Theology

[wizards8507]

/r/iamverysmart material right here.

 

[wizards8507]

I'd love the input of some of the old timers and traditionalists about Vatican II and how it's changed the Church. I've been reading and listening to a lot of traditionalist speakers lately about the new Mass, ecumenism, and other things.

EDIT: I'm convinced that Whiskeyjack is Chris Ferrara. I just heard him speak on social atomization and the perils of liberalism.

"What has gone wrong with the grand American experiment in "ordered liberty"? The progressive answer is that America has failed to live up to its full promise of inclusiveness and equality--likely the result of corporate greed and white male ruling elites. The mainstream conservative or libertarian's reply points to the Warren Court, the 1960's, or a loss of Constitutional rectitude. Christopher Ferrara, in Liberty, the God That Failed, offers an entirely different answer. In a counter-narrative of unique power and scope, he unmasks the order promised as a sham; the liberty guaranteed, a chimera. In his telling, the false god of a new political order--Liberty--was born in thought long before America's founding, and gained increasing devotion as it slowly amassed power during the first century of the nation's existence. Today it reveals its full might, as we bear the weight of its oppressive decrees, and experience the emptiness of the secular order it imposes upon us.

Ferrara destroys multiple myths constructed by the secular state with a relentless uncovering of truths hidden by both liberal and conservative/libertarian accounts of what has gone wrong. In this brilliant retelling of American history and political life, the author asks us to open our eyes to harsh realities, but also to the possibilities for a rightly ordered society and the true liberty that can still be ours."

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I'd love the input of some of the old timers and traditionalists about Vatican II and how it's changed the Church. I've been reading and listening to a lot of traditionalist speakers lately about the new Mass, ecumenism, and other things.

Not an old timer, but I'm definitely one who is deeply dissatisfied with the Novus Ordo (at least as I've experienced it). If we actually believe in the miracle that is occurring on the altar, the reverence of the Tridentine Rite accompanied by Gregorian chant is obviously far superior. Martin Mosebach just published a great article on this subject in First Things.

Christopher Ferrara, in Liberty, the God That Failed...

That's on my reading list!

 

[wizards8507]

Not an old timer, but I'm definitely one who is deeply dissatisfied with the Novus Ordo (at least as I've experienced it). If we actually believe in the miracle that is occurring on the altar, the reverence of the Tridential Rite accompanied by Gregorian chant is obviously far superior. Martin Mosebach just published a great article on this subject in First Things.

That's on my reading list!

These guys (Fatima Center and The Remnant chief among them) are intense. They're extremely open and harsh in their criticism of Pope Francis, most specifically regarding Amoris laetitia and the attacks from within the Church on the family.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Not an old timer, but I'm definitely one who is deeply dissatisfied with the Novus Ordo (at least as I've experienced it). If we actually believe in the miracle that is occurring on the altar, the reverence of the Tridentine Rite accompanied by Gregorian chant is obviously far superior. Martin Mosebach just published a great article on this subject in First Things.



That's on my reading list!

Find an Ordinariate or just a priest that gives the Mass its proper reverence. My parish's pastor does a very good job (he even does Compline on Sunday nights, it's baller) and it's in the Ordinary Form. Before, I went to a parish ran by the Paulists and though the Masses were valid, they lacked the mystical air found in the EF and when the OF is done properly.

 

[wizards8507]

He even does Compline on Sunday nights, it's baller.

Sometimes I like to contemplate whether there are certain characteristics about myself that are unique among all humans throughout history. Congratulations, I'm pretty sure you've spoken a sentence that has never before been uttered.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Sometimes I like to contemplate whether there are certain characteristics about myself that are unique among all humans throughout history. Congratulations, I'm pretty sure you've spoken a sentence that has never before been uttered.

That's just not true. I said it the other night after I stepped out. It's really beautiful; we're very #blessed to have a priest so attuned to the beauty of chant and proper liturgy. Even if he is irascible

 

[Whiskeyjack]

These guys (Fatima Center and The Remnant chief among them) are intense. They're extremely open and harsh in their criticism of Pope Francis, most specifically regarding Amoris laetitia and the attacks from within the Church on the family.

Just be careful not to stray into sedevacantist territory. Given what Pope Francis and the German bishops closely allied with him seem to want, and their apparent inability to simply make it happen, one is reminded that the Magisterium is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error.

Find an Ordinariate or just a priest that gives the Mass its proper reverence. My parish's pastor does a very good job (he even does Compline on Sunday nights, it's baller) and it's in the Ordinary Form. Before, I went to a parish ran by the Paulists and though the Masses were valid, they lacked the mystical air found in the EF and when the OF is done properly.

Some background may be in order here. My family has attended St. Timothy Catholic Church in Mesa since before I was born. St. Tim's was built "in the round", with two tiers of auditorium-style seating. No pews and no kneelers. The pastor was Dale Fushek, a highly charismatic priest who brought in tremendous crowds. The music ministry included many commercially successful Christian musicians. Modeled on the evangelical Young Life program, Fushek founded the Catholic equivalent in Life Teen, which spread all over the US.

Fushek was very heterodox, and he took outrageous liberties with the liturgy. The tabernacle was removed from the altar and kept in a side room, during Sunday night's "Teen Mass" (standing room only), the high school kids attending were invited up onto the altar during the consecration, etc. It was very praise-and-worshippy. I couldn't articulate why I found it distasteful at the time, but it was extremely emotive and irreverent. I joke that, having been raised at that parish, I basically grew up Protestant.

Fushek was placed on leave in 2004 after accusations of sexual misconduct became public, and he was eventually defrocked and excommunicated as well. The priest that succeeded him (Jack Spaulding) was removed for similar reasons several years later as well.

The current pastor has done a good job of trying to undo the incredible damage wrought by Fushek and Spaulding over two+ decades. He's moved the tabernacle back onto the altar, built a Perpetual Adoration chapel, an impressive reliquarium, added some chant back into the liturgy, replaced the chairs on the lower level with pews, etc. But there's still a lot of non-sacred music, and the architecture of the church prevents ad orientam worship, etc. The pastor feels like he can't do much more without alienating large portions of his congregation.

My oldest son is preparing to receive his First Eucharist and Confirmation this May, and my wife and I were so dissatisfied with the catechesis he was receiving that we pulled him out and started catechizing him ourselves through the parish's home study program. And it's hard to teach young ones about the sacred mysteries when your parish's music ministry and building architecture are indicating that they're there to be entertained.

So I agree with you that it is possible to offer mass in the OF with the proper reverence. God knows my parish, which has been through a lot, is trying to get back on track. But this isn't an area that I'm inclined to compromise on.

 

[wizards8507]

Just be careful not to stray into sedevacantist territory. Given what Pope Francis and the German bishops closely allied with him seem to want, and their apparent inability to simply make it happen, one is reminded that the Magisterium is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error.

Protected from teaching error on doctrinal matters, not on pastoral matters.

 

[Old Man Mike]

.... just know, gentlemen, that good highly spiritual Catholics differ in what they (even tangibly) feel brings them into communion with The Holy Spirit --- thus the nearly endless shelves of historical methodologies inviting us to deep meditation and prayer. There seems to me to be a need for a little humility here. Everyone isn't "just like me" and "I've got the Way clearly in sight." One might even come to the horrid realization that what "appeals" wholesomely to oneself just might have something to do with one's upbringing or even the subtle differences in the structure of one's brain.

I wonder if we should grab certain persons who are living in cultures wildly different from our own (to paint an extreme case for clarity's sake --- I realize that some folks cannot see the intellectual benefit of considering extreme situations when they are attempting to make absolutist declarations, but others get it), and strip their worship of any remnant of their natural history and culture, replacing it with a severely "cleansed" European mediaeval atmosphere (note "mediaeval" not first century Middle Eastern). If one might "make an exception" (anywhere) then why the Absolutism on something which is a matter of form, and not substance (the ritual of the Eucharist remains, as do the Gospel readings, The Creed, the various Blessings.)

It stuns me that when people "feel" that they like something some way, they want to force everyone to do it their way --- even when neither way violates the fundamental basis of the Faith. It smacks of fragile faith. There is not enough faith in The Lord and the Gospel and the Eucharist to believe that those other people's souls will be granted plenty of grace to face the moral decisions of their lives. And, just because some @ss committed mortal selfish sins in violation of priestly duties is pretty irrelevant to the form-of-the-Mass issue. Here in Michigan we had a severely (outwardly) "traditional" priest who raped kids also. These citations are straw men.

I live in a house with other retired men. One of them is a retired priest. His "job" for years was (and to a degree is) chaplain to the Sisters of St. Joseph. Doubtless some people on this site really hate nuns, and think that they are part of the decay of The Church, but to them I'd have to say "Stick it." These are among the finest people I have ever known, continually for careers of up to 80 years in service, humbly and self-sacrificingly, laboring in the vineyards for The Lord. Attending Mass with them and my housemate as presider (Oh the Horror of facing the people and listening to the nuns sing something other than Gregorian chant!), has been one of the great privileges of my 76 year life, and always a moment of, as we say in the Cursillo Movement, "A Moment Closest to Christ."

If this irritates persons who want it to be otherwise, well, I apologize but not a lot.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

.... just know, gentlemen, that good highly spiritual Catholics differ in what they (even tangibly) feel brings them into communion with The Holy Spirit --- thus the nearly endless shelves of historical methodologies inviting us to deep meditation and prayer. There seems to me to be a need for a little humility here. Everyone isn't "just like me" and "I've got the Way clearly in sight." One might even come to the horrid realization that what "appeals" wholesomely to oneself just might have something to do with one's upbringing or even the subtle differences in the structure of one's brain.

I agreed with zelezo that mass in the OF can be offered with the necessary reverence. And I never suggested that there's only one proper liturgical form. But I think focusing on how the mass makes one feel is precisely the wrong way to approach the issue. Weekly mass attendance is a duty, and is part of the justice one owes to God. And it shouldn't be controversial to suggest that good liturgy orients one toward the transcendent, and not inwardly on whether the praise music gives you the warm fuzzies.

I wonder if we should grab certain persons who are living in cultures wildly different from our own (to paint an extreme case for clarity's sake --- I realize that some folks cannot see the intellectual benefit of considering extreme situations when they are attempting to make absolutist declarations, but others get it), and strip their worship of any remnant of their natural history and culture, replacing it with a severely "cleansed" European mediaeval atmosphere (note "mediaeval" not first century Middle Eastern). If one might "make an exception" (anywhere) then why the Absolutism on something which is a matter of form, and not substance (the ritual of the Eucharist remains, as do the Gospel readings, The Creed, the various Blessings.)

No. In the sense of "you will know them by their fruits", the prevailing liturgy of the African churches (for instance) must be doing something very right, given their success in encouraging religious vocations. The flipside of that is that we, here in the West, are obviously doing something very wrong; and I think there's a good case to be made that the liturgical violence done in the "spirit" of Vatican II bears at least some of the blame.

It stuns me that when people "feel" that they like something some way, they want to force everyone to do it their way --- even when neither way violates the fundamental basis of the Faith. It smacks of fragile faith. There is not enough faith in The Lord and the Gospel and the Eucharist to believe that those other people's souls will be granted plenty of grace to face the moral decisions of their lives. And, just because some @ss committed mortal selfish sins in violation of priestly duties is pretty irrelevant to the form-of-the-Mass issue. Here in Michigan we had a severely (outwardly) "traditional" priest who raped kids also. These citations are straw men.

I did not intend to make any sort of insinuation regarding Modern v. Traditional priests and pederasty. I mentioned it simply to give some background as to where I'm coming from; I was formed at a very heterodox modern parish that suffered significantly as a result. I realize that my experience is not typical, and may dispose me in ways that others won't be.

I live in a house with other retired men. One of them is a retired priest. His "job" for years was (and to a degree is) chaplain to the Sisters of St. Joseph. Doubtless some people on this site really hate nuns, and think that they are part of the decay of The Church, but to them I'd have to say "Stick it." These are among the finest people I have ever known, continually for careers of up to 80 years in service, humbly and self-sacrificingly, laboring in the vineyards for The Lord. Attending Mass with them and my housemate as presider (Oh the Horror of facing the people and listening to the nuns sing something other than Gregorian chant!), has been one of the great privileges of my 76 year life, and always a moment of, as we say in the Cursillo Movement, "A Moment Closest to Christ."

See the Mosebach article on the Roman Rite I linked earlier. The documents of Vatican II themselves make clear that the Cardinals had no intention of doing away with consecration ad orientam, communion rails, sacred music, and the vast majority of the Roman Rite. They offered some flexibility so that local priests could better serve the needs of their congregations; and American baby-boomers took that for license to "sing a new church into being" with the same self-aggrandizing navel-gazing that they've inflicted on every other American institution.

What do you think sounds closer to the heavenly chorus? This:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/D1QjkhENZg8?ecver=1" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Or this:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IbNXqjwh8is?ecver=1" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

As a young American Catholic, the former is part of my birthright (and that of every Christian, but we'll leave that aside for now); but we've been deprived of it by arrogant hippies who thought they knew better than the countless saints who helped form the Tradition over the 1900 years that preceeded them.

Here's a relevant bit from a recent review of The Young Pope in First Things:

Pope Francis is one of the great antagonists in this battle. He has a penchant for anecdotes in which young priests are rigid and worldly, while older ones are gentle and wise. At a press conference in October, Francis told a story about a parish in Spain where an old priest had been replaced by a young one. Whereas the first pastor had accompanied a transgender person in the parish, the new one (so Francis said) stood on the sidewalk yelling, “You’ll go to hell!” In a homily in September, he made fun of young priests for wearing more traditional vestments: “And it is said that the Church does not allow women priests!”

However one weighs those specific remarks, Francis has a point. Young people really do desire structure today. Call it “rigidity” if you like, but they have had occasion to learn the value of rules. Some of them would have been spared a great deal of misery if our Church and society had been more rigid on certain points.

...

Among my peers there is a vague, floating sense of dislocation and disinheritance. They have been schooled in rebellion but have nothing to rebel against. This is the cause, I think, of the enthusiasm many young people show for ritual, ceremony, and all things traditional. Having been raised in a culture of unending pseudo-spontaneity, they have had time to count its costs. They prefer more rigid forms.

"Rigidity" is no vice when one is looking to build something lasting that can be handed on to his children.

 

[wizards8507]

I'm not sure the music is an entirely fair point of criticism, Whiskey.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0x2e-aQrjTk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Tell me that's not reverent just because it's performed in the vernacular by a "folk choir."

We also need to be realistic about the musical tools at the disposal of local parishes. When the only organist in town is Old Betty, you're not going to get the Sistine Chapel Choir.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I'm not sure the music is an entirely fair point of criticism, Whiskey.

Tell me that's not reverent just because it's performed in the vernacular by a "folk choir."

Agreed. That's plenty reverent. I'm not suggesting that every parish ought to return to the Tridentine Rite, with the full liturgy in Latin, and Palestrina's polyphony as the only music. Limited liturgical flexibility can be a good thing.

But the St. Louis Jesuits' hymnody that gave us Gather Us In and On Eagles Wings is abominable, and a perfect example of what happens when the liturgy becomes completely unmoored from tradition. Based on my experience, the average American parish is much closer to that pole now (and has been for decades) than the liturgically rigid one Vatican II was seeking to avoid.

We also need to be realistic about the musical tools at the disposal of local parishes. When the only organist in town is Old Betty, you're not going to get the Sistine Chapel Choir.

Chant doesn't require much in the way of resources or talent to do properly. For a small parish with few people involved in the music ministry, I'd argue it's easier to do chant well than a full folk setup with piano, guitars, a tambourine (blech).

 

[wizards8507]

Agreed. That's plenty reverent. I'm not suggesting that every parish ought to return to the Tridentine Rite, with the full liturgy in Latin, and Palestrina's polyphony as the only music. Limited liturgical flexibility can be a good thing.

But the St. Louis Jesuits' hymnody that gave us Gather Us In and On Eagles Wings is abominable, and a perfect example of what happens when the liturgy becomes completely unmoored from tradition. Based on my experience, the average American parish is much closer to that pole now (and has been for decades) than the liturgically rigid one Vatican II was seeking to avoid.

Of that, I have no doubt. In my research this weekend I came across some folks reporting that "Bridge Over Troubled Water" was being sung as a Communion hymn.

Chant doesn't require much in the way of resources or talent to do properly. For a small parish with few people involved in the music ministry, I'd argue it's easier to do chant well than a full folk setup with piano, guitars, a tambourine (blech).

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LGT5_0GnWMU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This doesn't do it for you? It's actually a shame that they have the percussion over-mic'ed in this video. The effect is quite triumphant in person.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

This doesn't do it for you? It's actually a shame that they have the percussion over-mic'ed in this video. The effect is quite triumphant in person.

Could have done without the bongos, but when you're starting with a beautiful choral rendition of the Gloria, you've got a lot of room to work with before you stray into irreverent territory. Listen to the version of Gather Us In that I linked above. Now imagine that, but performed at a much lower level of musical competence, you've approximated what the average music minister here in Phoenix is putting out.

Maybe Arizona is just a liturgical hellscape, but the only time I ever hear a proper church choir is for Bishop Olmstead's annual Red Mass in the Basilica downtown.

 

[tussin]

But the St. Louis Jesuits' hymnody that gave us Gather Us In and On Eagles Wings is abominable, and a perfect example of what happens when the liturgy becomes completely unmoored from tradition. Based on my experience, the average American parish is much closer to that pole now (and has been for decades) than the liturgically rigid one Vatican II was seeking to avoid.

What exactly is wrong with that break from tradition? Is your point that such hymns are simply self-indulgent? In short, I'm not sure what the beef is beyond personal preference.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

What exactly is wrong with that break from tradition? Is your point that such hymns are simply self-indulgent? In short, I'm not sure what the beef is beyond personal preference.

This article touches on some of the important reasons why those sorts of hymns are harmful. There are lots of others like it that are easily discovered through a Google search.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Who doesn't like singing a rousing rendition of "A Mighty Fortress is Our God" whilst burning the Pope in effigy?

 

[zelezo vlk]

Could have done without the bongos, but when you're starting with a beautiful choral rendition of the Gloria, you've got a lot of room to work with before you stray into irreverent territory. Listen to the version of Gather Us In that I linked above. Now imagine that, but performed at a much lower level of musical competence, you've approximated what the average music minister here in Phoenix is putting out.

Maybe Arizona is just a liturgical hellscape, but the only time I ever hear a proper church choir is for Bishop Olmstead's annual Red Mass in the Basilica downtown.

And maybe literal.

. Shame

 

[Old Man Mike]

I've sung "A Mighty Fortress Is Our GOD" in Catholic Church and found the experience quite powerful and moving. My "secret" was to sing it listening just to the words without festering about historical hang-ups. Jesus admonished his disciples to get off the back of an "outsider" who was doing His same work although not a regular disciple. Singing songs with deeply spiritual words without looking for historical heresies is a lot less egregious/"dangerous" than that.

 

[irishog77]

I think the liturgical changes to the Mass from several years ago are, for the most part, beneficial to the universal church. Much of the music (and even some of the spoken word in the vernacular) had devolved into a free-for-all based on the whims of a particular parish pastor, or worse, parish music director or unsubstantiated parish traditions based on "we like doing it this way."

That being said, I will admit that the use of chant (particularly used by priests ordained within the last 5 years) drives me absolutely crazy. I fully believe chant can be a beautiful expression of communicating with God through thanksgiving, worship, intercession, request, etc. But, I see no benefit by adding it to the form of the Mass. Chanting, "The.....Lord....be.....with.....you," as opposed to simply speaking, "The Lord be with you" does not make any person or congregation holier or more God-like. Freely choosing to chant in daily prayers, perhaps, shows a greater holiness than forced-chants at obligated Sunday Mass. In learning about those with Down Syndrome, a whole new world has been opened to me in regards to how all people learn, by both visual and auditory. Similarly, we all have certain sensitivities to both of those. Admittedly, certain sounds drive me bat shit crazy. So this may be something that pertains more to me, rather than the human race.

I am also not sure why pipe organ = liturgically proper? The parish I am a member of here in Nashville is heavy on the organ. I often feel like I have just engaged in a High Episcopal Mass...in Victorian England-- heavy on formal theatrics and optics, low on saving souls. There is often no audible difference in each song of the Mass. Maybe I'm more critical than I should be on the music at Mass. After all, I live in a city with many of the best musicians (and singers) in the world, literally. I am in the Whiskey camp and feel that the music of the liturgy, in most parishes, had turned into a Woodstock revival, but I don't see how strictly blaring the pipe organ fixes it. Music and singing should be a heart-felt, emotional expression. Pipe organs and chants seem to more mimic rote expression though.

My fix for the chanting? Go back to pre-Vatican II. Have the prayers and parts of Mass in Latin, but keep the readings and homily in the vernacular. My fix for the dull pipe organs? Add in a classical guitar...and maybe a harp and wind instrument as well.

 

[wizards8507]

Presented without comment.

The Remnant Newspaper - Imploding Papacy Signals Triumph of Immaculate Heart

Pope Bergoglio is a man in a hurry. It is almost as if he working on some sort of deadline to impose his designs upon the Church—a deadline of four years to be exact, as LifeSiteNews reminded us regarding an anonymous comment by one of the cardinals who voted for this disaster of a Pope: “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things.”

The co-conspirators themselves have openly admitted the existence of a plot to elect Bergoglio to “change things” in the Church rapidly and “irreversibly” in ways exceeding even the catastrophic innovations of the past fifty years—or so they thought. Pope Benedict’s secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, spoke of “a dramatic struggle” during the 2005 Conclave “between the “so-called ‘Salt of the Earth Party’ (named after the book interview with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) comprising ‘Cardinals Lopez Trujillo, Ruini, Herranz, Ruoco Varela or Medina’ and their adversaries: ‘the so-called St. Gallen group’ that included Cardinals Danneels, Martini, Silvestrini or Murphy O’Connor’ — a group Cardinal Danneels referred jokingly to as “a kind of mafia-club…” Another member of the “mafia-club” is Walter Kasper, the German arch-heretic who had fallen into obscurity until Bergoglio’s arrival on the scene.

With Bergoglio’s election at the 2013 Conclave the conspirators finally succeeded in achieving the proximate object of the conspiracy, but only after the hated Benedict XVI had been driven from the Chair of Peter, having semi-abdicated while clinging to his papal name, papal title, papal garb, papal insignia, and even the papal office in its supposedly “passive” versus “active” dimension. He thus became the first “Pope Emeritus” in Church history—a total novelty that in and of itself suggests Benedict is somehow still a Pope.

The conspirators have also succeeded in achieving a further object of the conspiracy: the admission of public adulterers to Holy Communion without an amendment of life, following a sham “Synod on the Family” in which were intimately involved none other than co-conspirator Kasper, whose heretical notion of “mercy” Francis began promoting immediately upon his election, and co-conspirator Danneels, the Modernist protector of a priest-rapist and a supporter of “gay marriage.”

And now the bimillenial Eucharistic discipline of the Church, integrally linked to her infallible teaching on the Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage, stands divided along the fault lines Bergoglio has created. No less than the President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio—whose name has a disturbing assonance with the name of certain bird—has just given an interview with Edward Pentin wherein he announces the new Bergoglian Rule: one who is living in an adulterous “second marriage” can be absolved and admitted to Holy Communion while continuing to engage in adulterous sexual relations, so long as he declares to his confessor something like “I want to change, but I know that I am not capable of changing, but I want to change.”

So much for the constant teaching of the Church that absolution requires a “firm purpose of amendment,” which even the Catechism the very Pope that Francis declared a saint describes as “sorrow for and abhorrence of sins committed, and the firm purpose of sinning no more in the future.” Bergoglio will have none of that sort of merciless rigorism. As Coccopalmerio explains: “If you wait until someone changes their style of life, you wouldn’t absolve anymore anyone at all.”

But one might ask: How would a confessor know that the penitent who invokes the Bergoglian Rule and claims “I want to change but cannot” is sincere and thus should be absolved even though it is understood that he will continue to commit same sin? Not to worry, says Coccopalmerio: “You have to pay attention to what the penitent says. If you know — you can tell if he is misleading you.” You can tell! Really, you can!

Need I mention that the Bergoglian Rule flirts with the Council of Trent’s anathematization of Luther’s heresy that it is impossible to keep the Commandments even if one is in the state of grace? Then again, the difference between Bergoglian and Lutheran theology appears to be vanishingly small, which perhaps explains Bergoglio’s journey to Sweden to pay tribute to the arch-heretic’s “legacy.”

On February 24, during another rambling homily at Casa Santa Marta, Bergoglio told us yet again that a staunch defense of the moral law concerning matrimony is mere casuistry worthy of the Pharisees. In the Gospel According to Bergoglio, Jesus did not tell the Pharisees that divorce is unlawful: “Jesus does not answer whether it is lawful or not lawful; He doesn’t enter into their casuistic logic…. Casuistry is hypocritical. It is a hypocritical thought. ‘Yes, you can; no, you can’t.’”

Pope Bergoglio appears to have overlooked the same verses he has been ignoring for the past four years: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” Thus it would appear that even Jesus succumbed to the “casuistic logic” of the Pharisees, according to the Bergoglian Hermeneutic. So did God the Father when He declared: “Thou shalt not commit adultery” as well as “thou shalt not” do various other things enumerated in what were once known as the Ten Commandments, but have since been redefined—by Bergoglio in Amoris Laetitia—as the Ten Objective Ideals or the Ten General Rules (cf. AL nn. 300-305).

This papacy has become such a mockery that it is now arousing open opposition from deep within the Catholic mainstream, which is finally awakening to the alarm “radical traditionalists” have been sounding for decades. In a piece entitled simply “This Disastrous Papacy,” Phil Lawler recounts how “something snapped” when he read Bergoglio’s claim that Jesus did not say “you can’t” to the Pharisees regarding divorce. He declares: “I could no longer pretend that Pope Francis is merely offering a novel interpretation of Catholic doctrine. No; it is more than that. He is engaged in a deliberate effort to change what the Church teaches.” The Bergoglian pontificate, he concludes, “has become a danger to the faith.”

But Bergoglio has much more danger in mind as he rushes to fulfill his megalomaniacal “dream” of “transforming everything, so that the Church’s customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channeled for the evangelization of today’s world rather than for her self-preservation.” Nothing as trivial as the Church’s self-preservation*—or God, for that matter—can be allowed to interfere with the apotheosis of Bergoglianism. Thus there are rumors (based on leaks from Casa Santa Marta, which tend to be accurate) of a new payload of blockbusters Bergoglio is planning to drop before he drops:

- some sort of non-ordained “female deacon”;

- a Novus-Novus Ordo, under construction by a secret commission, that would permit a form of intercommunion with Protestants;

- the transformation of Catholic parishes into “ecumenical communities” administered not only by priests but also Protestant ministers on the theory that their ministries possess “partial” validity, as Coccopalmerio suggests at the end of his interview with Pentin.

Like a runaway train on a sharp curve, the Bergoglio Express has left the tracks. Now, even a significant number of the cardinals who made the mistake of voting for him at the 2013 Conclave can see the wheels coming off the train. With opposition and even outright mockery of Bergoglio rising everywhere, the Times of London, quoting Antonio Socci in Il Libero, reports in a headline story that “A large part of the cardinals who voted for him is very worried and the curia . . . that organised his election and has accompanied him thus far, without ever disassociating itself from him, is cultivating the idea of a moral suasion to convince him to retire…”

Socci observes that “Four years after Benedict XVI’s renunciation and Bergoglio’s arrival on the scene, the situation of the Catholic church has become explosive, perhaps really on the edge of a schism, which could be even more disastrous than Luther’s, who is today being rehabilitated by the Bergoglio church… The cardinals are worried that the church could be shattered as an institution. There are many indirect ways in which the pressure [to resign] might be exerted.”

It isn’t going to happen. Bergoglio will cling to power until his dying breath. As one Vatican insider (who prefers to remain anonymous) confided to the Times: “A good number of the majority that voted for Bergoglio in 2013 have come to regret their decision, but I don’t think it’s plausible that members of the hierarchy will pressure the Pope to resign. Those who know him know it would be useless. [He] has a very authoritarian streak. He won’t resign until he has completed his revolutionary reforms, which are causing enormous harm.”

But there is an auspicious development in all of this: The recognition that Bergoglio is running amok and that, to recall Lawler’s words, his pontificate “has become a danger to the faith,” is now well established in the Catholic mainstream. The neo-Catholic knee-jerk defense of every papal word and deed (lest the traditionalist critique of the post-Vatican II innovation of the Church be in any way vindicated) is no longer operative, a few shameless diehards excepted. Intellectual honesty is blooming everywhere as Pope Bergoglio rubs the Church’s face in the ugly reality of what the post-conciliar revolution has been all about from the beginning: Quite simply, the end of Catholicism, if that were possible.

For the past four years, Bergoglio has been laboring to bridge the gap between concept and reality in these final stages of the revolution. But his cunning faux magisterium of the wink and the nod, the either and the both, the employment of subalterns to put forth what he is thinking while he maintains the thinnest pretense of plausible deniability, has been exposed for what it is: a fraudulent abuse of papal authority. Everyone knows this now. The question is: What are we to do about it?

When historical trends reach such a climax—what the historians call a “climacteric”—great reactions set in. But the Church is no mere human institution, guided solely by human movements. The reaction is this case will indeed occur on the human level in the form of growing resistance to Bergoglio’s madness. The infinitely greater element of the reaction, however, will come from on high, as Heaven itself intervenes when all seems lost. So Our Lady of Good Success assures us: “To test this faith and confidence of the just, there will be occasions when everything will seem to be lost and paralyzed. This, then, will be the happy beginning of the complete restoration.”

In this year of the centenary of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, we have good reason to hope that our heavenly rescue is near at hand, even if the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart may occur amidst the ruins of the visible Church and the body politic. But after all, what are such travails in view of the eternal felicity to which we are all destined if only we persevere to the end?

 

[zelezo vlk]

Presented without comment because the article is a heap of trash? Papa Benny resigned of his own free will, it's clear as day in his own statement

For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

Combine that with him clearly being an admirer of Pope St Celestine V, another man who didn't wish the Papacy upon himself, and it's pretty clear that the article has a severe flaw within the first few paragraphs. Do I even need to read further or will it be more dribble?

If this is where you get your news, I suggest finding another source, unless you want your mind to be poisoned.

 

[wizards8507]

Do some more research Zelezo. The "St. Gallen mafia" isn't just a fringe conspiracy theory. It's been reported in mainstream sources and admitted to in the officially sanctioned biography of one of the conspiring Cardinals.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-anti-benedict-conspiracy/

Google Godfried Daneels. I'm not saying I buy everything in this article hook, line, and sinker, but if you think the resignation of Benedict and ascendancy of Bergoglio were entirely on the up-and-up, your head is in the sand.

And it's "drivel," not "dribble."

 

[zelezo vlk]

The 3rd paragraph in the article suggests that Pope Benedict somehow didn't actually resign and is in some way still the Pope. Your head is in the sand if you think that reading sh*t like this is productive.

 

[wizards8507]

The 3rd paragraph in the article suggests that Pope Benedict somehow didn't actually resign and is in some way still the Pope. Your head is in the sand if you think that reading sh*t like this is productive.

No, that's exactly the opposite of what he's saying. His point is that Benedict is NOT the Pope, so it confuses people that he's still referred to as "Pope Benedict" and not Joseph Ratzinger. The issue is not that Ratzinger is still Pope, it's that we maintained all of these trappings of the Papacy that make it seem like Ratzinger is still Pope.

"...a total novelty that in and of itself suggests Benedict is somehow still a Pope."

He's mocking that suggestion, not advocating for it.

 

[zelezo vlk]

No, that's exactly the opposite of what he's saying. His point is that Benedict is NOT the Pope, so it confuses people that he's still referred to as "Pope Benedict" and not Joseph Ratzinger. The issue is not that Ratzinger is still Pope, it's that we maintained all of these trappings of the Papacy that make it seem like Ratzinger is still Pope.

"...a total novelty that in and of itself suggests Benedict is somehow still a Pope."

He's mocking that suggestion, not advocating for it.

Look wiz, I know you're smart, but reading the drivel (thank you) you linked will do nothing but push you towards schism and farther away from the. Church. The sentences read:

but only after the hated Benedict XVI had been driven from the Chair of Peter, having semi-abdicated while clinging to his papal name, papal title, papal garb, papal insignia, and even the papal office in its supposedly “passive” versus “active” dimension. He thus became the first “Pope Emeritus” in Church history—a total novelty that in and of itself suggests Benedict is somehow still a Pope.

Throwing out words like semi-abdicated with the last sentence in that paragraph lead people to think not that the author is mocking the idea of a false resignation, but that he believes in it. If that is not the author's intention, then he needs to work on his grasp of the English language.

His Holiness is not Benny, nor is he JP II, but he was validly elected by the Cardinals and therefore we trust that the Holy Ghost has placed him on the chair of St Peter. That does not mean that we must abandon Church teaching to follow him in the name of Mercy, but it does mean that we cannot be writing uncharitable articles, nor should we be spreading them, as that will lead one on the path to schism.

 

[wizards8507]

Look wiz, I know you're smart, but reading the drivel (thank you) you linked will do nothing but push you towards schism and farther away from the. Church. The sentences read:

Throwing out words like semi-abdicated with the last sentence in that paragraph lead people to think not that the author is mocking the idea of a false resignation, but that he believes in it. If that is not the author's intention, then he needs to work on his grasp of the English language.

His Holiness is not Benny, nor is he JP II, but he was validly elected by the Cardinals and therefore we trust that the Holy Ghost has placed him on the chair of St Peter. That does not mean that we must abandon Church teaching to follow him in the name of Mercy, but it does mean that we cannot be writing uncharitable articles, nor should we be spreading them, as that will lead one on the path to schism.

You're cherry-picking words even from the already cherry-picked quote you referenced. The term "semi-abdicated" is a reference to the "papal name, papal title, papal garb, papal insignia" that Benedict maintains. It feels like half measures. If you want to abdicate, fine. But go be Father Joe in a priestly retirement community some place. It confuses the faithful when you abdicate but you're still wearing white and everyone is supposed to refer to you as His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

As to your comments regarding schism, "open war is upon you, whether you would risk it or not."

 

[wizards8507]

Pope Francis may allow married Catholic men as priests - CNN.com

So. There's that.

 

[bobbyok1]

This is a Church of England gathering (General Synod). Thought it fit under this thread. The context the Church of England was discussing was "Is God Anti-Gay?" and matter of gay marriage allowance in the Church of England (which they do not from my understanding). The speaker, Sam Allberry, in the video acknowledges that he has same sex attraction, but does not act on that or embrace it. The reason this was of interest to me is that I am both a pastor and I have a brother who like Sam has same sex attraction, but does not act on it or embrace it. He has most all his life and is now married to a woman with whom they have two girls. It is a part of the discussion that is rarely given light of day in our culture. Are there people who actually have same sex attraction but who reject it due to what they see as a deeper understanding of human brokenness ("sinfulness")? I would say yes based upon my personal experience with my brother and others I know like him.

Q&A with Sam Allberry: Same-Sex Attraction, Synod Remarks, and Why The Gospel Is Truly Good News For All | RZIM