In the last weeks the interventions of prelates have multiplied, demanding that the Church be “pastoral” in the sense of bending the rules.
In another post I have asked whether Francis is evil or stupid. It appears to me the same question applies to many other prelates.
Ed Peters has a ruthless examination of the extremely worrying (and provocative, and heretical) words of Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri. The latter is the new Secretary General of the Synod of Bishop, and thus one of the key people of Francis in the huge mess that is brewing.
Following the barrage of “pastoral sensitivity” started from “who am I to judge”-Francis – who suggested on the famous aeroplane some kind of “solution” would have to be found for public adulterers; for the record, he did not mean that they stop being public adulterers… – and after the vocal vomiting of German prelates and Maradiaga's ominous slogans about “less Rome”, Archbishop Baldisseri is the latest one to shell Catholicism with arguments of such stupid naïveté that one has no doubt he has the ear of Bishop Francis.
Please visit the link, and realise that what is going on here – not merely being vaguely imagined, but being executed as we speak, by creating a climate of impending, inevitable “change” – is the demolition of sound Catholic doctrine under the pretext of pastoral sensitivity, to be applied in every desired “particular” situation.
“Pastoral sensitivity” can't make what is wrong right, otherwise it's simply heresy. The idea that rules only apply in a theoretical sphere of lofty sermons, whilst the individual circumstances allow to de facto ignore them – very recognisable in ++ Baldisseri's words – is, asEd Peters points out, pure Antinomianism; that is, the belief that in the end God's rules don't count.
Baldisseri is also a typical Modernist in that he confuses the gullible Catholics (an awful lot of those) into believing that as the doctrine of the Church isn't being officially changed everything must be fine, and we are merely being “pastoral” and evaluating the “individual circumstances”. Deception, confusion, and claim of orthodoxy in the thinking whilst aggressively pushing heresy in the concrete action is the very mark of the Modernist. Francis, Marx, Voelki, Maradiaga, Baldisseri, & Co. all bear this mark and make of it ready use.
That in this way the rules become an optional, and the entire edifice of God's Church merely a collection of suggestions to be followed in ideal conditions, the gullible – again: the vast majority of them – will not see. They will sing their stupid sugary songs and thank God he has – as they believe, being rather stupid – given us Francis, the man so humbly massacring 2,000 years of Catholicism.
I fear the worst. Not the worst in the sense that the Pope will (try to) proclaim an heretical dogma, or the like; but rather in the sense that he will give licence to single Bishops' Conferences to do as they please under the guise of being “pastoral”. The constant public messages from people near the Pope (Marx, Maradiaga, now Baldisseri) and the announced extraordinary Synod make it very probable the Synod will allow the local churches to have that kind of autonomy that, even if it is not officially doctrinal, is certainly free to instaurate a praxis going against the doctrine.
“You all know the rules – Francis will say – but please feel free to be pastoral in the ways more fitting to the particular circumstances in which you operate”. No more than this is necessary to devastate the Church not only concerning communion for public adulterers – the first step, that will be immediately taken by the German, Swiss and Austrian bishops to save the proceeds from the Kirchensteuer – but one day in many other matters, following the ruthless logic of heresy. If communion is allowed to adulterers, why should the “blessing” of their “union” denied to perverts? If the blessing, why not the sacrament? Is communion not given, they will say, to the divorced and remarried?
The greatest wave of Modernism since its inception will, if you ask me, assault the church not in the form of doctrinal innovation, but of “pastoral care”. Demolition on the sly, and whilst being very humble.
May God have mercy on this bunch of despicable saboteurs and fifth columns.
Pray for the Pope, that he may come to his senses.
And pray God that He may soon free the Church from him if he doesn't.
Why, oh why have we to cope with a joke called Vincent “Quisling” Nichols when the US have so many Bishops who could be sent here to relieve us of our misery?
You can read here what has happened in Minnesota, where Bishop Nienstedt has refused to give communion to a group of militant homos wanting not only to receive communion notwithstanding their open rebellion to the Church, but even do so wearing a visible sign of their revolt, rainbow buttons and sashes.
The decision of Bishop Nierstedt would be to commend unconditionally, and a rare good news worthy of being shouted out loud, if the fact had not been tainted by a grave episode of scandal after the mass, when a priest obviously squarely on the pro-Homo side has hastily celebrated a Mass for the homosexualists, during which they were allowed to (try to) receive communion by the same priest.
It is now the clear duty of Bishop Nienstedt to bring his disobedient priest rapidly and clearly into line, then isolated episodes of orthodoxy are – whilst always commendable in themselves – much diminished in their importance and in their teaching value if dissent is allowed to flourish among the very priests of an orthodox Bishop.