Daily Archives: August 7, 2013
You can see for yourself on Father Z's blog two pictures of the way the communion was distributed during the recent Francis Show Day.
Apparently the excellent Messa in Latino has more, but I have no heart to go there; what I have seen on Father Z's blog is more than enough for me.
This is an abomination on so many levels. Can't imagine how many very badly instructed Catholics took the host home as a “souvenir”. The number of those who travelled to the place with the intent to get to a host they could desecrate in a black mass, in a video or the like must have been in the dozens, if not in the hundreds. How many hosts fell on the ground and were just left there, trampled by the masses of Francis' groupies, does not bear thinking.
One thinks of those stupid times gone by, when people counted Rosaries and received communion on the tongue.
How the Spirit has worked on the Church.
Eh? Ah? No?
The Bishop of Rome wants people to make a mess.
One cannot deny he is leading by example.
Ultimately, only God judges. We all know that; particularly Catholics, who are able to pray even for dead heretics. About this, there can be no discussion.
Astonishingly, though, cafeteria Catholics – including some priests – want to do away with the very same concept of “judging” as evaluation of the sinfulness of a certain behaviour. The absurdity of this is apparent.
Thinking – nay, Life itself – is made of judging. I cannot try to keep myself on the straight and narrow, let alone raise a child, without a continuous evaluation of the sinfulness of mine and other people's actions.
Only an extremely stupid father would not “judge” the bad company his son or daughter is getting attracted to. Judgment is part of the very act of social living, from the friends we choose to the job we make. Again, our very existence is a moral judgment.
Some bishops try to water down the “do not judge” mantra whilst staying orthodox, and say that whilst the Church cannot judge individuals, she can and must judge behaviour. Obviously, this refers to the fact that God only “judges” in the sense of “pronounces a sentence of salvation or perdition”, but this way of looking at things also avoids the point. It is not enough to point out to a wrong behaviour. If a person gives public scandal, he himself must be the object of the Church's – and every Catholic's – public reproach. The Church has always done so, and good Christians have always done so.
How could one “admonish the sinner” – a work of mercy, remember! – without having, ahem, “judged” him as such? How blind, how stupid, how unchristian, how uncharitable is it to just shut up under the pious excuse that one does not judge? Isn't silence a way to be accessory to another's sin?
It appears, though, that for some people, and even priests – I do not link the article – even only judging a behaviour would be bad, and unchristian, and uncharitable! Then they reason, if Titius is a faggot and a Pope condemns faggotry, how can this not be a “judgment” of the faggot? It must, therefore, even be wrong to “judge” faggotry, lest the faggot should feel “judged”!
Seriously, these people can't think.
If a Christian is expected to “not judge” anything, then Christianity must simply vanish. Either is it true that a death in mortal sin leads to damnation, or it isn't. If it is true, then there is no logical alternative to the condemnation not only of scandalous behaviour, but also of the people who give scandal. Conversely, the refusal to condemn can only mean that it is not true that death in mortal sin leads to damnation. Tertium non datur.
I doubt the modern apostles of this Anti-Christianity think their rubbish to the end; but if they did, they would probably in their majority conclude that yes, they do not think damnation is a real, serious, concrete possibility, and therefore any attempt to avoid damnation – either for the sinner or for those misled by him – is totally uncalled for.
Again, this seems to be the thinking not only of very deluded men, but even of people – some priests – whose very profession rests on the necessity to care for the sheep so that they do not go astray. What use is a priest in this constellation, is beyond me.
We see here once again how easy it is to use – I do not say “abuse” – Francis' words to promote something that cannot be recognised as Christianity anymore, but lets people feel good with themselves.
What Bishop Francis is not devastating directly, he is devastating indirectly. An army of nutcases will serve themselves of his words to ravish Catholicism; words Francis throws around exactly for this purpose.
We are all saved. Have a nice life.
Make a mess.
And most of all, do not “judge”.
To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold…
View original post 811 more words