This is not a scam in Medjugorje style, or a pious fantasy of old maids with an excitable fantasy.
This apparition took place at the beginning of the XVII century, and was approved by the local bishop a short time later. It was accompanied by further miraculous events at the beginning of the XX century, when the events described by the Blessed Virgin were approaching.
This apparition is very remarkable for the insistent and very precise predictions of the Blessed Virgin concerning facts that would only happen several centuries later. In this case, the predictions are – at least as far as we are concerned – so shockingly precise, that one cannot – if he has some fear of God left in him – but stop and reflect on every word the Blessed Virgin was saying several centuries ago.
In this case, the Blessed Virgin predicted a tragic, extremely upsetting (to make it clear: not a continuity, but a disruption) and long-lasting event within the Church, starting around after the half of the XX century. Look, the “advent of the Holy Spirit”, the phenomenon with “theological implications” was, in fact, accurately predicted three and a half centuries before it happened, with uncanny accuracy, by the Blessed Virgin herself, in an apparition officially approved! Ah, if only Pope Benedict and Archbishop Mueller had been around some four centuries ago, to deny the allegations!
Now, apparitions of the Blessed Virgin are private revelations and no one is bound to them. Still, those who have ears to hear and a healthy fear of the Lord will find the accusations extremely familiar, the time astonishingly precise, and the described events very well exposed. All in all, the general effect of Satan’s attack is painted in extremely vivid colours and with great richness of detail, three and a half centuries before the fact. Not bad for an apparition, and rather worrying for an approved one.
Let us see some of the highlights, and again note the uncanny precision of the prophecy, which rather resembles a chronicle:
Our Lady said that the enemies of the Church would “focus particularly on the children in order to achieve this general corruption. Woe to the children of these times!”
Many of us have children in our circle of acquaintances, or among our relatives, who are either unbaptised or utterly unaware of the very rudiments of Christianity. The sins of the parents visit the children, and how hardly they visit them in these disgraceful times! The first generation after V II was indifferent; the second is unbaptised. V II is the gift that keeps on giving.
It goes on:
Our Lady warned that the Sacrament of Marriage would come under special attack as would modesty in women.
When sluttish behaviour becomes norm and even socially encouraged (“open mentality” or “free spirit” I think it’s called nowadays) it is no surprise marriage comes under pressure. Of course, sluts have always been there; but their behaviour was stigmatised; nowadays, it is taken as a matter of no consequence, or even “modern”. As to marriage, when the sense of its sacredness – once felt even by protestants – is no longer respected, it comes only natural that people should demand to “marry” one or more persons of the same sex, or animals, or whatever they like. To them is not a sacrament, you see; not even a sacred bond; to them it’s merely an occasion to party.
During one apparition which took place in the Convent chapel, the sanctuary lamp went out leaving the chapel in darkness. Our Lady explained that this signified the “great spiritual catastrophe which would engulf the Church” .
Note the words: a) spiritual catastrophe, which b) will engulf the Church. Strong tobacco, for sure, but so true.
But when would this catastrophe happen? Perhaps it is meant by that the conservative pontificate of Pius XII, or the aggressive oppression of free spirits of a St. Pius X? No, the prophecy is about
the world-wide crisis in the Church in the late 19th Century culminating in a disaster for the Church, described by Our Lady, with great accuracy, as occurring “shortly after the middle of the 20th Century.”
We have it all here: a crisis beginning at the end of the XIX Century (obviously: Modernism), eventually exploding (obviously, as Neo-modernism) “shortly after the middle of the XX century with, of course, Vatican II. This is so precise it’s chilling, and the prophecy happened at the beginning of the XVII century!
It gets even better (or worse):
“In this supreme moment of need for the Church, those who should speak out will fall silent.”
This is, in fact, the impression I have whenever I read of the latest speech of the Holy Father about some utterly peripheral and uncontroversial theme (go on CNA and you’ll find several at any given time; you will have noticed by now I do not waste your time with platitudes and easy sound bites, so I tend to avoid them) whilst the building burns from all sides and heresy spreads all over Central Europe: silence.
Is, then, all so bad as it seems? Well yes, it is, but do not despair; then (emphasis mine)
Our Lady promised Mother Mariana that, just when everything seems lost, her hour would come when she would rescue the Church.
Things might well become even worse than they are now (and they are bad enough, I’d say); the recent appointment of a disconcerting man in more than odour of heresy as the Church’s main protector against… heresy tells us all the extent of the trouble. Can it get worse? Well, who knows what the next Pope might bring us: if the Cardinals allow the Devil to persuade them they must follow their German and Austrian colleagues on their way to either open heresy or thinly veiled Neo-modernist accommodation, I think Assisi and Mueller and not the worst we have seen, or not all we have seen of them.
Still, the Blessed Virgin will watch from heaven, and will intervene at the hardest time, “when everything seems lost”.
We should remember this chilling, but still beautiful apparition. We should remember it to draw strenght in times of crisis, and to remind ourselves that in the end it is called Our Lady of Good Success because this is what will come out of this mess in the end.
Which, in these troubled times, is no small reassurance.
Let us imagine (it is theoretical; but not so much) that someone came to me saying that he is thinking of converting to Catholicism, but in light of the most recent developments he is now in doubt whether to continue on this road.
What I would say to him? Would I be able to give to him some words of encouragement? Would I suggest to him that he goes on along the chosen path and toward conversion to a Church led by the likes of Archbishop Mueller?
Yes of course I would. I would in the most decided of ways. Let me explain why, so that the one or other friendly Proddie thinking of taking the best decision of his (eternal) life may not be tempted into falling back into heresy and, perhaps, perdition.
Out of my sleeve, the arguments I would use are described below. I invite the readers to add other arguments in order to help our imaginary (but not so much) friend.
As the need to help this imaginary (but not so much) friend might be rather pressing and I have no time to revisit my books on the matter, si sbalio mi corigerete… I would, therefore, argument as follows:
1. The Church is the Truth. The Church (as the eternal institution, the Bride of the Lord) can simply not be separated from the Truth. You cannot think the Church as separated from being the Truth more than you could think of water as separated from being wet.
2. “Church” is a very complex word. The building where the mass takes place is called “church”, but the members of that parish are also called “church”. A family (even a nuclear family) is called “church” (ecclesia domestica). A diocese is also called “church”. The faithful in that diocese are called church, too. The different rites of Catholicism are all called “churches”. Then there is the Church who is, on earth, the visible manifestation of the Bride of Christ. But it does not stop there, as Church is intended, in its ultimate meaning, as a heavenly organisation. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus refers to this last one. To belong to the Church means to belong to the heavenly Bride of Christ, not to agree to the more or less heretical blabbering of bad priests, bad bishops and bad popes.
3. The Church representatives are (here on earth) not always right, and at times plain wrong. I have given my take about infallibility, and reading the blog post might help the one or the other. But the fact that we must always, always keep in mind is that the Truth that the Church is is not less true because God allows her representatives (as he did Judas) to wound her. This is not the protestant church down the street, whose raison d’être for the faithful ceases the moment they stop agreeing with the pastor.
4. The Church has the right to our obedience even when we are forced to disobey to her representatives. If the bishop asks me to participate to some Friday service of some Muslims, I say “no” and don’t care two straws if he says to me that I must do it to promote ecumenism, or to give testimony of my Catholicism, or for “peace and understanding”, or because he orders it. The “first rule of the Italian army” applies: wrong orders are not executed. I do this, because I owe obedience to the Bride of Christ before I do to the bishop. As always, Archbishop Lefebvre explains this much better than I ever could.
5. The Church is not questioned, she is simply obeyed. As to her representative, the way they will be obeyed (or esteemed) will depend from the way they do their job. This is the reason why even among popes – as among bishops, etc. – some are considered wonderful, some very good, some so-so, some positively mediocre, and some unmitigated disasters. Still, Padre Pio’s saying still stands, that we must love the Church even if she kills us.
In my eyes, a person of prompt intellect and ripe understanding will draw from these arguments enough energy to not only weather the present storm, but be sufficiently prepared for a life of storms, as other one or two or three generations of this madness might be the lot the Lord has allotted to us, probably to punish us for our sins, and perhaps also so that we may train our virtues.
The fundamental step is, in my eyes, the abandonment of the purely Protestant thinking based on which an institution loses credibility if we happen to think their leaders are behaving badly.
Petrus did behave badly, though he recovered in the end. He had to be publicly rebuked by Paul, even, then Paul was no retiring wallflower, and did not suffer under clericalism.
The Church will be with me forever, and I will be with her forever. I will be faithful to her until my last breath, and if the Pope begins to dance in his tutu on St. Peter Square to promote understanding among the people this will not change my allegiance to the Church. Not-one-bit. It would be better for me to die of a horrible death before reaching that point, than to live 120 years of purest unalloyed happiness after deciding that I do not need the Bride.
I hope this helps.
Personally, I am not enthusiastic about what I have been reading concerning Pope Benedict’s travel to Germany.
There is in this visit, it seems to me, too much accent on wrong ecumenism, and too little on right Catholicism.
Was it necessary to visit a former monastery now dedicated to a heretic, I wonder. And if it is really necessary to visit such a monastery, should not be the duty of a Catholic – even more so, of a Pope – to make clear to every non-Catholic that there is no salvation outside of the Church, and to explain to them that whilst one can be brought inside the Church in ways we cannot entirely fathom – how many have been saved by last-minute conversion, or perfect contrition before death, we will never know – the willed separation from the Only Church can easily lead to damnation? Isn’t the fight against error something that should be, in the mind of every sincere Christian – even more so, of a Pope – the paramount consideration, and come before every talk of “ecumenical dialogue”, every diplomatic consideration, every show of desire for a “unity” talked about as if it was a value in itself?
And what is the sense – I mean, the religious one; I fully understand the political motive – of traveling to a Protestant site and telling a congregation of assorted Lutherans that we should focus on what unites us? Has heresy been reduced to an aside, something you look at as if it were only a nasty stain on a beautiful painting, an annoying detail, something that should not be allowed to distract you from the main image? Isn’t it, in fact, exactly the contrary: that it is the very fact that we are all Christians that makes heresy so painful and such a wound in the body of Christianity, nay, in the body of Christ?
Isn’t it so, that the photos that will now be transmitted around the world – the Pope on the observer’s right; the head of the German heretics on the left; no obvious distinction in rank or dignity – create a powerful visual image of Catholicism and Heresy being two variants of the same Faith, with equal legitimacy? Isn’t it so, that the massive talk of ecumenical dialogue of the last days generates the impression that the “talks” between Catholics and Protestants be akin to the talks between, say, Israelis and Palestinians, that is: talks were two merely human political positions are opposed, instead of Divine Truth being opposed to Lie? Where does this lie comes from: from the father of lies, or from good-willed men of God happening to have a slight disagreement with Christ’s Church? Can you create a heretical movement and call yourself – or be treated by Catholics as if you were – a man of God? Luther made the work of the devil, full stop.
The photo you see above appeared in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, with the caption: “The Pope takes place on the right, Nikolaus Schneider on the left”. The implied message is, dear reader, exactly the one you are thinking about.
With the usual acumen, Pope Benedict found the way of telling it rather straight about the matter of ecumenism and the wrong hopes it can engender. He is quoted by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as saying:
“Ein selbstgemachter Glaube ist wertlos. Der Glaube ist nicht etwas, was wir ausdenken und aushandeln.“
I would translate as follows:
” A self-made Faith is valueless. Faith isn’t something that we make up and negotiate”
Beautiful, strong words, nicht wahr? What a pity, that he himself should weaken the very concept he has so beautifully expressed by traveling to Erfurt and giving millions of Germans the impression that Luther’s heresy has a dignity or legitimation in itself in the eyes of Catholicism. What a pity, that what can’t be negotiated in Catholicism be swept under the carpet, when the Pope himself says that Catholics and Lutherans should focus on the “great things they have in common”.
Last time I looked, having great things in common with Catholics wasn’t enough to avoid hell. Every pedophile has great things in common with normal people: would you tell him that he should not lose sight of all the great things he has in common with normal people, or would you rather suggest him that he, for the good of his soul, focuses on – cough – the big problem he has?
The comparison of a Protestant with a pedophile may seem strong, but if we look at the matter lucidly we must acknowledge that unless Truth has changed whilst we were in the bathroom, heresy is as big a threat to salvation now as it has always been. How many Protestant sanctuaries this or that Pope decides to visit will, I am afraid, not change an iota in the seriousness of the danger, but it will certainly play a role in how many people are exposed to that danger.
It seems to me that this visit has been – at least up to now – worse than a lost opportunity, rather a positive damage to Catholicism. I have lived in Germany many years and am painfully aware of the confusion reigning among common Catholics as to what is right, and of the unexpressed but palpable desire of wanting to consider Protestantism just another ice cream flavour, or the preference for a different shade of blue.
If you ask me, if this visit will have one effect it will be to reinforce this confusion.
Interesting blog post from an old favourite of this blog, Msgr Charles Pope, among other things the Monsignor with no uncertain trumpet.
This time the issue is about the lack of balance (a commenter says, probably more correctly, “order”, but the concept is the same) that is at the origin of every heresy. It is not that the truth proclaimed by the heretic is necessarily wrong, but being taken out of context and without the balance of the bigger picture given from the Magisterium it unavoidably ends up reaching the wrong conclusions. This is a brilliant explanation in simple terms as to why there are thousands of different major and minor Protestant denominations, each one of them – I mean, of those who strive to be Christians – taking passages of the Scriptures which might not be wrong in themselves, but have been simply eradicated from their proper context.
The examples made by Msgr Pope are of chilling simplicity: the generally accepted belief of the Divine Mercy and the more and more often downplayed or outright refused concept of judgment and, possibly, hell.
One doesn’t need to say that our refusal to see the point will not make the point any less real when the appropriate time comes.
In pure Catholic fashion, we are then reminded of the virtue of hope and of its proper understanding as opposed to presumption and despair. At the same time, Msgr Pope ends his message with another pleasantly chilling memento, this time in form of a song.
I must here admit (probably earning the boos of the American readers) that I didn’t know the song. I found it so hauntingly beautiful that I listened to it several times. I cannot resist the temptation to post the video here.
“When I first heard of their financial difficulties, I was distressed. Crystal Cathedral Ministries has been a valued religious resource for many, many years in Orange County and, through the Hour of Power, around the globe. Like our own Mission San Juan Capistrano, its historic and cultural links are important to Orange County. Under this plan, we hope that that ministry can continue. Dr. Schuller built up this ministry from the humble roof of a drive-in snack stand, and that constant faith in God’s providence, I believe, will sustain their community through these current trials. The Crystal Cathedral underscores the vitality of faith in our modern society and with our offer we will enable this beacon of faith to continue to influence others as an important place of worship,”
Please let us examine these words:
1. a laud of a Protestant ministry
2. the stressing that this Protestant ministry once had a worldwide audience.
3. the stressing on the fact that this creates “historical and cultural links” which are “important to Orange County”.
4. The hope that a Protestant ministry can continue.
5. A strong laud of the humble beginning etc. of a Protestant minister.
6. The stressing that this Protestant’s ministry is driven by Providence.
7. The stressing of the place as an important place of worship.
You would say that here some high-profile Protestant minister is breaking a lance for the Protestant organisation created by Mister Schuller, and seeing the glowing terms with which his Protestant ministry is portrayed and constantly exalted you would think that this chap is a staunch Protestant. He is, therefore, understandably “distressed” at hearing of their financial difficulties and tries to do what he can to allow them to continue their work. I think that you would be perfectly right, as it is undeniable that this chap does have strong Protestant feelings.
The problem here is, though, that the words above do not come from a Protestant minister, but from the bishop of Orange County, Tod Brown.
I knew that these art of liberal bishops could be rather “ecu-maniacal”, but this reaches a new level: this chap thinks that Protestants are helped by Providence! This chap could meet Martin Luther and praise him for quarters of an hour on end!
I have difficulties in thinking of any one period in the history of the Church, where a bishop not only openly praising heretics, but even considering their existence a work of Providence and claiming to help them to continue their work would not have put this bishop in extremely serious trouble. I mean here, obviously, any period in the history of the Church before Vatican II.
The heresy is among us. It is openly proclaimed under the sun, with no shame at all, from Catholic bishops. From this perspective, the bid now ongoing to buy the Crystal cathedral shows another interesting angle: not at attempt to save money, but an attempt to dilute Catholicism by buying a building that is closely identified with protestant worship, and helping a protestant ministry at the same time.
For the record, this bishop is another “enlightened” choice of the late Pope, Blessed John Paul II, the not so great.
In Austria, in the middle of Europe, a heretical movement has already gained the approval and open support of more than 250 priests, around 6% of the Austrian clergy. Their “Call to Disobedience” is openly advertised on the Internet.
All the members of this heretical uprising are still in good standing as Archbishop Cardinal Schönborn refuses to do anything to effectively counter this heretical insurgence. He limits himself to obligatory meowing, but in fact he helps the heresy to spread through his inaction.
Cardinal Schönborn’s motivation is – besides his vanity and desire of popularity – the money of the Austrian dissidents. His desire is for the vast number of Austrian dissidents to continue to fill the pockets of the Austrian Church. For this reason he pronounces some faint words of circumstance, but in fact allows the heretics to continue their work undisturbed.
This scandal must stop. Souls are at stake. Cardinal Schönborn’s inaction, motivated by vanity and greed, endangers souls and makes the work of the devil. Every day that this uprising is allowed to survive the reputation of the Church is damaged, the Magisterium sabotaged, the faithful confused. Cardinal Schönborn doesn’t care, provided he is popular among the dissident and they continue to finance the Church.
This shame must cease. The heretical priests must be punished and Catholic orthodoxy restored.
Please help by sending your protest to the following email addresses:
Congregation for the Clergy: firstname.lastname@example.org
Papal Nuncio in Austria: email@example.com
Holy Father: firstname.lastname@example.org
Cardinal Schönborn will not act unless forced to. Please stop this scandal by sending your protest emails and forwarding them. You may want to forward (and mention in the protest emails you send) the links to blogs written by priests as they will be very effective. Two beautiful examples are EF Pastor Emeritus and Father Z.
Please take the time. Souls are at stake. Heresy is spreading in the middle of Europe.
BLOG CONTINUES BELOW AS USUAL
From tt.com, excerpts from a kind of “open letter” addressed from Cardinal Schoenborn to the Austrian rebels, headed by the heretical Helmut Schueller. I couldn’t find (yet) the letter online, so I’ll have to rely on the article.
Tt.com says that this is the first time that Cardinal Schoenborn takes a position about the “Priester-Initiative”. The open invitation to revolt is dated 19th June. I wouldn’t call this a prompt reaction, but at least he has acted.
The letter says that Cardinal Schoenborn was “appalled” or “devastated” (“erschuettert”) about the initiative; that it filled him with “anger and sorrow” (“Zorn und Trauer”), and that with this revolt “a new level” (of disobedience) has been reached. This means that the Cardinal admits that disobedience was, under his watch, happily going on; only not at this level.
Here it starts to get a bit strange:
“„Wie würden in unserem Land die Familien aussehen, wenn Ungehorsam zur Tugend erhoben würde?“
“How would families in our country look like, if disobedience were to be elevated to the rank of a virtue?”.
This strikes me as very odd, because there is no reference whatsoever to the position of the heretics being…. heretical. He doesn’t say “you are totally wrong in the matter”. He says “you are wrong in inciting to disobedience”.
It goes on.
Jeder müsse für sich entscheiden, ob er „den Weg mit dem Papst, dem Bischof und der Weltkirche“ gehen wolle oder nicht. Wer jedoch „das Prinzip des Gehorsams aufgibt, löst die Einheit auf“, so Schoenborn.
Everyone must decide, whether he goes “the way of the Pope, the Bishops and the Church” or not. Still, he who “gives away the principle of obedience, destroys the unity”, Schoenborn said.
Once again: no word about the theology. That male priesthood is matter of Ordinary and universal Magisterium which must not be put into question is simply ignored. This is a call to obedience, not to theological soundness. That so many priests seem to think that a woman can be priest is not recognised as a problem, at all; that they by so doing go against the union within the Church, is.
Als Priester habe man bei der Weihe „aus freien Stücken, von niemandem dazu gezwungen, dem Bischof ‚Ehrfurcht und Gehorsam‘ in die Hand versprochen“, erinnerte Schönborn weiter, um schließlich die Priester der Erzdiözese wie auch die Unterzeichner des Aufrufs zum Ungehorsam zu fragen: „Steht ihr dazu?“
As a priest, one has on occasion of his ordination “voluntarily, forced by no one, promised to the bishop ‘reverence and obedience’ “, remembered Schoenborn, in the end openly asking his own priests and the underwriters of the appeal: ‘Do you stand by your promise?’ “
This is eerie. He asks all of his priests, and the heretical priests with them, whether they stand by their promise. Again, there is no threat, no reference to their theological confusion. He never says that they are wrong in the matter. On the contrary, the point is always the same: obedience. You have promised obedience, are you still obedient? If you ask me, this isn’t the most intelligent question to pose to people who have openly called to disobedience.
It goes on, and here it gets really disquieting:
“Er selbst habe dem Papst ebenfalls Gehorsam versprochen – und er wolle „dazu stehen, auch wenn es Momente gegeben hat, wo das nicht leicht war“.
“He himself has in turn promised obedience to the Pope – and he wants ‘to stand by it, even if there have been moments, when it wasn’t easy’ “.
What we learn from this is that he was tempted to rebel to the Pope ( we are talking doctrinal matters here, remember! You don’t break any unity if you disagree with the Pope on some opinion of his), but he has decided not to do so, because of his promise of obedience. Here, the heroic self-portrait of a closeted heretical Cardinal is painted; one that at times would have so much liked to break the unity with the bishops and the church; but then decided not to, because of his promise of obedience. His every word seems to say to the rebels “I feel with you, bro”.
Even at this point, there is no word – at least in the article – about the matter in itself, that is: that these people are theologically wrong, big time, and in frontal rebellion to the Ordinary and universal Magisterium. It’s always, and exclusively, about obedience. You start to think that this Cardinal still has some huge problem with the Magisterium but hey, he is an obedient closet heretic.
It goes on:
Man müsse „nicht jeder kirchlichen Entscheidung“ eine „Herzenszustimmung“ erteilen, räumt Schönborn auch ein. Wenn der Papst jedoch – etwa in der Ämterfrage – klare Vorgaben mache, so stelle eine Aufforderung zum Ungehorsam letztlich „die kirchliche Gemeinschaft in Frage“
One doesn’t have to “agree with his own heart with every decision of the Church”, admits Schoenborn. But when the Pope – say: in the question of the offices – gives clear instructions, then an appeal to disobedience ‘puts the union of the church into question'”
This here is positively creepy. Among the requests of the rebels there are some which are clearly heretical and in obvious conflict with the Magisterium. The idea that a priest may feel authorised to disagree with those is appalling and gives all the measure of Schoenborn’s weakness or, worse, closet heresy. At the same time, it is the clearest explanation of how it could come to this in the first place: a Cardinal who thinks his own priests authorised to not accept Catholic doctrine in their heart can really not be surprised when they refuse to accept it openly.
Once again, please notice: not one word about the theological matter. Not one word saying that they are just plain wrong. His only, and constantly repeated, argument is that they should be good boys, swallow their disagreement and not revolt for the sake of the unity.
He even goes so far as to say that they must shut up merely because the Pope says so, and here the reference to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is very clear. Once again, that male priesthood is matter of infallible Sacred Magisterium is not mentioned, at all. He fully ignores the theological question. This isn’t a father who says to his children “you are wrong”. This is a father who says to his children in an understanding tone “I know you’re right, but be good for your mother’s sake”.
The last pearl is the following one:
Schließlich bestätigte Schönborn in dem Brief, dass er in Kürze mit den Vertretern der Pfarrer-Initiative ein Gespräch führen wolle und darin auf verschiedene „Ungereimtheiten“ ihres Aufrufs hinweisen werde
In the end, Schoenborn confirmed in the letter that he wants to meet in the near future with the representatives of the “Priest Initiative”, and point out to them to some “inconsistencies” of their appeal
“Ungereimtheiten”. This means “inconsistencies”, “small contradictions”. That the rebels want to give away the Eucharist without priests – and make of this, let us not forget, a substitute for sunday mass obligation – is merely an “inconsistency”.
And so we are at the end of the article. From what it is possible to see from it, the entire question has been reduced to a question of obedience.
Theology doesn’t play any role; on the contrary, the man clearly feels with his priests; he doesn’t reproach their theological position with one word, not even on the most scandalous issues; he doesn’t threaten any consequence; he doesn’t suspend anyone, not even Father Schueller; he doesn’t even order to take the page down; he doesn’t do anything else than inviting them to be obedient, whilst at the same time giving them every reason to believe that he is not in disagreement with the way they think, merely with the way they act.
This is, be assured, the message that will go out among the Austrian faithful. That the priests are impulsive, but in the end they are right; that their superior can’t tell them they are wrong, so he tells them to be patient and well-behaved; that what is wrong is not what they think, but Rome’s position.
If I were in his shoes and were to be scheming on how to protect the uprising without incurring the ires of Rome but at the same time allowing it to grow and consolidate, I would do exactly as he did: make a formal appeal to obedience by at the same time never showing that I disagree with the theological argument; allow my priests to appear in front of the faithful as people who have their heart in the right place, but who are a bit impulsive in their desire to progress; downplay as “inconsistencies” those requests who are less hugely heretical than the call to women priests.
Well no, on second though, I think I’d be more prudent than that. I’d say a couple of words about the Magisterium, too. To just completely ignore the matter would seem to me too openly approving of their position.
I wonder how long the Church in Austria will have to cope with this man.
Pray for his immortal soul, and that the Church in Austria may soon have a new, worthy pastor.
And so the delirious “council” of dissenting geriatrics has taken place. Without mass, mind, as the smell of canonical consequences for those priests foolish enough to participate was too strong for even one to be found.
The video you can see here (From Father Z’s blog) gives you some sample of the deluded world in which these people still (that is: not for very long) live: they challenge the Church of Christ because “Christ challenged the hierarchy of his days” (hel-lo? They weren’t Christians!); they want to “invite everyone like Christ would have done” as if Church teaching were merely a matter of all happily singing together; they talk of “lesbians and gays” (and whoever else is generally associated with these words) as if one were excluded from the Church merely because one has a perversion, at the same time trying to make the perversion approved.
The video would be mildly amusing if it was about progressive Episcopalians; it being about people calling themselves “Catholic”, one wonders why the warden allowed them to go out.
As you can see from the video, the crowd was, on average, clearly old. These are people who were young in the heydays of LSD and who could never get to grips with simple concepts like, erm, obedience. Their smug expressions show all the arrogance of those who think that they can question 2000 years of Church teaching, because it doesn’t match with their own “liberal” mindset. Fools.
As already stated, the announced ecumenical mass did not take place, being substituted with the usual “kumbaya-can’t you feel the spirit-oh let us feel all new age together” bollocks. A demonstration of (pun not intended) impotence and irrelevance as you couldn’t find a better one. Mildly amusing, though, and useful to instruct the faithful.
There’s unrest in the geriatric department of the madhouse.
It won’t last for very long.
Being so vast, the US are a country full of contrasts, where you find some of the most orthodox Catholics and some of the most desperate cases of insanity.
One of the latter has been divulged in the last days: a booklet from a self-professing “Catholic” group seriously (I think; ready to stand corrected) maintaining that a “full Catholic” position on certain marriage can be different from the one doctrinally prescribed by the Church. You couldn’t make it up, could you now?
In this matter, the “heretic but still fully Catholic” chaps and chapettes have decided for the righteousness of “marriage equality”. This, mind, doesn’t mean anything concerning the position or the dignity of husband and wife within the marriage (as I had, very stupidly and in my innocence, initially believed), but it is basically meant to mean that marriages between man and man, or between woman and woman, are “fully Catholic”. I don’t think it squares with the English language, but there you are; I suppose that everyone must throw in some “equality” nowadays as it lets one feel oh so good.
The US Bishops have punctually reacted. Now, do you think that they have said that these ideas are absurdly and openly heretical? Do you think that they have invited the people clearly responsible for such beastly ideas to backpedal or be excommunicated? Do you think that they have profited from the occasion to sound from all trumpets what marriage is?
Wrong. They have “emphasised” (ok: they actually “emphasized”) that the beastly booklet is “not in conformity” with Catholic teaching and have invited those responsible for the publication to not identify themselves as “Catholic”.
This reaction is typical of the half-diplomatic, half-cowardly approach of so many bishops everywhere in the West. They see HERESY written all over the place and they limit themselves to some polite remark, putting some dots on the “i” and hoping not to upset anyone.
Do you want evidence of ths? This group is clearly identifiable with a religious sister and a priest (I won’t do them the favour of mentioning them; well, no really, I can’t be bothered to cut and paste their names) and the US ecclesiastical authorities have needed several years of pro-homo madness (seven, to be precise) of the two before barring them from working for the Archdiocese of Washington as they were happily doing. When the two stopped working for the archdiocese but continued their evil work, the vatican needed another (get this) fifteen years before barring the two from any work with homosexuals. What has become of this ban is not entirely clear to me as it is obvious that the two – pastoral work or no pastoral work – continue to try to influence as many homosexuals as they can.
We are now informed that “serious questions” have been raised about the adherence of this bunch of nutcases to catholic teaching, thirty-three years after the group was founded.
Serious questions? You don’t say!
Notice here that Fr whatshisname and sister couldntcareless are still – at least from what transpires from the CNA article – in possession of their respective religious dress.
One truly wonders.
Talking with friends about religious matters one is always astonished at the amount of shallowness and ignorance exhibited by many Catholics. This is the more shocking because these Catholic appear to be, more often than not, in good faith.
As always, one must point out to the tragedy of a Catholic instruction which is so deficient as to lack the very basics; and one can only hope, for the sake of the involved souls, that the priests in charge of instructing their sheep have not intentionally caused this abysmal ignorance (don’t ask me to bet on all of them, though).
Here I would like to shortly touch on one point: the relationship between Vatican II and doctrinal truths.
Whenever appropriate, Catholics must be told (in the office, within the larger family, among friends) that Vatican has not changed anything in the doctrinal apparatus of the Church, because Catholic doctrine doesn’t change.
It just doesn’t. It never could. It never will.
Vatican II couldn’t change anything in the doctrinal corpus of the Church because – besides the fact that V II was a purely pastoral council – such a thing just doesn’t exist in Catholicism.
The idea that V II might have changed the Church’s doctrine is profoundly heretical and the fact that such an extraordinary assertion may be made in good faith may – to a point, and given the circumstances – excuse the faithful who expresses it, but doesn’t make the expression less heretical.
Whenever a new document is issued by the Church, this document must always – and can only – be read in the light of Church doctrine. This is the only valid criterium of interpretation as far as doctrinal matters are concerned.
This must be well understood by everyone who deals with doctrinal matters. “This doctrinal point is not valid anymore because this or that encyclical has changed it” is pure Protestant thinking, not Catholicism. It is dead wrong, and it is utter heresy.
Encyclicals and other Vatican documents always make sense in light of the Church’s traditional teaching, and their sense is always to be searched in this light.
This is true even for the most dramatic cases of bad wording and shallow formulations. This is so true, that even Archbishop Lefebvre thought it fit to sign all of the Vatican II documents.
Please make this clear to your poorly instructed friends and acquaintances (of which, I am sure, you have as many as I do) whenever appropriate.
From the Syllabus of Errors:
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. — Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc
You would think that a cardinal would have at least a vague knowledge of these simple things. You would think that a Cardinal wouldn’t stoop so low as to go to a gathering of Muslims and tell them that if they believe in Islam, than it is perfectly fine to stay that way. You would think that even the worst heretics and troublemakers would just shut up once they are retired.
Well, in the case of Cardinal McCarrick, you would be wrong. our home-made heretic is on record with saying these words:
“If a person sees the Quran as proof of God’s presence in the world, then I cannot say, ‘Don’t embrace the Quran.’ So that I think we are, we should always be willing to talk to people and we should always be willing to love them and we should always be willing to allow them that freedom of conscience which comes from God.”
What this old idiot (twice so, because a Cardinal) is saying is that faith in Islam is God-Given and he has nothing to say to that. Mind, he’d talk to the Muslim to see whether his faith in Islam really comes from God; but if he thinks this is the case, hey buddy, gimmefive….
Please also note that there is no reference here to the fact that conversion might be punished to death. What counts here is that Islam is the result of freedom of conscience and in his heretical mind comes from God.
People like him were, in better times, burnt at the stake. I understand that we now live in different times, where the respect for a single, utterly wasted human life dedicated to the perdition of souls comes before the interest of protecting Christianity. But still, there is no possible justification for a Cardinal, albeit retired, spreading such heresies and confusing Catholics.
The place where to send your email asking for the immediate excommunication of the above mentioned heretical idiot, Cardinal McCarrick, is.
Congregazione per il clero
Sua Em.za Rev. Card. Dario Castrillòn Hoyos, Prefetto
A link to the CNS article and your request to act will suffice. They’ll get enough mails anyway.
Here are eight minutes worth spending at the computer. Michael Voris does a very good job of bringing the point home: too often charity is confused with niceness, but if you want to be “nice” you will avoid saying anything which might upset someone. As a result, you’ll stay silent in front of whatever sin, whatever scandal, whatever heresy, whatever abomination.
This is a fairly accurate portrait of what has been happening in the last decades: “nice” people wherever you turn and Christianity slowly disappearing from the scene. If someone dares to point out to one or two truths of the faith, he is immediately branded as uncharitable, inflexible, a Taliban, arrogant, “judgmental” and a lot of other things. If you want to be “nice”, if you want to be popular, you just can’t be charitable.
Most people choose to be popular and “nice”. This makes their life easier and even provides them with the cosy feeling of their own “goodness”. In the meantime, secularism advances.
In beautiful contrast, Michael Voris has a couple of uncomfortable truths to say:
“Our Blessed Lord was not nice, not by the conventional understanding of that word; he was, however, charitable”.
Or try this:
It is not charity to be polite and nice when others are tumbling into hell.
The “quotable” parts of this long and perspective “vortex” are too many to report. Please follow the link and listen to the video, I have linked to the youtube one so that not even registration on the internet site is necessary.