Bishop Barron and the other bishops should also recognize the phenomenon and listen to what is being said. This is a chance to take the temperature of a sizeable segment of their flock, and the message that is coming across loud and clear is that there are a large number of Catholics who feel abandoned. They’re not all nut jobs, but they love the church and wonder why Pope Benedict resigned. They are increasingly bewildered by a pope they want to love, but who comes across as grumpy and distant, confused and confusing, out of focus and out of touch. They wonder where the McCarrick report is. They wonder why Archbishop Gregory, the successor of McCarrick, is not pushing for full transparency. They are shocked by the betrayal of the Chinese Catholics to the communist regime. They wonder why the pope who was going to be such a reformer keeps surrounding himself with the cabal of plush, heretical German prelates, homosexualists, money launderers and modernists.
Then he seems to shrug his shoulders:
You can read the rest of Dr. Kwasniewski's article HERE. It is worth the read.Is all of this true? It almost doesn’t matter if it is true. What matters is that is the perception of the crowd of disaffected Catholics. They feel ignored and marginalized, and in the meantime they are being thrown red meat every day by the media leaders of what is emerging as a neo-Donatist church within a church complete with their own unofficial hierarchy.
15 comments:
Pope Benedict TOLD us why he resigned. It is the "nut jobs" or those living very very close to the edge of the nut orchard who think he was pushed out.
The "grumpy and distant" Pope Francis isn't perceived that way by many faithful Catholics. Why is the view of the "sizeable segment of the flocK" supposed to be taken as Gospel?
They don't know what Archbishop Gregory is doing to move the release of the McCarrick report, but because they haven't seen it, they imagine some nefarious plot to keep it all under wraps.
"Heretical" German prelates? Heretical? Really? There are any number of "rad-trads" who scream "heresy" in any number of circumstances when there's not the slightest hint of heterodoxy presented. They just don't want to hear the Church's teaching.
"Modernists"? Most of the complainers have no clue what this means.
Father McDonald, I disagree with the notion that Peter Kwasniewski's article in question is worth reading...except in the sense that Mr. Kwasniewski's article reveals the wrath, if not the futility, that Catholics, such Father Dwight Longenecker, face when they refuse to march in lockstep with "traditional" Catholics...at least leading blogosphere/twitter "traditionalists."
But Father McDonald, I agree with your having insisted that Bishop Barron (not that he won't) or any Catholic, must call out liberals, not just "traditionalists," who have misrepresented Vatican II...and, in general, have unleashed havoc within the Church.
Father McDonald, there isn't any question that you are correct about that.
Liberals, for decades, have contributed in major fashion to the misrepresentation of Vatican II.
That said, in recent weeks, the right-wing — Archbishop Viganò, Bishop Schneider, Father Hunwicke, Peter Kwasniewski, Rorate Caeli, 1Peter5, The Remnant... — has spewed a tremendous amount of venom at Vatican II.
Perhaps the right-wing believes that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is on his last legs.
For even longer than Popes Saint John Paul II, and Saint Paul VI, Father, Archbishop, Cardinal, Pope, and Pope Emeritus Joseph Ratzinger had served as the Church's foremost, powerful defender and promoter of Vatican II.
Perhaps with the holy and great Joseph Ratzinger all but out of the picture, at least seemingly so, the anti-Vatican II right-wing is determined to launch a fresh assault against the Second Vatican Council.
I just hope that Pope Emeritus has, for one final time, the strength to correct in powerful fashion the Satanic right-wing, as well as left-wing, attacks upon, and misrepresentations of, the Second Sacred Vatican Ecumenical Council.
Again, in the fairness promoted by Father McDonald, the Church's two extreme wings, not just one wing, require correction in regard to Vatican II.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Fr Allan, I'm confused. Peter Kwasniewski writes a critique of Vatican II at LifeSite and you accuse him of being silly, schismatic and absurd (he is none of these things). Yet he writes another piece in 1Peter5 which you thoroughly recommend. Not long ago Dr Kwasniewski commented on this blog and was very complimentary about your good self. I think you owe him an apology for at least the 'schismatic' jibe which amounts to calumny.
Apart from anything else, it is one thing to regard an opinion as heretical, but to be schismatic requires a positive act of refusal to be in communion with the See of Peter. Since when has criticism, even harsh criticism, of Vatican II amounted to schism?
Mark Thomas,
You are a few short of a load when you trash Dr. Kwasniewski, an extremely erudite and faithful Catholic. You should be so lucky to be like him.
Mark Thomas hijack alert!!!⚠
Watch out for several more Mark Thomas paragraphs that demonstrate nothing more than self serving indiscriminate rambling.
The truth is if you attack the anything related to Vatican II you are a schismatic. End of argument with the heretics in the ape of the church.
1 Peter 5 Steve Skopjek has lost the plot. He a fake Traditionalist like Joe Scarborough was a fake Conservative when he was in office.
Pierre, I do not wish to be like Peter Kwasniewski. Peter Kwasniewski has spread lies against the Vicar of Christ. Peter Kwasniewski has fomented mutiny against Pope Francis.
Peter Kwasniewski last year accused "Pope Francis of the canonical delict of heresy.”
Mister Kwasniewski insisted that bishops needed to “take the steps necessary to deal with the grave situation of a heretical pope.”
He insisted also that the "willingness publicly to admonish Pope Francis for heresy appears now to be a necessary condition for being a faithful bishop of the Catholic Church."
Pierre, I will not throw in with Satan.
Pax.
Mark Thomas.
Are you done yet?
⚠⚠
Peter Kwasniewski hits the nail on the head when he points out the illogicality of the argument that it was not the Council documents which were at fault, but 'their one-sided application or development by post-conciliar theologians - not acknowledging that it was the same theologians who had drafted or influenced the conciliar documents and knew precisely what novelties and ambiguities had been lodged in them.'
The Bologna School did not hi-jack the Council or create a 'virtual Council' or 'Council of the media' (to quote Benedict XVI). However, its ideologically-driven historical analysis gained wide currency at all levels, and amounted to what Benedict called a 'hermeneutic of rupture'. This is noticeable above all in attitudes towards the liturgy - the new cannot exist alongside the old since their 'ecclesiologies' are radically different.
The assumptions of the Bologna School were of course challenged, notably by Cardinals Ratzinger and Brandmüller. Now that its influence has waned, and the Council becomes more remote in time, scholars are increasingly looking with a critical eye on the Council itself, rather than a hermeneutic of it. Those who would nowadays be called 'traditionalist' were reluctant to criticize an Ecumenical Council and a reigning pope. Hence the myth of a false 'spirit of the Council' divorced from the Council itself. The destruction of the ancient liturgy was blamed on Bugnini, rather than on Paul VI who instigated and facilitated it. The same pope's disastrous and shameful Ostpolitik could be put down to Casaroli.
This no longer applies. Just as Paul VI enabled eastern European Communist intelligence agencies to infiltrate the Vatican, Francis is doing the same with China. This time it won't be Parolin who will be left to carry the can.
Of course John you are right about the Second Vatican Council being so ambiguous that it can be interpreted to many ways and certainly the Bologna School is a prime example of the "moderate" progressive understanding that many bishops and theologians accept. Thus it was great when Pope Benedict proposed to the cardinals at his Christmas talk that the Church should officially abandon the school of rupture and pursue renewal in continuity which has implications for the liturgy and most everything else.
Unfortunately, Pope Benedict would propose and not mandate or codify things, especially with what he said at the Christmas talk. It should have been an official papal bull or encyclical.
And thus we are still in the mess we have been in since the Council and now with a pope who agrees with the Bologna school although he wrote to the now deceased Cardinal of Bologna that he was not in favor of it at the beginning of his papacy.
Mark Thomas,
What has PF done about answering the dubia? What has he done about dealing with the homosexuals in the Vatican who participated in a meth induced gay sex orgy? Until you answer those questions you will have zero credibility here.
Mark Thomas,
We are waiting with baited breath how you protect your Golden Calf. Don't disappoint us. We need a laugh
Oy..please don't entice him to start rambling again!
⚠⚠
Post a Comment