I wonder how many Catholic homosexuals actually support the sexual teachings of the Church but fear publicly stating so? I think which bathroom someone uses is an issue of modesty, safety and civil law, not necessarily a Catholic issue. But marriage as a part of natural law is a religious issue in general and a Catholic one in particular when it comes to the sacrament.
This brings me to Michael Voris, himself a person with strong same sex attractions, who uses vitriol against anyone in the Church who tries to treat homosexuals as one would treat any sinner. I suspect as a homosexual Michael Voris today not only believes what the Church teaches about sex and marriage but that he upholds it but in doing so shows vitriol to those who don't especially those in the Church who seem nonchalant in upholding these teachings.
Why is this? As with all sin, there is a possibility for one who despises his sin to backslide if encouraged to do so by those who are wishy-washy about moral law or relativistic. A homosexual or heterosexual doesn't need to much convincing to backslide given the nature of sexual temptations today.
This brings us to Pope Francis. Many ultra conservatives and fundamentalists in the Church perceive him as having given into the dictatorship of relativism. If one can approve of heterosexuals receiving Holy Communion under some circumstances despite their living in what is called a public adulterous union according to Church judgement (and even this evaluation is now nixed by the pope) although recognized by the state as a marriage, then anyone can do any kind of sexual activity, especially privately if it is okay to commit adultery publicly and receive Holy Communion.
If one has spent a lot of personal energy on avoiding homosexual sex or any kind of fornication or adultery, that person would feel betrayed by the pope or the Church when either seem to condone a lifestyle that was previously clearly and explicitly condemned by Holy Mother Church.
When, though, does righteous anger cross the line and become mortal sin itself? Is one's righteous living standing on such thin ice that any perception of condoning the sin one has tried so hard to avoid could cause one's sexual morality to collapse like a house of cards?
33 comments:
Fr. McDonald, somehow I don't think you have correctly discerned MV's motives, intentions and have been two quick to label his hard line as vitriol. It goes back to my concern about talking about hell and the real genuine concern some, like MV, have about souls heading there. The incredible soft-peddling of this issue of hell has led the Church to avoid discussion of it almost entirely, as if either it is an embarrassment to modern sensibilities or that it is a simply wrongheaded doctrine, a holdover from less enlightened days-- something fundamentalists hold onto due to some defect in charity. You forget that for the longest time MV defended the pope when others were out for blood. But he had strong words for Cd. Dolan and others for their failures as shepherds. I think you are confusing MV's earnest belief, and he is not the first to hold this , that some prelates are on a path to hell, with hatred bordering on mortal sin itself, if I read you correctly. I see in this a possible grave misunderstanding. Where am I wrong in this assessment? Thanks in advance, Dan
Again Father I have to say what are you talking about?
Many have grown to hate yes hate Francis because over the past three years he has persisted in causing chaos and confusion.
He refuses the kneel before the Blessed Savrament but crawls on the floor before pagans.
He appears before Congress while the whole Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts issue is raging and is silent ( he might have changed millions about abortion in this country there and then if he tried) but he shouts from the rooftops about climate change even writing an encyclical and showing a scandalous light show on the facade of St Peter's.
He judges and accuses anyone who actually believes in the Catholic Faith as a Pharissie. He atomatically assumes that we are cold hearted, evil and beyond redemption. Yet he never met a communist dictator who he didn't like.
He never saw a statue that he didn't kiss yet he tells Protestants and practicing adulterers it's okay to go to communion.
The list of scandal is endless. And that latest letter of his AL is purposefully written so as to allow and promote immorality and sacraligeous behaviour.
Francis may be laughing now but one day he will die, he will be judged. Some day another pope will be elected who will stop the nonsense. I wouldn't be surprised to live to see him declared a heretic and his "papacy" invalid.
Then MV and you should be as vocal and vitriolic against those who hate Pope Francis and publicly for it is a mortal sin like wearing active homosexuality as a matter of pride!
Father, one word will cover the whole Francis angle from the faithful Catholic point of view (i.e. those who truly love Sacred Tradition, our living faith), and that word is: Modernism.
However, as Dan (above) points out better than I could, I believe there is a great deal of (self-inflicted) misunderstanding of Michael Voris' stand on the infiltration of the Gay (political) Agenda into the life of the Church; here he speaks from personal experience, not theory - that is, rather often subjectively rather than objectively (just think of the ex-Catholic Protestant preacher or the ex-smoker health instructor etc .. as opposed to the ex-Protestant Catholic speaker or the ex-thief Youth Worker). It is this destructive agenda, not simply the acts that cry out to heaven for vengeance, that prompts much in the Voris' campaign; sadly, as seen all too clearly with many clerical abuses, the two often combine to make a poisonous mix.
For Voris', if I understand the man and his mission, it is necessary penitence, personal reform, the Sacrament of Confession, a firm purpose of amendment, and engaging with a life called to sanctity .. or at least sanity .. that fires his fiery outbursts - declaiming as one who knows from his own experience not simply pontificating in learned condemnations (these days both are also known as 'judgement', chiefly in Modernist error).
Father just who are you to say anyone is in mortal sin. You better listen to what the humblest pope ever has to say. Who are you to judge. How dare you sit on the throne of Moses and judge others. You self absorbed promethean neopelagian.
"Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal." Amoria Laetitia #303
Of course what Francis has written contradicts 2000 years of Catholc teaching but you Father are defending him so you will reap hat you sow. Keep on dancing merrily along that wide path to perdition. You need to be teaching the Catholic Faith and if you are silent in the face of a pope of a bishop teaching anything contrary to the Faith you are complicit in their sin.
The one word "Modernism" is useless unless defined - carefully defined. And, in doing so, it is essential to recall that "Modernism" and "modernity" are not the same thing.
Speaking of someone having "an agenda" is useless unless one provides factual evidence of the agenda. "I don't like the way he/she said that" is not evidence of a destructive agenda.
The fact is, everyone has an agenda. We all have personal perspectives and communally shaped views that direct our thoughts, words, and actions.
Faithful Catholics have a variety of agendas and a variety of perspectives, and that is not a bad thing. There is one Truth, but, as history shows, there is an amalgam of ways in which one can teach, believe, and live that Truth.
A technical question re Fr. McDonald's use of the term "backsliding." I've never thought of this term in a Catholic context. It has always had a fundamentalist Protestant ring to it, at least for me, although Protestants seem to mean different things by it. Either they mean someone who falls back into a life of habitual sin through loss of faith (would this simply be what the Church calls apostasy, perhaps material as opposed to formal apostasy?), or else it means sinning after "getting saved" (which the Church would simply call sinning, specifically post-baptismal actual sin).
More on point: 1) Does hell exist? 2) If so, is there a reasonable possibility of the average person going there? 3) If so, is the Church's infrequent reference to this, perhaps in order to avoid seeming harsh to modern ears, really false charity? 4) And given the Church's general general reticence, is the internal forum adequate safeguard against the danger?
I think we would all agree that the Church, or at least certain members of it, have in the past likely been too harsh in speaking of the dangers of hell. But isn't a corollary that if the Church can be too harsh, she can also be too lax?
Many saints tell us that the majority of people go to hell. In fact, they tell us that few are saved.
Our Lady of Fatima showed the children hell filled with souls. She said many people in our times would go to hell due to sins of the flesh. Many saints said the same thing.
Well, I can say that I have spoken to at least one priest who is not a traditionalist about the exhortation. He is very worried about it and when I mentioned what Cardinal Burke said he reiterated what many are say that, "The problem is that there is going to be an attempt to push this on the whole Church". I said to him but good priests will resist. His answer, "I am not so sure", referring to the fact that they may well be instructed by their bishop to give communion to the divorced and remarried. He thinks Pope Francis has, "Lost his way". Now this is not in any way a traditionalist and I am sure many other priests who offer the Novus Ordo hold the same opinion.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider has commented:
"Bishop Schneider lays out the consequences for the faith of admitting the seeming logical interpretations of AL which run contrary to the established tradition of the Church.
One would have to accept, with an honest understanding and on the basis of the principle of non-contradiction, the following logical conclusions:
The divine Sixth Commandment which prohibits every sexual act outside of a valid marriage, would no longer be universally valid if exceptions were to be admitted…
The divine word of Christ: "That man not separate what God has united » (Mt. 19:6), would, therefore no longer be always valid and for all married couples without exception.
It would be possible in a particular case to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Communion with the intention of continuing to directly violate the Divine commandments: "Thou shalt not commit adultery » (Exodus 20:14) and « That man not separate what God has united" (Mt. 19:6; Genesis 2:24).
The prelate addresses these grave words of warning to all priests and bishops that would dare to administer Holy Communion to divorced and remarried Catholics using AL as an excuse:Today, some priests and bishops, basing themselves on some affirmations of AL, are beginning to make the divorced and remarried understand that their condition is not equivalent to the state of an objective public sinner. These tranquilize them by saying that their sexual acts do not constitute a grave sin. Such a mindset does not correspond to the truth. These deprive the divorced and remarried of the possibility of a radical conversion to obedience to the Will of God, by leaving these souls in a deceit. Such a pastoral mindset is very easy, in the open market, it costs nothing.
In admitting, even in only exceptional cases, the ‘divorced and remarried’ to Holy Communion without asking them to cease to practice the acts contrary to the Sixth Commandment of God, by declaring presumptuously, moreover, that their acts are not grave sin, one chooses the easy road, one avoids the scandal of the Cross. Such a pastoral practice for the ‘divorced and remarried’ is an ephemeral and deceitful pastoral practice. To all who pedal such an easy path at a cheap price to the ‘divorced and remarried’, Jesus turns, even today, with these words: “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a scandal to me, because you think not according to God, but according to men! Then Jesus said to His disciples: "If any wills to follow Me, let him renounce himself, take up his cross and follow Me." (Mt. 16:23-25)"
I certainly don't think Mons Schneider is a rabid, over the top traditionalist but he is being faithful to the truth and exhorting all priests and the laity to do the same.
#303 simply says that we are weak due to concupiscence, that God recognizes this weakness, and that, while for now, we have failed to be holy, grace can - and does - move us toward the objective ideal.
Nothing here "contradicts 2000 years of Catholic teaching."
It is simple, we should not be having to discuss any of this if the Church were not in some kind of crisis.
I think ragging on traditional Catholics for their views on Santita is getting old and tiresome. Your efforts would be better spent trying to convert fake "catholics" like Nancy Pelosi who use the Church as a political prop.
Voris displays the practical approach of an addict resisting his desires. Pope Francis seems to flirt, dangerously, with a tolerance that looks like permissiveness. I can see that he is not being permissive, but I do think he may be applying too soft a hand in the name of compassion. The Traditionalist sees this and that the irrational sinner, e.g. Voris, must have an energetic rejection and it must be supported by his associates. Pope Francis clearly does not condone the sin, but seems to ignore caution and human nature. Quite frankly (that was not an intentional pun) "Who am I to judge?" is often said in resignation or as a polite version of "I don't care."
But everyone does care and his casual pop pastoring feeds the addicts and frustrates those of us trying to help them. It is unintentional, but is a factor nonetheless. I thought that despite this situation that him giving hope to the commited sinner and drawing them to the Church would be a good thing. But I am afraid they would have been drawn for the wrong reasons and when Pope Francis is gone they will leave out of disillusionment; we will have gained nothing or even Irretrievably lost the dialogue with the sinner. This can, of course, be said about some Liturgical Trads as this blog often points out. But it also shows the value of the traditional approach where the priest lets the liturgy set the stage for most communication.
The suggestion that receiving the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin will impart grace and not condemnation contradicts 2,000 years of Catholic teaching. Receiving the Eucharist while not in the state of grace does not move us toward an objective ideal since it brings with it the additional grave sin of sacrilege, as St. Paul taught.
Fr. K, While I was the first on this site (of the peanut gallery of lay guests) to praise the Pope's exhortation, I do recognize that there are densely written paragraphs that lend themselves to equivocal interpretation. 303 is one of them which, if taken alone out of the context of the preceding 290 paragraphs can indeed give a modernist "liberal progressive" theologian, pastor, or pundit, the idea that the Pope is saying that God positively is OK with adultery so long as someone "is trying".
That's how it could read since there's no concrete example given. So Bob and Sue get married and their marriage is valid. 10 years later after 3 children and a bout of depression, Sue has gained weight and become a bit of a shrew. But they're validly married. Bob meets some smoking hot young woman who rings all his bells and he divorces Sue - abandoning her and the children and takes up with a new woman. They marry civilly and begin a family almost immediately.
Now Bob is an 'occasional Catholic'. When his second family's first born, a son gets to be about 8 it's time for first communion. Then AL comes out and Bob - as a typical nominal Catholic - gets all his news about the faith from secular sources, hears that divorced and remarried people can receive communion because, "Francis is merciful unlike the mean-old Pharisaical dour, sourpusses of the old regime who were cruel for the hell of it". He's none the wiser so without asking he starts going to communion again. He is a happily married man and father of a son who hopes to have first communion.
Now...suppose Bob somehow discovers that his first marriage is valid and consequently his second marriage is objectively a sin of adultery against his first (and real) wife? Does he continue to have sex with this second wife - thinking thanks to paragraph 303 that God would want him to since to cease being 'husband and wife' (which he already did with the first wife) is somehow worse than the first divorce?
He's already broken his one and only covenant so how could ceasing to commit adultery with his new girlfriend possibly be construed as a 'sin' against his common law wife? Before God, she's committing fornication and he's committing adultery.
If he decides he can't leave her for the sake of his son (heck, he was OK with leaving his first wife and children) doesn't this mean he has become his own ground of morality?
Cynically, wouldn't the above situation militate FOR the abandonment of evangelization on the theory that "what he doesn't know, won't hurt him'? That ignorance alone is keeping him from a conflict with his conscience and God's law? Isn't that what undergirds much of the wholesale abandonment of moral teaching in the Church since 1968?
When the secular world and half the Catholic world is shouting about how divorce and remarriage is OK now, thanks to the merciful Pope Francis, what's the chances that he'd conclude that Christian discipleship demands he either divorce his 2nd wife and return to his first and only valid sacramental union...or refrain from further acts of adultery and commit to a life of celibacy "for the kingdom of heaven"?
If the sacrament of marriage is violable like this, aren't we saying that Jesus was wrong? Doesn't that explode the entire Gospel?
There have been crises in the Church from the beginning.
Judaizers in the Church (1st century), non-Chalcedonian Christians (5th century), Avignon Papacy 14th century, etc etc etc.
We are hardly in any crisis now
Thomas McDonald wrote in the NCRegister in 2015: "The point here isn’t just to say things were worse once (cold comfort) or to look at the origin of the issue (useful as that may be), but to put things in their proper perspective and to give Catholics a better way to sort reasonable concern from mere hysteria. Those saying that this is the worst crisis the Church has ever faced, or that we are in uniquely dangerous times, are simply wrong. They’re scaring people needlessly. It’s creating anxiety and tension in a world that already has too much of both things.
Relax. The Church has been through worse."
He continued, "The Church is always in some form of turmoil or another; sometimes great, sometimes minor. Powerful people may try to drive us to the very edge of schism. The faithful will continue to be confused. It was ever thus, from the first day James and John argued about who got to sit in the places of privilege. We were given a divine institution, and we handled it with our usual mix of glory and corruption."
Father, the Church Militant FB page said Michael Voris no longer suffers from same sex attraction. Just FYI. You may want to amend your original post. :)
'The one word "Modernism" is useless unless defined - carefully defined. And, in doing so, it is essential to recall that "Modernism" and "modernity" are not the same thing.'
That can be true, if the two (or more) involved in the discussion do not have a common definition (and one that is authoritatively defined by a common teaching authority); again one word might serve for the whole show: confusion.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html
'This becomes still clearer to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In the writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful. But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist.'
Our beloved and truly well beloved Pope Francis (as a dear relative of mine used to say) fits the bill admirably. The fact that at least two major exegetical industries have sprung up around one footnote in a massive tome (part of a 'papal' understanding or explication to condense a synod's acts to its most clear and useful application) should tell us all we desire to know. But if it does not do that, the fact that further 'clarification' adds only to the murk, and a subsequent deepening of the surrounding industrial smog, must alert us once more to look to Sacred Tradition - in particular our history - to understand this type of sowing confusion (as a means of applying terms - to get what we want - or 'explaining' them away - to prevent others from appealing to shared doctrine and truth).
'Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.' Pius IX, Qui pluribus.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/i-believe-love-francis-launches-first-video-prayer-message
'"Many think differently, feel differently, seeking God or meeting God in different ways," states Francis. "In this multitude, in this range of religions, there is only one certainty we have for all: We are all children of God."'
We are all God's creatures, that is true, but clearly not all beliefs are those of God's children; how we discuss this certainly with other believers certainly matters, not least in requiring prayer, but fudging it over with a simplistic we-are-all-basically-the-same schmaltz does our interlocutors no good whatever; some share more with Catholicism, some less, some share nothing whatever with us (whether this suits the current papal policy and intention or not).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8IxlMaSEEE
On the 'agenda' issue, the reality speaks for itself:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-carpenter/the-real-gay-agenda_b_4219250.html
'The LGBT community must recognize that most of the battles that lie ahead in the fight for equality will be waged over the issue of “religious liberty.”'
A long post, for which I apologise, but I hope it helps .. somewhat.
There appears to be a tendency in this blog to condemn as a mortal sinner anyone you disagree with. Is this morally different from condemning anyone you disagree with as a heretic?
I think, we can understand Pope Francis better once we realized that he takes liberal political issues and turns them into theology, and takes orthodox Catholic doctrines and turns them into liberal political issues. Class warfare for him is doing the Lord's work, finessing Catholic doctrine as a good liberal politician he makes sure all receive at the communion line even if they fail to live Catholic Christian lives.
Pope Francis follows Saul Alinsky's advice for revolution: keep the class-warfare front and center. In secular sphere there are more poor people than rich, in the Church there are more doubters than pious people. It work very well.
However, the new teachings proclaimed sound as attacks on 2000 years old teachings for which many of the Saints died. And we still ask why are the faithful to those teachings so upset, even speak boldly to power? It it is bound to come out that way. The Holy Father knows this and he will keep on doing it as long as it works.
Hate? Seriously?
Father, many of us profoundly disagree with Pope Francis. Many of us hate to see some of the things he is doing and hate to read some of the things he has said. But hatred of the pope?
I HATE to draw this parallel, but it certainly applies here: Militant homosexuals insist that even the mildest disapproval of homosexuality or refusal to acknowledge that their "lifestyle" is as valid or moral as anyone else's is HATE. They have co-opted and overused that word to the point of nausea.
I think you are doing the same thing. I'm not please with Pope Francis, I'm not slobbering all over his continual media presence, but I certainly don't hate him. Heck, I PRAY for him every day.
Hate? Seriously? Really?
All due respect Father, grow up.
"All due respect Father, grow up."
Is an ad hominem approach to all those of a different opinion typical of a great many priests--both good and not so good ones--of a certain liberal-seminary generation? A generation that in some ways seems never to have grown up.
Incidentally, a nice Vortex today on Loving the Church:
http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/loving-the-church
"To love Her is to proclaim Her splendor."
I can understand why Fr McD gets upset when he hears this Francis-bashing...it does get too personal sometimes.
To me--and I speak as a layman; I couldn't get away with saying this if I was a parish priest--the problem is not this particular pope but what we've let the papacy become.
We've had some pretty horrendous popes in centuries past, and while that wasn't ideal, it didn't matter that much because the notion that the pope was some sort of CEO of the church, and an infallible one at that, hadn't been invented yet.
We can't undo the excesses of Vatican II unless we undo the excesses of Vatican I. And only then can unity with other Christian bodies be seriously considered.
"I can understand why Fr McD gets upset when he hears this Francis-bashing"
This rather agitated post of Fr. McD's starts out being about Michael Voris. However, in viewing many if not most of MV's Vortex posts, I don't recall having seen a single sentence that anyone could characterize as Francis-bashing.
If there's another prominent orthodox blogster who's distinctly more consistently and staunchly respectful of Pope and Papacy than is Michael Voris, I'd like to know who he might be.
I agree with you Anonymous @1:21, EXCEPT to tell Fr. to 'grow up'? Hmm...a little overboard and snarky. BUT, with the rest of your post, I do whole heartedly agree.
There is a DISTINCTION between being upset at what is coming from this Pope, and HATING HIM! Of course there are some I know that may actually feel like they 'hate' this Pope, but I really don't think, being Catholic people that many Catholics who are even angry at what he is doing actually HATE this guy. People that are upset about his 'irregular' Catholic statements and actions don't come close to 'hating' him. I like many many others, pray for him daily in my Rosary, but at the same time, pray that he actually professes the true Catholic faith, something he has not been doing for the past three years. In this world of confusion, we need CLARITY coming from the Vicar of Christ, something we don't have. Confusion does not come from God, but from Satan. His very favorite color is GREY.
Even though, as some would claim AL to be 'technically' in line with 2,000 years of tradition, it leaves the door wide open for the abuse of Doctrine, and leading souls in the very wrong direction. What I see in AL, and I have read it, is contradiction. He upholds Doctrine, just to turn around and contradict Doctrine. Heck, Cardinal Kasper is ecstatic, and says that the Pope's Exhortation, 'changes everything'. And, he is relinquishing the authority of the Papacy to make 'pastoral decisions' as to who will be allowed to receive Communion? Leaving the decisions up to individual diocese? What happened to 'Universal'? So....in Germany, almost anything goes, but in Poland, they are standing by tradition. It's a nightmare. No, I don't like what this Pope is doing, and yes, sometimes I get angry because what he is doing is leading Catholic souls in the wrong direction, and causing mass confusion. There is such a thing as 'righteous anger', even Jesus displayed 'righteous anger'. But really HATE is for the most part VERY INAPPROPRIATE to be accusing people of and painting with such a 'broad brush'.
Michael Voris is a layman entitled to his opinions. Personally, I don't like his manner of presentation, so I don't watch his videos. I don't understand why others who dislike his videos continue to view them. Since I am neither Voris' confessor nor his psychologist, I will not attempt to analyse him, especially not on a blog.
I believe unrepentant sodomizers will go to Hell, which saddens me, but as long as they don't stare at me or touch me, I have no problem with them.
Anonymous at 4.15 is absolutely correct. Michael Voris is never critical of the Pope. In fact there is a note on Church Militant to the effect that they will not criticise the Pope.
Michael Voris has however been critical of the SSPX and Bishop Schneider responded to one such post with clarifications. I think No. 9 is important for us all:
"
Dear Michael Voris, here are some clarifications about the issue of the SSPX:
1. I have not said that there are no reasons which would hinder a canonical recognition of the SSPX, but I said more cautiously "To my knowledge there are no weighty reasons".
2. I have not said that the current canonical situation of the SSPX is OK. The contrary, because of the their uncanonical status it is necessary that they receive the recognition from the Holy See.
3. I said that the SSPX should be received as they are, meanwhile. My thought is this: for pedagogical and pastoral reasons they should be meanwhile accepted as they are, in order to correct by time those things which have to be corrected in the SSPX.
4. I never said, that I support the positions of the SSPX about Vatican II. I only said, that there is on both sides, i.e. the Holy See and the SPPX an over-evaluation and overestimation of Vatican II, yet on opposing points of views. The question is the right measure, i.e. we must have an estimation and a good evaluation of Vatican II, but not in an exaggerated manner. We have not to make Vatican II a Council isolated from all the previous Councils or a kind of super-Council.
5. This is the tragedy of the history, that in confused times as this is our time, the good forces in the Church, which want to restore the true faith and Divine worship often fight one against the other, to the detriment of the true renewal and to the joy of the enemies outside and inside the Church.
6. Of course, the SPPX has to make their critics with more respect towards the supreme authority of the Church and has to avoid incorrect and exaggerated expressions and judgements. One has to act with the principle "veritatem facientes in caritate" (to defend the truth with love). This I often told to the representatives of the SSPX.
7. One has to have enough intellectual honesty and objectivity as to admit that the SSPX makes some theological criticism of some not strictly dogmatic affirmations in the texts of Vatican II and of some postconciliar documents, which have to be taken seriously. Unfortunately their criticism lacks sometimes the due respectful form. Nevertheless, some theological objections of the SSPX can be a constructive contribution for a more mature theological explication of certain themes, as for example the collegiality, religious liberty, the liturgical reform
8. Each true catholic should only be glad and thank God, when the SSPX with all their priests and Catholic families, from which the majority are faithful Catholics, would be recognized by the Holy See, so that there would be a new considerable force for a renewal of the Church according to the mind of the Saints, of our forefathers and of the true intention of Pope John XXIII, the intention which is demonstrated in his speeches and especially in the document drafts (schemata) which this Pope ordered to prepare and which he personally approved.
9. The current situation of the Church is similar to that of the Arian Crisis in the 4th century: there is a naval battle in the night, where the enemies of the Church attack vehemently the big ship of the Church, whereas in the same time little ships of several true Catholic groups attacks one another, instead of make a common defense against the enemies.
I give you the permission to use these my clarifications and to spread them. God bless you, + Athanasius Schneider"
OK--I regret telling father McD to "grow up" and that was rather snarky. But I stand by my statements that this business of accusing everyone who has reservations or disagreements as "haters" is getting old. Real old. Growing whiskers.
Sorry father.
Blogger Marc said...
Many saints tell us that the majority of people go to hell. In fact, they tell us that few are saved. Our Lady of Fatima showed the children hell filled with souls. She said many people in our times would go to hell due to sins of the flesh. Many saints said the same thing.
Sister Lucia dos Santos, in her memoirs, stated that her cousin Jacinta made the following statement: "[I am thinking] about the war which will come (WWII). So many people will die, and almost all of them will go to hell!"
Very sobering indeed. Very, very sobering.
DJR
Anyone who opposes this Pope based on AL is a heretic according to 2352 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
http://www.kotipetripaavola.com/catholicchurchandeuropeanunion4.html
Huge European hoax and deception.
anonymous that site is an anti-Catholic loon site.
1) post WW2 the survivors where those who weren't part of the continental 'establishment' (i.e. Vichy French regime, Fascist Italian regime, Nazi regime, and overthrown subjugated countries...)... thus the ONLY people left standing were Catholics and other disenfranchised Christians....and Communists.
2) So under the allies umbrella and with the Iron curtain dropping across Eastern Europe, the political parties that rose tended to be "Christian democrats" with large groups of Catholics - much like post Civil War Georgia under Federal occupation tended to have a lot of Yankees and freed Black slaves actually in political power.
3) the EU and the UN were both envisioned by large numbers of Catholic statesmen as a real viable alternative to regular intra-European wars. In theory both organizations seem plausibly good.
But you can't plausibly lay at the feet of the entire Church all subsequent actions of the EU and UN because by the 1960s the original Christian democratic individuals and statesmen were being shouldered aside by secular hedonistic westerners and 'technocrats' favoring a secular liberal progressive alternative to Soviet materialism.
By the 1990's both EU and UN were definitely in the hands of overtly anti-Catholic western secularists.
The Church has always been caught between "gog" and 'magog'. Between Soviet materialism and Western secular progressive materialism. Now it's caught between Western Secularism and a rising Islamic civilization.
The temptation is always to create pacts of convenience with the 'lesser of two evils' or the one less aggressive (at the moment). It's always at best a tactical ceasefire. The moment we fall into the trap of assuming the ceasefire is permanent we tend to over extend ourselves and fall into the trap.
Pope Francis is the Pope but as he himself has said he is just a servant of the Church. I just don't think we should need dick tracy secret decoder rings to figure out what a Pope is saying. The number of articles to explain what he really said that are generated each time he opens his mouth is staggering. I don't agree with some of what he has said for sure starting with the very beginning of his pontificate saying we should not be obsessed with the two agendas that are at the forefront in attacking Christ's Church homosexuality and abortion. That certainly did not help the pro life ministry. Also what he teaches about the Eucharist is very confusing. It's a medicine.....it's not a prize for the perfect. I mean if we are going to go there wouldn't confession be the medicine and the Eucharist a vitamin? Is the Eucharist a means to unity or is it the fruit of unity?
For parents most times the best thing for a child is to say NO! Why? Because it's not good for you. Then you can expand on the reasons why.
Then there are some parents who want to be more of a friend to their children then be a parent and are hesitant to say NO! to their children. The results are not good. Pope Francis seems hesitant to say NO!.
That being said he is the Pope and I pray for him and all clergy.
Post a Comment