I have had very few of my parishioners voice concern for the confusion in the Church at this time coming from the highest places of the Church.
Bloggers and their commenters know about the controversy over the footnote in Amoris Laetitia.
Bloggers and their commenters know that Pope Francis is ambiguous and one is never sure if what His Holiness says lines up with what His Holiness will say later.
Bloggers and their commenters know that Pope Francis committed a pastoral error of the most serious kind in calling victims of priestly sexual abuse liars.
Bloggers and their commenters know that Pope Francis kind of apologized but stood up for the bishop in Chile that has caused so much trauma there but now he is sending an investigate to get more facts from the survivors.
Bloggers and their commenters know that a Chinese retired Cardinal confirmed what Pope Francis said to him which is in conflict with the Secretariat of State and the Secretariat of State has clarified that he and the pope are on the right page but the Chinese Cardinal isn't, a public humiliation of yet again another Cardinal with impeccable credentials and heroic witness to the faith in difficult circumstances.
And then we have this from a bishop of the Church from the peripheries of the world making clear that bishops and cardinals are in a schismatic relationship with each other and the pope and that they need to make a profession of faith to reassure the rank and file members of the Church who in my opinion are oblivious to the hot house antics of the Church at this time.
You can read the article by pressing this title: (Have we ever been in a place like this in recent history prior to a great schism?)
29 comments:
I don't say much anymore because I just assume that the Church is going to continue to go the way of protestantism. There are more Priests like Kavanaugh out there than there are like Fr. MacDonald or Fr. David, and I am not convinced when people insist that the majority of this new generation of Priests wants to go back to the TLM and some of the old ways. The laity are pretty much theologically and Church historically ignorant and lack the tools to understand the nonsense they are being fed. They are not able to read between the lines of the "New Hermeneutic" or the theological double-talk to which they are exposed from pulpits. It is my impression that one will find far more devotion and passionate belief, however misguided, in some Pentecostal or Church of God congregation than in your average Catholic parish. There is more doctrinal integrity and concern in your average conservative Presbyterian Church. I don't know where we go from here.
Nope...at my parish in 30327, the talk at Sunday coffee is on sports, where kids are heading to college next year, the weather, the awful traffic up here. Probably an attitude of "as long as things are OK at our parish, I am not going to be concerned what is happening elsewhere---and can't do anything about it anyway." None of the parish priests at this locale would be thought of as liberal, so things good from our perspective. Of course, that does not mean we have no problems---our senior pastor does moan from time to time about parents taking their kids to CCD, but not then taking them to Mass after that.
It is a dilemma. I can imagine it is like watching your parents fight, it causes a deeper unhappiness than the actual argument and you don't want to discuss it even with your brothers. Bishop Schneider might add the point that the patient can't be cured if he won't quit smoking and take his medicine. This goes for the doctor, too.
Anonymous kind of hits the nail on the head....apathy.
That said, parish priests and bishops are complicit in that there is very little preaching on subjects that create discomfort. Fear drives this. When the Gospel can clearly tie back to topics that make us squirm, priests avoid the tie in for the most part, and from my personal perspective.
So yes, the Holy Father is the head...and is letting the flock down in so many ways, but the bishops and priests I know are side stepping at every chance in favor of talk on sports, college, weather and traffic. That's safer.
"I have had very few of my parishioners voice concern for the confusion in the Church at this time coming from the highest places of the Church."
Yes, most ordinary pew-sitters are are as clueless about Church news as they are about Church doctrine. Because the Catholic press (specifically including diocesan newspapers) is just as devoid of Catholic news as the secular media is devoid of secular news.
With the exception of the millions of serious Catholics who watch EWTN and read things like the National Catholic Register (an exception to the general rule of the Catholic press).
Most people are not Internet savy, and use computers mostly for paying bills, chatting with friends, and writing emails. I suspect that the more education one has, the more one is involved with these matters of Church doctrine.
Most people go to church to do liturgia in the original ancient Greek sense of that word, to pay public hommage to the gods. You go to church do your required stuff and go home and you are finished for the week. Moreover, to give going to church a pub-like atmosphere where you sing songs, listen to your friends talk (in the sanctuary), and respond to them (in predetermined/polite ways), hug them, have a bit of Wine, and then go for some coffee if you have the time, makes doctrine irrelevant.
The Church has not effectively taught the Faith since Vatican Disaster II, perhaps by design. That way, the folks in the pews won't know if their priest is preaching heresy
Gene -
I'm with you. Especially, the following:
"I don't know where we go from here."
I enjoy reading the articles and the discussion but, with some of this, I feel I'm running out of things to say.
So, I agree with all of the above...I have wondered for example, is not the Pope a heretic? And why is my bishop not protesting it? I get it, they all took a vow of obedience as we are a hierarchical church. But does not the vow assume that each stepp on the hierarchy-ladder is intact? I also know some cardinals have said that there is a need to confront the pope for his digressions from fundamental teachings of Jesus. Yes, some people would quibble and say the Pope does not want to change doctrine only observe it relative to conditions prevailing in the world. Yet, not matter how confusing things get, every one including the confusion makers are fully incorporated and receive communion probably every chance they get. Should not the Pope refrain from communion since he is most culpable for the current unholy situation. I never heard anyone make that point yet. But yes, the situation is just as bad as in the first part of the 16th century. Then too the clergy including some of the popes were offending against the true religion. We know that the result lead to a major break in unity. How can a further break in unity be avoided if matters do not change for the better? Then there are various groups within the Church, the best example is the SSPX, who maintain continuity with tradition but are labeled schismatics because they see error and loudly protest against it. They are the bad guys and the confusion makers are the good ones? That I do not get.
ANON-1
In 2010 A.D., during a conference of cardinals and bishops held in Rome, Bishop Schenider called for "a new Syllabus, one that would condemn the misinterpretations of Vatican II."
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/01/bishop-schneiders-call-for-new-syllabus.html
Bishop Schneider's exhortation in question went unheeded throughout the Church, in particular, with Pope Benedict XVI. We will see as to the success in regard to Bishop Schneider's current proposal.
Bishop Schneider's proposals have not met with success within the Church.
He has called upon Bishop Fellay and the SSPX to enter into full communion with His Holiness Pope Francis. However, Bishop Fellay has refused to heed Bishop Schneider's exhortation in question.
I guess that as Bishop Fellay has ignored Bishop Schneider's call for the SSPX to enter into full communion with Pope Francis, additional bishops may ignore Bishop Schneider's current proposal.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"I don't say much anymore because I just assume that the Church is going to continue to go the way of protestantism."
I'm glad to say, Gene, that you've got it wrong. The future of the Church is already written on the wall. It will be determined by the new generation young priests and seminarians--almost all of them faithful, orthodox, and tradition friendly (whether or not Latin spouters)--not by the tired old generation of malformed priests, bishops, and cardinals whose flameout in an orgy of apostasy we are now witnessing. The frenzy of the gang surrounding the pope is evidence they know what's coming. But their excesses of heterodoxy will only hasten the restoration of church, faith, and liturgy when they're gone from the scene.
Bishop Schneider has called for a new Syllabus of Errors to correct the heretical views which have proliferated since the Council.
Yet none of the post-Conciliar popes has had the gumption to do so, and the present occupant of the chair of Peter doesn't seem to know the distinction between heresy and orthodoxy.
Here are the names of the 14 fake "catholic" Democratic senators who voted against outlawing abortion after 20 weeks. If their bishops do not speak out, they are complicit:
Cantwell (WA);
Collins (ME);
Durbin (IL);
Gilibrand (NY);
Heitkamp (ND);
Kaine (VA);
Leahy (VT);
Markey (MA);
Cortez Masto (NV);
McCaskill (MO);
Menendez (NJ);
Murkowski (AK);
Murray (WA); and
Reed (RI).
"I have wondered for example, is not the Pope a heretic?"
And why is my bishop not protesting it?
It could be that the pope is not a heretic and, therefore, no protest is required.
Obedience does not require a bishop to be silent in the face of heresy.
"Yet none of the post-Conciliar popes has had the gumption to do so...
Or, they do not share Bp Schneider's judgment, and with good reason.
Anonymous said..."And why is my bishop not protesting it? It could be that the pope is not a heretic and, therefore, no protest is required. Or, they do not share Bp Schneider's judgment, and with good reason."
Those are good points. Just because Bishop Schneider believes that "X" action is required within the Church doesn't mean that each bishop agrees with Bishop Schneider."
Bishop Schneider believes, for example, that Amoris Laetitia requires "clarification." However, one bishop after another has declared that Amoris Laetitia is 100 percent in line with Church teaching. Said bishops reject Bishop Schneider's proposal in question.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
What reason, pray? Are you suggesting that there is no heresy in the modern-day proliferation of diverse opinions within the Church? You need to get out more.
Is the "modern-day proliferation of diverse opinions within the Church" unique to this time?
I think it is not. Since the Antioch Incident involving Peter and Paul, there have been diverse opinions within the Church. We deal with them and, thank God for indefectibility, we continue the mission of Christ to evangelize the world.
Henry, I pray that you are right and I am wrong. Thanks.
Anon @ 6:37: The diverse opinions to which you refer did not include unbelief.
Mark Thomas also needs to get out more.
TJM, Durbin has been sanctioned by his bishop for years for his pro-choice stance---unfortunately Durbin has not "seen the light."
As for my comments (2nd response) on 30327, just because the talk after church is on sports, weather and the like doesn't mean the pulpit or the adult ed at the parish is silent on moral issues. Last weekend we had a forum with Sister Helena Burns explaining Pope John Paul Second's "Theology of the Body" and evils such as pornography and sexting. The previous week, one of our pastors preached on the passage of the current times passing away, that we need to be prepared to meet Jesus at any time, not knowing the day or hour of you know what. But maybe the moral message needs to be directed elsewhere---for instance in Georgia, about 30 percent of the state's population is black but blacks account for about 55 percent of the state's abortions...why don't we hear about that at Ebenezer Baptist here in Atlanta, where pro-abortion Congressman John Lewis worships? Abortion kills far more blacks than do gunshots.
Anonymous at 1:03 pm,
I suspect Durbin is the only one on the list who has been sanctioned. But unless the bishop did it publicly with bell, book, and candle, it's real meaningless and sends no message to the faithful. Leander Perez of Louisiana was publicly excommunicated back in the 1940s for his opposition to segregation in Catholic schools. Where is the calibre of that type of bishop today? Most bishops seem to just sit around worried they will "offend" someone by teaching in the Faith in no uncertain terms.
ps: John Lewis is a left-wing loon
TJM, it was pretty public (the Durbin "discipline")---recall seeing stories about that online from Springfield area. But Durbin can escape the discipline by receiving communion in the DC area---I am not aware of bishops in that area who have told the pro-choicers to "stay away" (from communion).
As for Perez, wasn't that excommunication back in the 1960s? Catholic schools after all were segregated until that time---the Atlanta and Savannah dioceses did not desegregate theirs til I think 1962 or 1963.
But instead of blaming the bishops, why not blame the laity? They are the ones who elect the culprits; after all, they (the pro-choicers) are not appointed to the position (unless the result of a senator resigning or otherwise leaving office). Of course we don't know if the culprits are even practicing anymore, so sanctions may matter little.
AS for John Lewis, well, he will be there as long as he wants---Trump only got about 15 percent in his district in the presidential election---yes, just 15 percent. 83 Clinton or something like that. He has not gotten less than two-thirds of the vote in a general election, and in 2016 Clinton won his district something like 83-15 percent, easily the most Democratic congressional district in Georgia. In contrast, the coastal 1st District (Buddy Carter), which includes Savannah and Brunswick and some counties west of 95, went for Trump by 15 or so points---a pretty red district outside of Chatham (Savannah) and Liberty Counties. I suspect the author of the BlogSpot prefers voting in Carter's district than Lewis's one!
nonymous,
I live in Illinois, and the Springfield media, if they did report on Durbin, coverage did not go beyond Springfield, courtesy of the media, aka Democratic operatives with bylines, because that would reflect badly on the Democratic Party. Perez, a Democrat, may have not been formally excommunicated until the early 1960s, but he was involved in the segregation movement his entire political career.
Why blame the laity? It's the bishops who have not informed their flock that they simply cannot vote for a party which promotes intrinsic evil especially when the alternative doesn't it. They are complicit in evil and I suspect they will meet at chilly reception if they make it to the Pearly Gates. Why would a lay Catholic go to the mat (or better yet not know that they should) when their bishops, sit on their hands. The bishops will fight for illegal aliens, but not the unborn. They can take a hike, as far as I am concerned. They have little, if any, moral authority.
TJM, you need to leave Illinois---it is in an economic and social morass---unfunded pensions, gun violence in Chicago---not to mention cold winters!
Complicit in evil? Whatever happened to the Republican idea of personal responsibility? Read publications like Our Sunday Visitor (which I subscribe to), Catechism, see EWTN. Visit shrines and monastaries. Bishops can tell us things, but we can't be spoon fed---we don't have to take the medicine! And in a still mostly Protestant region (Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina and so on), edicts of a prelate are not likely to get much attention anyway.
Anonymous,
IF your pastor doesn't teach the Faith and your bishop doesn't either, that's a serious problem. I know Dems believe anything the DNC and the New York Slimes tells them, but at least those sources are telling their "flock" something.
Chicago has the toughest gun control laws in the country. It's not gun violence that's the probem it's gang violence aka Dem voters
TJM, it is neither gun violence or gangs that are the problem in Chicago, but rather fatherless kids---as has been written, the odds of ending up in poverty are very low if you finish high school, get some postsecondary education and have kids AFTER getting married. not before. But you will never hear that from the Democrats, that illegitimacy is really the culprit behind our crime rate. Same is true here in the Atlanta area---and of course Savannah. But who are we to judge?
Clergy here teach the faith---thinks like regular attendance at Mass (including kids), unhealthy practices (as the online world poses these days), the need to be ready to meet the Lord at any time (don't assume that day is far away). Chicago is a more difficult place to do so because it is so big and thus so liberal---at same point, the bigger an urban area, the more liberal it is (think Chicago, New York, Philadelphia)---easier to teach the faith in a conservative manner when in a smaller place like Lincoln or Springfield.
I do wonder though what the clergy are teaching in South Korea? Something online says that 110,000 condoms will be distributed at the winter Olympics...maybe they should have a warning like cigarettes---but in this case hazardous not just to your physical health but even worse, your spiritual.
Anonymous,
Your first paragraph is very much on point. But in a Democrat run cesspool like Chicago, you can't say that.
Only at parishes which offer the EF do you ever hear a religious centered sermon. Most focus on illegal aliens, global warming, and a host of other liberal lunacies.
Yes, that "liberal lunacy" of immigration...
"Recently Pope Benedict XVI greeted one such group: “I would begin by praising your unremitting efforts, in the best traditions of the church in America, to respond to the ongoing phenomenon of immigration in your country.” He also complemented the bishops for advocating for “the just treatment and the defense of the human dignity of immigrants.” He had already expressed his support for bishops' efforts supporting comprehensive immigration reform. While acknowledging that it is a complex and difficult issue still, in Catholic teaching, nations do have the right to regulate their borders. (To members of the Province of Chicago on ad limina visit to the Holy See)
And that "liberal lunacy" of climate change/global warming:
Letter of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople on the Occasion of the Seventh Symposium of the Religion, Science and the Environment Movement:
”Preservation of the environment, promotion of sustainable development and particular attention to climate change are matters of grave concern for the entire human family. No nation or business sector can ignore the ethical implications present in all economic and social development. With increasing clarity scientific research demonstrates that the impact of human actions in any one place or region can have worldwide effects. The consequences of disregard for the environment cannot be limited to an immediate area or populus because they always harm human coexistence, and thus betray human dignity and violate the rights of citizens who desire to live in a safe environment.”
Yep, that Pope Benedict XVI was one of the loonier liberals to occupy the See of St. Peter.....
Post a Comment