Another clear indication of where the “synodal path” is leading has come from the news that the “working group” preparing a part of the work has voted to discuss whether priests are still needed. (Text in German: good luck!).
This is just as explosive as to promote a discussion on whether there are 3 sexes or 49. The very premise is wrong. Not only is the discussion stupid, but no one of those who have voted to have such a discussion should be considered – or, actually, is – a Catholic.
Mind well: the aim here is, obviously enough, not the one of abolishing the priesthood. All those homos out there need a fake (and, in Germany, well paid) job to pursue their perverted interests in their “free time”. So no, it cannot be in their interest to actually “promote” the abolition of the priesthood, as if such a thing were possible in the first place.
The aim of the discussion will show, as surely as the amen in the church, that the “people” actually pain for something else: something no less stupid or impossible, but which will make the proposers of the “reforms” look, actually, like modernisers stopped by evil people in the Vatican. The following outcomes are possible:
We want priests, but we want married ones.
We want priests, but we want women ones.
We want priests, but we want trannies/homos one.
Once again, this is so obvious that it is alarming that the heretics and perverts in Germany feel so safe of the direction the synodal path is taking, that they are willing to use the same methods used during the years of Second Vatican Council (totally outrageous “reforms” are proposed; the likes of Ratzinger and von Balthasar are then seen as “conservatives”), without any fear of being debunked and demasked beforehand.
It really means that the rot in Germany is far more advanced than we thought.
It also means that such rot cannot be eradicated anymore with isolated punishments here and there. When Pius XIII finally shows up, he will be well advised to cull what has remained of the Church in Germany with exemplary harshness and invest, if necessary, decades in the rebuilding of the Church from the ground up.
We do need any priest who even conceives such discussions.
Therefore, we might soon wonder how many actual priests have remained in Germany.
… I would feel, actually, a blasphemer. This, for the simple reason that I am not God, and God already found His own Church on Christ. So no, I could never even think of something like that.
I know it's obvious. But Cardinal O'Malley did not say it, so I will have to.
Of course one could, in a joking manner, make the absurd argument. “Hey”, he might say, “these are not my rules. They are God's rules. If you don't like them, complain by him!”. Or: “hey, these are not my rules. If it depended on me, I would make chocolate a remedy against cholesterine!” Statements like this only declare, in a joking manner, that we know nothing, and are prone to sin. They are fine in the proper context.
The problem with Cardinal O'Malley, though, is that he created the wrong context, and he gave entirely the wrong perception. Firstly, by choosing to say “I would love to have women priests” he touched a taboo, making a comparison that he knew would be easily misunderstood, and which smacks of political correctness on the cheap. Secondly, he did not add the necessary caveat, adding to his words an expression like “but I would be the biggest idiot on earth only if I thought to do so, because God has already founded His own Church, which is the only one”, or “but only a cretin can think that he knows better than God, and what whatever God states cannot be improved upon, and we accept it instead of discussing it; otherwise we aren't Catholics, but heretics and idiots”.
Instead, the Cardinal chose a different, very arrogant approach. The message he sends is more like “I feel with you rabid feminists, and humanly speaking I cannot avoid thinking that you are right. Embarrassingly enough, Jesus differs. But Jesus cannot be wrong so hey, we'll have to live with this embarrassment; one we can't humanly understand or justify in any other way than by stating that it comes from Him so there must be something right in it”.
Come on, Your Grace. You can't fool us on this one.
I could now, for the edification of the Cardinal, write not one but several blog posts explaining why it is the greatest blessing that women cannot be priests. But as I am pretty sure he knows all already much better than I do – being more than a couple of springs more seasoned than I am – I will let it be for today; safe in the knowledge that the man wanted to pander to the world, hiding behind the finger of “for some reason, Jesus chose that way, so let's bear this burden with Christian resignation”.
This is not one who defends Christ. Rather, he is one who says he does not understand Christ's apparent misogyny, but he deals with it in obedience.
Not much of a Cardinal, this one.
“The Church does not create or invents the sacraments, but receives them from our Lord, who instituted them accordign to His will.”
Interesting video from Gloria TV about so-called women’s ordination, that has relevance beyond the issue itself.
Whilst in normal times it would be superfluous to give relevance to such topics, we do not live in normal times and it is therefore apposite to repeat what should be repeated.
I very much fear in October some half cataclism is going to come to us, and I am rather certain whatever happens in October, in Germany and in other countries the clergy will generalise the sacrilegious practice of giving communion to public adulterers, the only thing to be still decided being the excuse they will use to do so. One is reminded of the Dutch schism, and if you reflect even JP II needed several years to finally move the steamroller you can imagine how the decidedly more revolutionary Francis will tacitly allow the worst abuses to happen, under the mantle of a “mercy” that is fake because not rooted in Christ’s laws, and hypocritical because no trace of it can be found in his dealing with the FFI, culpable of the terrible heresy of Catholicism.
But the Church does not create or invents the Sacraments, but receives them from our Lord, who instituted them according to his will. It is, therefore, not for the Church – not in a pretended dostrinal way, and not even under the excuse of mercy or pastoral care – to tamper with them.
Enjoy the video.
Courtesy of The Curt Jester.
All-dancing, all-singing madness.
Pure fun. Please show this to friends and relatives.
Don’t forget the acquaintances.
If you needed some evidence of the power of the new media, look no further than at the excellent Rorate Caeli blog. Here, what is clearly a retractation from him (he calls it “clarification”; let us put a charitable blanket of silence on that…) was posted.
Allow me to say beforehand that I will not insult your intelligence by pretending to believe – and asking you to believe – that no external pressure was at work on this, and Rorate Caeli themselves have no doubt whatsoever on the matter. If you ask me, this has “Rome” written all over it and my congratulations are for them, not for the Cardinal.
The most salient words of Policarpo’s message are in my eyes the following (emphases always mine):
The reactions to this interview have forced me to look into this theme with greater care, and I have ascertained that, mostly for not having taken into appropriate consideration the latest declarations of the Magisterium on the matter, I gave rise to those reactions
So, he has forgotten to read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, or was not attentive in class. Which, OS having been released only seventeen years ago, goes under “latest declarations of the Magisterium”. Still, it is nice and deserving of credit that he acknowledges that the problem has been caused by him.
The most recent Magisterium of the Popes interprets this uninterrupted tradition, that has its origin in Christ and in the Apostolic body, not only as a practical way to proceed, which may change at the rhythm of the action of the Holy Spirit, but as an expression of the ministry of the Church itself, which we must receive in faith.
The Cardinal is wrong again here, but one understands that he is just trying to give some half-baked excuse for his scandal. The truth is that the Church has never said that male priesthood is a practical way to proceed. Never, ever. The Cardinal is confusing male priesthood with male celibacy, for sure. Much less has the Church ever said that male priesthood “may change at the rhythm of the action of the Holy Spirit”. Already the idea that there be a “rhythm” of the Holy Spirit “rhythmically” changing Truth is openly heretical and again, the Cardinal is confusing Catholicism with, say, Episcopalianism. The idea that there could be an “uninterrupted tradition” in such vital doctrinal matters that could be changed by the “rhythm of the Holy Spirit” is purest “so-called bishopess Schori”-thinking.
Male priesthood is constant and universal tradition of the Church. This is Ordinary and universal Magisterium, period. This would be every bit as infallible if Ordinatio Sacerdotalis had never been written. Someone who had expressed himself in, say, the Thirties as Cardinal Policarpo expresses himself today would have found himself in deep trouble, very fast.
Let us read again the relevant bit of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, also cited by the Cardinal:
‘Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.’
How is it possible to understand from here anything else than the simple, plain fact that the “rhythm of the holy spirit” bollocks has never been justifiable, that it has always gone against Church teaching and that it even goes against “the Church’s divine constitution” is beyond me. If a teacher teaches to his pupils in 1994 that 2+2=4, this is not the teacher’s “latest declaration”. This is fact. It has always been this way, not starting from 1994!
The Cardinal continues with the following words:
“We are thus called to accept the Magisterium of the Holy Father, in the humility of our faith, and to continue to deepen the relationship of the ministerial priesthood with the priestly quality of all the people of God, and to discover the feminine way of building the Church, in the decisive role of the mission of our women sisters.
I hate to be fussy, but the good Cardinal obviously still doesn’t get it. It is not the teaching of JP II that says that male priesthood is the only way. It is Ordinary and universal Magisterium, because it is what “has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church”. There can’t be a clearer indication of this being Ordinary and universal Magisterium than these words. Cardinal Policarpo, and all those with the same strange “rhythmical” fantasies, must once and for all stop pretending that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis has brought any change. It hasn’t. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis has merely stated what always was.
In the end, though, and making some allowance for the embarrassment of a poor man trying to justify the unjustifiable – like the pupil caught sleeping in class and asked to give an explanation of what he is doing – Cardinal Policarpo makes very clear that where the Magisterium is, there is he. This is a welcome, erm, “clarification”, because a different message had been spread through his words.
From Rorate Caeli, good news from the extraordinarily amusing world of the barking cats, that is: of those women who think that a woman should be (and in fact: even is) able to receive Holy Orders so that the grave gender discrimination Jesus put in place against them may come to an end. When the Vatican decided that such acts would henceforward be delicta graviora, the poor ladies had nothing better to do that meowing “discrimination” out loud.
Norma Jean Coon, a woman who deluded herself to the point of believing that she was ordained deacon, has now officially renounced to her error.
If you read her declaration on her internet site you’ll notice that the language is still extremely approximate and obviously wrong (at the beginning she gives the impression of still thinking that she has effectively been ordained, which is ridiculously wrong; and that her excommunication is purely due to this alleged “ordination” not being authorised, which is plain ridiculous), but if you continue to read you’ll discover that the lady gets the substance of the matter absolutely right and declares that:
1) she recognises the truth of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, and
2) she recognises that Holy Orders are an institution only reserved to men.
It takes a certain courage to admit coram populo that one has been so astonishingly wrong, and it certainly hasn’t been easy to completely distance oneself from a group of supposedly barking cats which had obviously been the object of a considerable emotional investment. Therefore, Mrs. Coon deserves our appreciation and our prayers.
It still seems barely believable to me that a mother of five could ever achieve such a summit of self-delusion, but the hints in Mrs. Coon’s declaration (that she has pretended to “officiate” only on a couple of occasions, and that the pangs of conscience must have been rather strong from the very days following her mock-ordination) lets one think that in this case the Holy Ghost has been at work to avoid the poor woman the damnation she was clearly working towards, with rather spectacular results.
Please also note that we might be here in front of a future conservative Catholic (the Prayer of St. Michael eminently displayed on the page leaves few doubt as to whom she thinks was at the origin of her troubles), and it is in fact rather natural that when one begins to see the light he may want to enjoy it in all its splendour.
It must be liberating to discover oneself free from ego-driven error and ready to enter the realm of real freedom: the freedom to follow the Truth and willingly submit to it.
Please join me in my prayers both for Mrs. Coon and in thanksgiving for this happy conversion.
One never ceases to be amazed at the ability of so many people to warp the most elementary concepts of logic, provided it helps them to feel good, important, modern or even supposedly clever. The always excellent Father Zuhlsdorf reports of the usual protest of a colourful bunch of women in pursuit of that logical, theological and, well, anatomical impossibility: the Female Priesthood. This would be funny if the mere existence of such extraordinary utterances were not a sad indication of the state of utter decay in which the Teaching has fallen after the happy experiments of the last decades.
Granted, the ladies are gravely confused even for the standard of your average Catholic, but how many Catholics really know why? How many Catholics think that the Church opposes (oh, that word…) “female priesthood” just because of her “conservatism”? If you were to ask your average Catholic in, say, San Luis Obispo whether he thinks that one day the Church might have (oh, that word…) “priestesses”, how many do you think would react with a hearty laugh and how many would answer that “one day the Church might be forced to react to societal changes”? I am terrified of writing this, but I strongly suspect that nowadays most Catholics believe that Male Priesthood is a choice. Which, if you think of it, is a beautiful witness of the decades long, relentless work of so many priests and bishops to undermine everything Catholic and to substitute it with the shallow, sugary, politically correct, insipid fare served at so many Protestant and at all Secularist tables.
If you, dear reader, are in need of a well-grounded and definitive knowledge of why there will never be a priestess before cats can bark I suggest the reading of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the encyclical letter of John Paul II dealing with the issue. It is easy to read, pretty well argued and unmistakably clear in saying that the nonsense must come to an end and that even the discussions about the expediency of having Shrek as the next President of the United States (or of having “priestesses”, or such like) are not allowed.
For your convenience, the link is provided on this very same blog, under Church Teaching. Have fun and spare a thought for the poor women.