservatives” (mostly thx to PJPII), I don’t see how the so-called “conservatives” have lost. In other words, the “liberal” bishops VS. “conservative” bishops mantra is a facade because when it comes to what matters the most, the “TRADITIONal” teachings of the Church, EVERYone of the Cardinals and Bishops ( yes, Burke and Athanasius also) are working against them and on the same side. Liberalism won this battle 50 years ago.
I remember you from Facebook/CMTV.
You were fighting for/defending Michael Voris……. hows that working out for ya?
By the mere fact that a debate was held questioning the Church teaching on these issues, the damage was done. Imagine if they held a Synod to discuss whether women should be allowed to be priests. What would this signify to the masses?
…..wait for it.
Yep.
In the conciliar church, women are priests. Aren’t they called “ministers” as in “extraordinary” and hand out the bread and wine which is solely the ordained priests duty? Don’t they stand up on the altar, which is where only the priest should stand, and read Sacred Scripture?
In fact, in the conciliar church, the “priest” is merely a “presider” over the gathering of the “people of God’ who come to share the memorial of the Lord’s Supper. Terms and practices in which Protestant’s are known for, not in the Catholic language.
This co-mingling of the laity with the priest was purposeful to get the people used to seeing women desecrate the Altar and perform the functions of the priest so that one day, they will be “installed” into the Protestantized Sacrament of Holy Orders designed in Vatican II. And in fact, the Novus Ordo is barely recognizable as a Sacrifice, which needs a priest, also purposefully designed to destroy the belief in the Real Presence and a need for a priest to confer the unbloody, perpetual Sacrifice of Christ.
That is another technique used to circumvent tradition. Manipulate perceptions. The world has vund another way to spread error.
An important point. But it isn’t just the world that has found a way to spread error. The heretics/apostate hierarchy learned that tool of subversion long ago.
In fact, I questioned the very premise they made that the divorced and remarried feel “unwelcomed” and “outsiders” by denying their partaking of the bread and wine because if I were a betting person, I bet very, very few of them are denied (in the conciliar church) the bread and wine by their pastors. I would also bet the known co-habitor’s also freely and without condemnation march with the crowd up to the table for the meal.
Agreed.
Best post I have ever read by Steve Skojec. Great job, brother. And, after having read many articles from “both sides of the aisle”, so to speak, I think Steve’s take on the Synod is the most accurate. The faithful Catholics, like Michael Voris, can claim that “Well, the liberals wanted more and didn’t get it, so we won”. But that is inverted logic, like a boxer who claims after the fight: “Hey, everybody said I was gonna get knocked out in the first round…well HA! I didn’t get knocked out till the sixth round. So I WIN!” It just doesn’t make any sense.
Here’s the line that sums up this Synod perfectly in my view:
“Like the Second Vatican Council, the synod achieved consensus through ambiguity. This means that they are leaving Pope Francis free to do whatever he thinks best.”
In the end, ambiguity favors not the faithful Catholic but the heterodox. And since the final document is quite ambiguous on the important questions, the heterodox can rightly claim a certain degree of success. And this begs the question of what will be Bergoglio’s final word on the Synod. Which will probably be even more in favor of all his “friends”, the heterodox prelates.
And this leads me to my final observation about Steve’s post here. I love the fact that Steve did not dance around the FACT that Pope Francis CLEARLY came out on the side of the heterodox prelates at this Synod. And also that Steve CLEARLY called out this pope for being a bad shepherd. A good shepherd DEFENDS his flock and doesn’t allow the wolves to enter in and attack the sheep. But Francis CLEARLY DID let the wolves in to ravage the sheep. And what Steve said about how we [faithful Catholics] are not going to forget how he abandoned us at this Synod and actively supported the heterodox bishops against us is EXACTLY RIGHT. I agree wholeheartedly. Pope Francis clearly CHOSE SIDES at this Synod and DECLARED WAR against faithful Catholics and their leaders. Anyone who fails to see this is blind to the truth.
Long and short of it: I agree wholeheartedly with Steve’s measured, though clearly angry tone here. Sometimes anger is a very good thing indeed. For example, when you are betrayed by someone who was supposed to be your strongest defense. Keep it up, Steve.
As someone else wrote today, we all sense that we’ve been at the dance too long. There’s no hiding it anymore.
And perhaps it’s high time to re-think the ambiguities of prior papacies as well…..
Just saw this over at Rorate. God help us all.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/10/repost-yes-i-know-bergoglio-hes-person.html?m=0#more
Superb article, Steve!!! So very glad I found you via St. Louis Catholic. Have been reading you every day since. Bravo! Although I’m not sure where that leaves us poor old trads in the pews. I take that back, not trads, but Faithful!
I think it leaves us right there, in the pews. We’re the luckiest bunch, really. We’ve already been immunized against papal positivism – it’s an essential first step when discovering tradition. We already have the best Mass we could ask for. We’re living the Catholic life and faith in the most authentic expression we can find. We also know better than most what the Church always taught.
In other words: we have what we need to hold fast.
I wish we all had reasonable access to the Mass of the Ages. Unfortunately it is not so. Please add a prayer or two to your intentions for the continued spread of the EF throughout the Church. Those of us who are effectively stuck with OF parishes can still hold fast, as you put it so well, but it’s a more difficult struggle.
The only person who won in this synod was Satan. Whenever shabby compromises are struck which cloud clear doctrine in ambiguity, it is always Satan who gains. The father of lies sees ambiguity as one of his main weapons in the destruction of truth.
Those who see this all as a political game between “right and left”, “conservative and liberal” don’t really have a clue about the real war that is going on around them. The “conservatives” who see this as a victory are just as responsible for secularising this conflict as the “liberals” are. No Catholic should rejoice when the clear teaching of Christ is defaced by compromise with evil. We should weep for the souls who will be lost because of this, and lament that our Pope and bishops think that they can mock God in this way without consequences.
It was about laying bare the closet hearts.
Chairman Mao, too, delighted in creating momentary false “openings” for regime opponents to speak out. When the list of names was long enough, he slammed the cell door shut hard, to put it mildly.
First the credulous echo among there terminally naïve was like that of the cry of oppressed Soviet to Comrade Stalin: “If he only knew what was going on, he’d put a stop to it.”
Now come Maoist tactics.
Or perhaps, as Argentinian “Francesco” skeptics have cautioned for some time now, Juan Peron is the relevant parallel to the current caudillismo* in much of the Church.
_____________
*From Sp. caudillo, “petty tyrant,” < L. capitellum, diminutive of caput, “head.” In Latin America caudillismo “has come to mean any highly personalistic and quasi-military regime whose party mechanisms, administrative procedures, and legislative functions are subject to the intimate and immediate control of a charismatic leader and his cadre of mediating officials” (Encyclopedia of Social Science, 1968).
At least 50 years after Vatican II the gig is finally up over Catholic craptastically ambiguous and vague language. It will still be used, but a growing number of souls understand that it means essentially nothing Gospel-fireldnly, ever. That is a big something after years of postconciliar fog.
Guys, I think it is best that we keep in mind that we never really could have expected a victory because we were putting up with mediocrity for quiet a long time now.
The problems we are facing today have deep roots in the past. Even the Bishops and Cardinals who were against changes or novelty in this synod are not unanimous about rejecting the roots of these evils. So I think a victory was never on the cards.
We are only buying ourselves more time at this point till the inevitable normalization of the next evil practice. There are no victories to be won because no one is really fighting a full scale battle at the top.
Superb Commentary. A very skillful way of saying…”Look Mom, the Pope has no clothes on”
Steve, you wrote “And with the pope in the corner of the revolutionaries, there are some tough questions that need asking. Since these things are above my pay grade, I’ll refrain from openly doing so here.” I know the answers to the tough questions maybe above your pay grade, but at least I would like to know what you have in mind in regards to what the tough questions are? For me, one of the tough questions is as follows: “If a faithful Catholic has become morally convinced that Pope Francis holds a heretical view on marriage and is trying to push it on the Church, what can he do besides praying for him?”
The kinds of questions Davies brings to light from Bellarmine and Suarez here: https://www.olrl.org/misc/sedevacant_md.shtml
I think that it’s still a theological stretch to prove manifest heresy. It’s more malicious neglect than positive error, and as far as I know, there’s no protection against that in the special graces granted to the papacy.
But there should be bishops meeting even now to figure out what to do about his complicity, and how to counteract it in the hearts and minds of the faithful. There should also be bishops, I think, considering breaking communion with other, heretical bishops, as was done in the early Church.
There’s all this sand and none of it has any lines in it.
The heresy question is one where I haven’t the competence to say anything of worth; I lack training in canon law. It’s a matter best left to others. But when it comes to seeing that a king has no clothes, I have two eyes like most people. Instead of a naked king, though, I see a pope with a lot of dubious friends; one who talks endlessly about mercy but bristles with anger at those who oppose him; one who allows photo ops with a sodomite former student and his partner, but shuns even the hint that he ever met with a conscientious clerk of court; one who has a penchant for giving sound bites that even he says might be interpreted as heresy, but who sedulously avoids offending non-Christian sensibilities by mentioning the name of Jesus; one who banishes Vatican cardinals who differ with his views; one who isn’t the least scandalized by blasphemous gifts; and one who never seems to miss an opportunity to prove to us all how simple his private life really is. As Holmes once told Watson, “Never trust to general impressions, my boy, but concentrate yourself upon details.”
Thanks Steve. Excellent summary. Ambiguity is the weapon of choice for those who bring us the spirit of Vatican II. Look around you and witness the fruits. The Pew research poll on Catholic beliefs dated 10-26-15. The Catholic Church should allow:
Use of birth control.—76%
Cohabiting couples to receive Communion—61%
Remarried without annulment to receive Communion—62%
Recognition of marriages of gay and lesbian couples—46%
So what have we got here: many so called Catholics who are effectively Protestants. So it is no surprise that the Pope and many Bishops wish to align the moral teachings of the Church with actual practice of the folks in the pews. And it is certainly no wonder that these moral matters are not talked about in Church as this would risk losing many of the folks sitting in the pews.
Conclusion: The Catholic Church has become a kind psychological therapeutic business that attempts to make folks feel good by letting them think whatever their consciences tell them is OK is OK. This is all done in the name of MERCY and PASTORAL CARE. The fact that all of this is in contradiction to the teachings of the Catholic Church’s founder is evidently a matter of little concern.
You display admirable self-control here. I think most of us who read at this site are distraught and on the verge of tears when we contemplate the devastation already visited on the Church and the prospect for much more of it with this pope. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not a bull in the proverbial china shop; he is rather an entire herd.
On the verge of tears? i think anger is the proper disposition. Remember St. Augustine tells us that Hope has two sisters: Anger and Courage.
It’s a natural reaction when one sees a train wreck.
But not so much when you find out the conductor ran the train off the tracks himself.
Not to be disputatious, but how does that make a difference? Just as many innocent people are casualties. Properly, the anger if there is any comes after mourning the loss.
Johnny, this happened 50 years ago or with the advent of Modernism in the late 19th century if you wish. Get over it. Forget the tears and get the spears or something on that order.
It’a good to see an honest evaluation of the Synod final report.
It is of course worth exploring what role the Jesuits had in the synod. Especially, consider the roles of the Jesuits Spadaro (the social media “cybertheologian”) and Lombardi at the synod. Antonio
Spadaro’s twitter feed displays his sentiments.
Isn’t it interesting that at least two attendees of the symposium (eve of the synod) held at Spadaro’s magazine also signed the letter of attack against Douthat of the New York Times, which is now receiving a lot of attention.
These people are, of course, all networked.
The letter attacking Douthat; “no professional qualifications” seems an adequate description of the large crowd of “theologians”, poorly formed in basic theology, who think they can change Church doctrine, and who merely want to impose on the Church their twisted interpretation of traditional Ignatian spirituality. Talk about hypocrisy–they allege political partisanship.
Remember also that the “shadow synod” that began meeting even before the Synod began on October 4th, which was working on the concluding positions of the Synod, was described by Marco Tosatti as being comprised principally of Jesuits and Argentinians.
We may be talking about the same symposium. Tosatti was hypothesizing that the
We might have in mind the same symposium. Tosatti wrote about the one at Spadaro’s magazine, which is the one I have in mind.
Steve, I know it can be confusing, but Fr. James Marten isn’t a heretic. He’s just a Jesuit.
Don’t know about you, but I was educated by the Jesuits for eight years, from ninth grade through earning an undergraduate degree in physics.
The inordinate and preening self-regard of, not all, but far too many members of the order was remarkable even in 1968, the year I graduated.
The first atheist I ever knew at all well was the Jesuit father (also homosexual in orientation, though as to practice, I shouldn’t guess) who taught me “symbolic logic,” the deliberate antithesis of the aristotelean logic deployed, for example by St. Thomas. How he hung on for decades teaching philosophy at a Catholic university used to be mystifying. That is less so now. He went to his reward, God bless him, a few years back, still a member of the Society.
I attribute the corruption of the order to the workings of ego on the soul. Since the Sixteenth Century, when they were very effectively and very specifically deployed by the Vatican against spreading Protestantism during the Counter-Reformation, the Jesuits were noted for two things: dedication to the papacy and superior intellectual preparation in service of the defense the Catholic Church. Alas, there’s no snake so insidious as the self-regard of one who prizes his reputation of being the brightest bulb in the candelabrum. All that discernment and intellectual fire power! Small wonder then that for centuries the pope’s confessor was Jesuit.
More than a few Jesuits I knew were dismissive of Franciscans as pious simpletons. Of course, when one is 20 years old and prone to team spirit, such disdain seems like a lot of fun. I should qualify these remarks by noting that the Jesuit fathers of my high school who were still the great majority of the faculty back then were notably different and, to the extent that one may judge such things, seemed to be faithful followers of St. Ignatius, God bless them. On balance, the university Jesuits were quite the other thing.
I attended graduate school at a private secular university. The difference between my old Jebby college and the secular college now seems to be purely nominal. What’s particularly scary is that when earnest young undergraduates from my old undergraduate college call me up two or three times a year soliciting donations and I tell them that I couldn’t possibly give the school a dime, they clearly have no idea what I am talking about after explaining why.
The false prophet continues his march towards the one world church. Once
Francis devolves “genuine doctrinal authority” as stated in Evangelii
Gaudium to episcopal conferences, also mentioned at his October 17
speech during the Synod, perhaps some Catholics will wake up. Then the
great schism occurs.
Anne Catherine Emmerich – April 22, 1823
“I saw that many pastors allowed themselves to be taken up with ideas that were dangerous to the Church. They were building a great, strange, and extravagant Church. Everyone was to be admitted in it in order to be united and have equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics sects of every description. Such was to be the new Church…But God had other designs…”
“I see that when the Second Coming of Christ approaches, a bad priest[Francis] will do much harm to the Church. When the time of the reign of Antichrist is near, a false religion will appear which will be opposed to the unity of God and His Church. This will cause the greatest schism the world has ever known. The nearer the time of the end, the more the darkness of Satan will spread on earth, the greater will be the number of the children of corruption,
and the number of the just will correspondingly diminish…”
The Roman Catholic Church was supposed to possess, safeguard, and pass on a Deposit of Faith that was not subject to negotiation or modification.
But now it is apparent that this is not so, at least not anymore.
So, what should our response to this be?
Should it be this: THIS MEANS WAR !!!!!
But why is carrying out an Internet-based insurgency the right response?
What would be wrong with drawing the logical conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church is not, and never was, what we thought?
When something happens that you thought could never happen, is it not perhaps most sensible just to accept that you were wrong in believing it could never happen?
I think we thought there was no other way to be a worshiper and servant of Almighty God except in the Roman Catholic Church. So, in fighting to restore the Roman Catholic Church to its normal, traditional role of safeguarding and passing on an unchangeable Deposit of Faith, we are, in essence, fighting to preserve our faith in God.
But is this struggle really necessary?
Aren’t there many millions of people who, with great peace of mind and integrity, know, worship and serve the Father, Son and Holy Spirit without any involvement with or even knowledge of the Roman Catholic Church?
Why spend so much of our time, mind and energy fighting a bunch of strange unmarried old men who are determined that the Roman Catholic Church shall be a clone of the Episcopal Church? Instead we could be spending all this time and energy on worshiping God, loving our family, reaching out to lost neighbors and prisoners, and so on.
What about that?
You are mistaken thinking that Rome is and always will be the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church will always exist as the only true Church of Christ. It has been driven out of Rome, lock, stock and barrel since Vatican II.
Comment thread bombers annoy me. Rabbit holes distract from productive discussions. Take it somewhere else, Rex.
You mean to tell me, Rex, that gang in Avignon is back in business!?!?! Damn, they’re a hard bunch to keep down! Must have something to do with those southern Rhone valley wines. And you say the Church has been out of Rome since Vatican II? That long?!?! I guess I’ll just have to start reading the papers again, maybe throw in some French press for a change.
Because, as bad as most of those strange, unmarried old men are, some others aren’t quite as bad and perhaps they can be swayed to the right side of history; and because this is the only Church that Christ left us, and it is the only thing standing between world domination by those who hate everything Christ Is.
Good point.
Dead-on article by Mr. Skojec.
I have only 2 words to add: Nostra Aetate.
I love this website and all of the fine commentary. It is truly inspirational. I think that we do have to get down to brass tacks. This all comes down to whether Kasper and Co. believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God; whether He suffered and died and rose from the dead to save us from sin. Based upon their actions and words that they either do not believe or they are suffering from amnesia because they spend so much of their time listening to themselves talk or deep in the affairs of administration that they have forgotten what Scripture says, let alone the Catechism. Steve, you are right: they are NOT Catholic, let alone Christian.
In my opinion, the words & deeds of Kasper & Co. indicate that they are standard Secular Progressive Humanists, right alone the lines of President Barack Obama and Senator Bernie Sanders.
I conclude that most likely somewhere along the line during their priesthoods, Kasper & Co. decided to reject supernatural faith in favor of the secular scientific worldview that is so popular among intellectuals in the West in our day and age.
But it was too late in life for them to go into a different career. So they did what others before them have done: They decided to bring the blessings of modern social progressivism to more people through the institution of the Roman Catholic Church. In their minds, they are the White Hats and the “fundamentalists” (that’s people like those who read and write on OnePeterFive) are the Black Hats.
But there’s more.
This didn’t start with Kasper & Co. in 2013 It started with Roncalli & Co. in 1958.
Well, all this is I suppose the standard view among Traditional Catholics.
The “rub” in all this is that Traditional Catholicism always assured us that the Holy Spirit would not let non-Catholics take over the Church and impose, in a decisive and authoritative way, non-Catholic doctrines on the faithful.
Isn’t there a terrible internal contradiction in what Traditional Catholic activists are doing? I really never see anyone address that.
If the Roman Catholic Church really was and is what we always thought it was, the horrors that have been happening in the hierarchy would not be happening–right? But they are happening. So isn’t there an inescapable logical conclusion that we must draw from all this?
Judas was present at the Last Supper and it was he who betrayed Jesus to the authorities. Christ, with His Almighty Power, could have prevented this, but did not. He went to His Passion and Death. There are some who like to reason that the original Judas didn’t understand what he was doing and feared for Jesus. That’s the modern version of his betrayal. It is clear that Judas rejected the adoration of Jesus by Mary when she poured all the precious gnard upon His Feet – hey, we could sell that and give it to the poor! Judas did not see Jesus as King and Savior. He somehow thought he knew better than the One who raised Lazarus from the dead, healed the sick and called Himself the Way, the Truth and the Life. And Christ Himself tells us that it would have been better for Judas had he never been born. Judas has never left the Church and we can see him working very actively and in much the same way as he did 2,000 years ago. Most importantly, after Jesus was handed over by one of his own apostles, Jesus’ triumphed over sin and death….Once again, He will prevail, but we, His Bride, must suffer as well. We have been told this by Jesus Himself and throughout the history of prophecy. The Final Battle is currently underway and we are the ones to fight it…we are all being tested by this. Let’s face it, we are like the apostles who fell asleep after the Last Supper meal. We have become “fat and lazy” on the largesse of receiving the Eucharist without going to Confession. We have become sleepy by living divided lives – going to Mass on Sunday and leaving our Catholicism there. We listen not to His Word spoken at Mass nor do we read our Bibles during the week. We say we are Catholic and yet do NOTHING about fighting abortion. Heck, we vote for pro-choice candidates. You see, we are all sinners and we all got ourselves into this situation… traditionalists and non-traditionalists. Yet, now the veil is being lifted here and we are being tested to see whether or not we believe….there are some who see that Jesus is Savior and there are some who feel that Man is fine just how he is. When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the earth? To me, the only conclusion to be drawn is that we all have a choice to make each and every moment. Scripture warns us to not put our trust in man, but in God alone. It is Jesus Who Promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church – not traditionalists. I am placing all I have on His Words.
Well said.
Judas was the KEEPER OF THE PURSE. It would appear, just my opinion of course, that he wasn’t really worrying about ‘the poor’ when he told Jesus he was upset about the ‘waste’ of the oil.
Judas was likely concerned about man in much the same way as is the clergy of which we discuss here, forgetting, or if you like, forsaking the Divine. Those who are “keepers of the purse” look to mankind to solve man’s problems. The meaning of life is what one can get from it, what one can achieve. We see this present in this march towards profanation of the Sacrament of Holy Communion. The Eucharist is seen as a commodity, something to be gained. Remember, this is what happened after Jesus had felt the thousands. They chased Him down because they wanted more food, more goods, more earthly security. He was nothing but a commodity. Sadly, this continues. The following is taken from a homily given by Pope Benedict XVI on August 26, 2012 about Judas and the Bread of Life. I think you will find very fascinating parallels between Judas and some today: “Finally, Jesus knew that among the Twelve Apostles there was also one who did not believe: Judas. Judas could have gone away too, as did many of the disciples; indeed, perhaps if he had been honest he would have been bound to leave. Instead he stayed on with Jesus. He did not stay out of faith or out of love, but rather with the secret intention of taking revenge on the Teacher. Why? Because Judas felt let down by Jesus and decided that he, in his turn, would betray Jesus. Judas was a zealot and he wanted a victorious Messiah who would lead a revolt against the Romans. Jesus had not measured up to these expectations. The problem was that Judas did not go away and his greatest sin was his deceitfulness, which is the mark of the Devil. For this reason Jesus said to the Twelve: “One of you is a devil” (Jn 6:70).
Yes, Judas did not ‘go away’. He stayed ‘in the fold’ because he wanted a rabbinical king and kingdom of this world; and if he couldn’t have that, he wanted no part of Jesus’ words of faith, hope, peace, love and charity.
None of that has changed.
What has changed, in the last few centuries, it appears to me, is the will of Christians to recognize the traitors in their midst and actually do something about it. Instead, we endlessly talk about the woeful situation and very little, of a concrete nature, is done to advance the Kingship of Christ, rather than the hegemony of the Church’s enemy.
It would be an uphill battle for anyone of the bishops to stand up and be counted, but if they, who are charged with protecting Jesus’ flock don’t do it, who will be martyred instead?
Well, staying with our analogy to the Passion and Judas’ role, we must now look at Jesus and what He did. He allowed the betrayal to take place. When Peter raised the sword to fight, Jesus admonished Peter and healed Malchus’ ear. As our Lord’s suffering and humiliation intensified, it revealed the hearts of the crowd and all of his followers – the apostles – fled, except His Mother, John and Magdalene. Peter, the Rock, denied Jesus at His darkest hour. Yet, He forgave Peter, He forgave all of us from His Cross. The Son of Man was lifted on the Cross to draw all men to Himself. Peter repented; Judas hung himself. Many were saved that day and many were lost. Yet, the victory was won. The Bride of Christ can expect nothing different here than to suffer like the Head of the Church and the greatest harm is coming from within, just as Jesus was betrayed by His own – fellow Jews and those whom He had chosen. I do believe that we are living this event all over again and the hearts of men are being revealed. As Steve as pointed out, we can’t fool ourselves anymore. There is true rebellion in the Church and as the pressure mounts from within and without, we will all have to discern and choose. As Jesus prayed for his persecutors, we must pray for those who are clearly bringing shame and confusion upon the Church. Another reader commented that he believes that there will have to be a supernatural intervention to “fix” this. I agree. But it will likely get much uglier before that happens because too many of us are asleep and we need to be shaken…..
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve written. I do take issue with the only thing that can fix this is ‘supernatural intervention’. God expects those who love Him to help themselves, and those whom they love, as well.
Sure, could God bring on a chastisement right now? Of course, He could. But will He? And while we’re waiting, what should be done, besides praying?
Just last night, I asked the good Monsignor what I should do and he told me to go back to the basics: prayer, penance, fasting and almsgiving. I would add, daily Mass (if possible), Confession often, the corporal and spiritual acts of mercy and some will be called to heroic acts of virtue. Our Lady has told us these very things at Fatima, La Salette and Akita. Historically, I have not paid a lot of attention to the apparitions; however, in recent years I have been listening more and this is precisely what the Blessed Mother has been saying. Our battle is not with flesh, but with principalities and powers. Therefore, a supernatural – rather, Divine – intervention is needed, but it may not be a chastisement. There is lots of prophecy which can be quite confusing. I think the Monsignor is right…or at least, it is a start. You and I may each then be called to do “more.” Only God knows.
You give these prelates altogether too much leeway. The ‘rub’ is that assurances are great if they are provable. I don’t think Tradition ever taught that the seminaries would be impregnable to the Church’s enemies.
They haven’t ‘forgotten’.
The danger over time is a further weakening of Catholic Doctrine (who cares what the official teaching is when everyone including the Pope ignores it), and the trend of making the Church even more irrelevant to the culture at large.
That is the goal. To make the Church irrelevant. The goal of the Freemasons/Modernists and their revolutionary brothers in the political, social, educational, and world institutions, is to create an “universal worship of man”, with no dogmas, no morals, nothing that restrains the passions of man. Get rid of God by destroying the Catholic Church, the only earthly institution that has stood in their way.
What the Traditional Catholic movement needs: A theologically precise, complete, and credible explanation of what is going on in the Church these days.
For example, are many of the hierarchy no longer holders of the Catholic Faith? If they are not, are they still members of the hierarchy and of the Church?
I don’t understand why the really skilled theologians, at places like Franciscan University of Steubenville, remain silent on these vital questions.
You wrote: “I don’t understand why the really skilled theologians, at places like Franciscan University of Steubenville, remain silent on these vital questions.”
Possible answers:
a) they are tepid and don’t care enough to speak up.
b) they are cowards and don’t care enough to speak up.
c) they are complicit and have no intention of speaking up.
Well, there’s this: https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/1p5-podcast-episode-22-dr-michael-sirilla-on-the-kasper-proposal/
But you need to remember, these theologians at the good schools have to take an oath of fidelity to the Magisterium. This is a double-edged sword. While it’s supposed to ensure those attending the school of their orthodoxy, if the bishop sees them as being critical of the pope or the bishops, they can say it’s a violation of the oath, and take their mandatum to teach.
Without the mandatum, these guys are going to be working at Dairy Queen, not forming hearts and minds of the next generation of Catholics.
I’ve talked to professors at several Catholic colleges who see more than they can say. I have repeatedly insisted that they let people like me take the heat (I can’t be fired) while they do the absolutely essential work of teaching their students about the Church’s traditions – something that was hidden from me during my own studies in theology. I had to find out all this stuff on my own time.
Think of it: an entire class full of students being assigned Pascendi, or the Ottaviani Intervention, or the Syllabus of Errors. This wasn’t happening before. If it can happen now, they won’t have to have their eyes opened ten years down the road. They’ll leave school knowing what they’re up against.
I guess after Vatican III, Francis needs to make his report to Ronald Lauder and David de Rothschild (the usurer par excellence) and enjoy a little back slapping for the 50th anniversary of “the landmark declaration Nostra Aetate”.
http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/world-jewish-congress-leaders-to-gather-in-rome-meet-with-pope-francis-10-5-2015
https://www.rothschild.com/flippingbooks/RothschildandCOReportUK/index.html#70
How about calling them Neo-Catholics?
“The people who want to change it (orthodox Church teaching) should be called something else. I’m not sure what, exactly.”
Suggestion that I’ve heard from a couple of people: Neo-Catholics. As opposed to faithful Catholics, aka just plain Catholics.
If you like Neo-Catholics as a term for “liberal Catholics” who want to change orthodox Church teaching, do use it in your own comments.