Let’s list just a few of the things with which I am certainly discordant with the powers that be:
You have heard that it was said that the Ancient Rite of Mass, the TLM, is not valid as the Lex orandi, the law of praying, Jesus’ Sacrifice, and therefore is not valid as a source of Lex credendi, the law of believing, and is therefore simply hurtful rubbish which must be trashed, obliterated from the face of the earth.
But I say to you that anyone who knowingly and wittingly and willfully and freely holds that to be true is a blasphemer, a heretic, an apostate, an excommunicate.
You have heard that it was said that idol worship, say, of murderous demon Pachamama, is just some nice weaving of dialogue and that we have to incorporate demon worship into the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Novus Ordo.
But I say to you that anyone who worships a demon idol will become like that demon idol. See Psalm 115: 4-8 — “Their idols are merely things of silver and gold, shaped by human hands. They have mouths but cannot speak, and eyes but cannot see. They have ears but cannot hear, and noses but cannot smell. They have hands but cannot feel, and feet but cannot walk, and throats but cannot make a sound. And those who make idols are just like them, as are all who trust in them.”
You have heard that it was said that those who do not repent, those who fully intend to sin again, say by way of adultery, are to receive the absolution that they do not want, that they are rejecting.
But I say to you that we must recognize the moral capacity of people and power of God’s grace and then say with Jesus, having brought someone to repentance: “Go and do not sin again.” To say that all, for instance, Latinos, have no moral capacity and so must be merely accompanied in their sin is racist and an insult to Jesus.
You have heard that it was said that same-sex marriage is not to be sanctioned, but that same-sex civilly sanctioned unions are good.
But I say to you that this destroys the image of God, which is one male, one female, marriage and family life. Any same-sex whatever is an attack on the image of God.
You have heard that it was said that the pro-abortion “vaccines” are necessary in charity, to protect others.
But I say to you that the murder of children in the womb for the research and/or development and/or testing of these “vaccines” is not protecting others, but murdering others. Also, it makes those getting the “vaccine” (as with all vaccines) into super spreaders who maybe get sick less themselves or maybe die less. Murder for hire, for self-benefit, is never good, never charity, and will make you risk going to hell forever.
/// There are thousands of things which I cannot tolerate in conscience for myself, which I cannot teach others to do, regardless if it is a guy named Bergoglio or ________________ (fill in the blank) who is pushing whatever idiocy. I don’t care what abuse of authority attempts to coerce me to commit sin. I’m not going to do it.
Do you want to take me out of active ministry, also hurting Jesus’ Little Flock? I feel badly for Jesus’ Little Flock, but for me, what is that punishment compared to going to heaven for eternity for having done the right thing without compromise, standing with Jesus in His trials?
Do you want to suspend me a divinis, from offering the Sacraments and from preaching, also hurting Jesus’ Little Flock? I feel badly for Jesus’ Little Flock, but for me, what is that punishment compared to going to heaven for eternity for having done the right thing without compromise, standing with Jesus in His trials?
Do you want to excommunicate me, also hurting Jesus’ Little Flock? I feel badly for Jesus’ Little Flock, but for me, what is that punishment compared to going to heaven for eternity for having done the right thing without compromise, standing with Jesus in His trials?
Do you want to burn me to death at the stake, thus also hurting Jesus’ Little Flock? I feel badly for Jesus’ Little Flock, but for me, what is that punishment compared to going to heaven for eternity for having done the right thing without compromise, standing with Jesus in His trials?
Seriously, I would rather stand by Jesus in His Trials. I say that with hope that, even if I am as weak as Peter, or worse, Jesus will not abandon me:
Luke 22:28-34 “You are those who have stood by me in my trials. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”
“The Church is incapable of forgiving any sin without Christ, and Christ is unwilling to forgive any sin without the Church. The Church cannot forgive the sin of one who has not repented, who has not been touched by Christ; Christ will not forgive the sin of one who despises the Church. What God has joined together, man must not separate. This is a great mystery, but I understand it as referring to Christ and the Church.” — Saint Isaac of Stella
“Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.(351) /// (351) In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 , 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039). — Francis
Thus, what’s his name, Wilton Gregory or something, Archbishop of Washington DC, corrected Joey Biden to say that life does indeed begin at conception. However, at the same time, old Wilt will still be giving Holy Communion to Joe. It’s called the accompaniment by Pope Francis. By any other name it’s called neither recognizing anyone’s moral capacity nor the power of Jesus’ sanctifying grace, you know, from Jesus, who said, “Go, and do not sin again.”
By the way, that citation of Saint Isaac of Stella is fortuitously taken from the Novus Ordo Liturgy of the Hours for this very day. ;-)
So, I’m forever asking people to pray for Pope Francis. I pray for Pope Francis. I mention his name in the Roman Canon (the Eucharistic Prayer) as expected. I always add an intention for him at the prayers of the faithful Not only that, but I offer Masses – many Masses – for Pope Francis. I announce these Mass intentions publicly, also on Sundays. Yes. I would ask anyone accusing me of being against Pope Francis as to whether they – motu proprio – go out of their way to do the same, or, if they are amongst the laity, have this accomplished by priests.
Moreover, I pray for Pope Francis and encourage people to pray for him even against heavy criticism which has it that if I pray for him, that must mean that I agree with everything he says. He says some nice things, some innocuous things, some ambiguous things, some dangerously ambiguous things, some downright wrong things. Don’t we all?
Hell would be where I would already be if many kind souls including a number of cloistered nuns (God reward them!) were not praying for me. I make mistakes. I commit sin. Thank God, I go to confession. Thank you, dear Lord Jesus.
But let’s not be ostriches. Let’s not be worshippers of Saint Peter’s successors. Saint Peter, when he was not Saint Peter, ran away and then thrice denied our Lord. Later he fell under the rather severe though entirely correct reprimand of Saint Paul. But Peter did become Saint Peter. Get it? We help each other in God’s grace to stay on the straight and narrow. If we don’t do this, we will all go to hell together.
Ezekiel 33:1-9 — The word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, speak to your countrymen and say to them: When I bring the sword against a land, and the people of the land choose one of their men and make him their watchman, and he sees the sword coming against the land and blows the trumpet to warn the people, then if anyone hears the trumpet but does not take warning and the sword comes and takes his life, his blood will be on his own head. Since he heard the sound of the trumpet but did not take warning, his blood will be on his own head. If he had taken warning, he would have saved himself. But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for his blood.’ “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to the wicked, O wicked man, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself.”
We’re all in this together. We will all look together on Him whom we have all pierced through, men of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, including you and me. I myself – and I know this for a fact – have crucified the Son of the Living God with what has resulted in me because of original sin and because of all my own rubbish sin. So have you, and you and you and you… Right?
Does that mean that any one of us, say, Pope Francis, is above correction if he happens to do or say something so entirely ambiguous and misleading or just downright wrong that out of human respect the terrible scandal that is endangering people’s eternal salvation cannot be corrected? No. Those browbeating others into political correctness and all worldly niceness are simply acting ultra vires, beyond their powers. What remains as fact is that when people’s eternal salvation is endangered, a pastor who has the obligation to protect the sheep is to protect them regardless of whom the wolf du jour happens to be. Period. No, really, even one who is no more than a jackass:
Though I’m nothing but a jackass, I do try to do the best I can. I just want do the right thing, lest Jesus’ Little Flock goes to hell, lest I go to hell. Also, I’m just representing the real concerns of people who are wondering on giving up on the faith because of the inanity and total cowardice going on in high places. I am addressing those concerns for those souls as I MUST do in conscience.
But let’s be specific, shall we? Where’s there’s smoke, there’s fire, right? But my question is as to where the fires of hell are really burning, and why the smoke of Satan has infiltrated. Not in any particular order:
(1) PACHAMAMA: I do take issue with Pope Francis worshipping the death-mongering demon idol Pachamama in Vatican Gardens, and I do take issue with Pope Francis causing, for all of us to see, the enthronement of this abomination of desolation where it must not, by divine mandate, be, that is, in the Holy Place, the high altar of Jesus’ Sacrifice above Saint Peter’s relics in Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome. A Pope doing that. It’s a matter of conscience for me not to go along with the Pachamama prayers and liturgies which are proliferating by the sycophantic. It is a matter of conscience to correct the scandal. There are weak people, souls redeemed by our Lord whom He also wants to save, who go along with all this demonic execration. Is it a matter of bad optics that a priest charitably corrects the Holy Father for the sake of saving souls? Is this causing division? Any division is not my doing. It’s on the one who’s doing the wrong thing, who are set on keeping people from understanding how to remain with our Lord in the midst of chaos. I have remained, do now remain, and will remain in solidarity with Jesus, Divine Son of the Living God, Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception. Jesus is insulted. He hates when He sees His mother grimace at all of this evil.
(2) TRADITIONIS CUSTODES: I do take issue with Pope Francis rejection of the lex orandi (the law of praying) found with Jesus’ Most Holy Sacrifice as presented in the Mass of the Ages, the Traditional Latin Mass. That lex orandi, that Sacrifice, is the self-same lex orandi found in all rites, whatever they happen to be: Coptic, Syromalabar, Syromalankara, Ukrainian, Ambrosian… so very many. Francis says that such lex orandi, such a Sacrifice of our Lord Jesus at the Last Supper and Calvary, is only to be found in the Novus Ordo in the Roman Rite. But since this is the same lex orandi in the Novus Ordo that he rejected for the TLM, he is also rejecting the lex orandi of the Novus Ordo. He is rejecting that the Novus Ordo presents the lex orandi, rejecting that the Novus Ordo is the Last Supper and the Sacrifice on Calvary. He is rejecting the lex orandi in all other rites throughout the world. Reject one as the bearer of the lex orandi, the Last Supper and Sacrifice on Calvary, and you reject all. That’s why it’s called A LAW: it’s the same in all rites. Francis has wrongly equated the rite and the lex orandi. And just to say: that ancient saying, lex orandi lex credendi (the law of praying is the law of believing) to which he refers, means that the rejection of the lex orandi is the rejection of the lex credendi. The entire faith from the Last Supper until today issuing from the Last Supper and Calvary has been rejected by Pope Francis. So, Traditionis custodes is an evil law, and therefore no law whatsoever, neither demanding obedience or disobedience as it is simply nothing. It is to be ignored. That’s on him just for himself. This is his private opinion no matter how public he has made it, how official he has made it. It is not an ex-cathedra infallible statement. But he has caused grievous scandal. I cannot be part of that by some sort of sycophantic silence, letting people be scandalized right in front of me. Nope. Can’t do it. I can’t do that in conscience. Just because I take issue with what Pope Francis can say or do doesn’t mean I’m rejecting him as the Bishop of Rome. As I say, I pray for him, and, ever so ironically, I offer Mass for him. It’s just that I offer that lex orandi, that Sacrifice Most Holy, in the form of the Traditional Latin Mass. I do not support schism. I do not support disrespecting the Holy Father. Not to correct him is extremely disrespectful. Not to correct him is to be sycophantic. To be sycophantic is by definition to be disrespectful. To be sycophantic is by definition the fulfillment of hatred. I don’t want that for anyone. So, I help people understand. I do correct Pope Francis. That is done out of love, obviously at risk to myself, parrhesia and all that.
(3) LGBTQI+: I do take issue with heart stopping ambiguity about anything LGBTQI+, whereby a good thing is said here but then a horrific statement cancelling that is provided there. Pope Saint Pius X rejected such ambiguity as being as bad or worse than any blatant heresy. Indeed, the mind-numbing ambiguity sucks more people in, wears more people out, dispirits people, leads them out of the Church into and beyond the truly darkest of existential peripheries. I just can’t stomach that. I vomit that lukewarmness out of my mouth. It literally makes me sick to my stomach. I just cannot watch people right in front of me take scandal from Pope Francis’ ambiguity. I pray for Pope Francis, but I will present the fullness of the faith to Jesus’ Little Flock as I am bound to do by Christ Jesus Himself. I’m not going to deny Jesus even if by way of omission. I don’t want to be denied by my heavenly Father. No compromise with Jesus, no grey areas. All grey areas bleed red blood, Jesus’ blood. I can’t do that. I will teach the truth with charity for the salvation of souls. Might it seem like I’m optically messaging diversely amidst the big-community conversation? Sure. Good. I’m happy to be as divisive as Jesus. Let’s see… where’s that sword of division of His now? Ah, yes… Here it is. In my heart. I’m convicted by the truth of the Lord Jesus, whose own Most Sacred Heart was pierced through.
(4) AMORIS LAETITIA: Everything I mentioned for LGBTQI+ is good for the entirety of Amoris laetitia…
(5) DIVISIVENESS: Pope Francis repeats ad nauseam that he wants unity. I disagree with any desire for a unity which disregards Jesus. I’m with Jesus. I’m with the Church. I’m with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the authentic interventions of the Supreme Magisterium of the Church. It is the Living Truth, Christ Jesus, who unites us in Himself, He the Head, we the members of the One Body of Christ. Always and everywhere. No compromise. Ever. And if this eats away at the consciences of people and makes them angry so that they ferociously complain – wait for it – I LOVE THAT! GREAT! Finally I’m getting through. These people just might be saved in the end. I’m glad to take the blowback for Jesus as He uses me. I’m happy to be in solidarity with Jesus who went way out of His way to provoke people with the truth He provided with such great clarity and charity that we in our cynicism crucified Him. Anyone who measures success in the priesthood by a priest not getting complaints has never even once read the Gospels with eyes open. Ever. If they have, and have rejected the Living Truth of the Sign of Contradiction, well, I pray for their conversion to Mary’s Divine Son. Division! More division! That’s what I say. The women of Jerusalem wept. The high priests shook their fists and said that we have no king but Caesar. Such division! I love it. Would that we would have more of it. But who is there? I’m the worst candidate, but if it comes to this, and, among some few others, it does, I say: Here I am Lord! Be Yourself the Cause of Division through me! And that’s not a blasphemy or pride. It’s humble thanksgiving for having the opportunity in my own small way to thank the Lord for all that He’s done for me, especially in forgiving me, and now, for having me be His priest, His instrument of His own Truth for the salvation of souls. Who cares if some have their feathers ruffled if in the end because of that they get to heaven? Yes. Here I am, Lord.
But.. but… -splutter-splutter- you’re imprudent then Father George! Imprudent! Just like that ol’ meanie Jesus!
Let’s discuss that, the prudence of Jesus: should he have been a man of consensus? You can take that and shove it where the sun don’t shine.
Now you’re being rude and inappropriate and boundary-crossing, Father George!
Really? Do you really want me to cite you God’s own extremely graphic insults in the Sacred Scriptures as inspired by the Holy Ghost? See, for example, Ezekiel 23:19 in the context of the condemnation of Religion bowing to State in all political correctness. This is an insult for those prostituting themselves to political correctness! Bwahahaha!
But, that’s a digression. Let me take all this a bit further, let’s talk about the Vaccine. ;-)
(5) MURDERING BABIES FOR VACCINES:https://lozierinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/CHART-Analysis-of-COVID-19-Vaccines-02June21.pdf Click on that link to find out that all available vaccines to date in these USA have purpose murdered babies so as to research and/or develop and/or test “vaccines.” Oh, I forgot. Those pushing for vaccines also cite that article with the idea that it’s all cute but we will continue to push vaccines anyway. Pope Francis now has started up having vaccine passports for certain parts of Vatican City. Pope Francis has had vaccines mandated in Vatican City and for multiple Papal trips. I have to take Pope Francis up on that because people are very specifically taking scandal because of this actions and those of the sycophants who follow him. The question is always: “Are you with Pope Francis or not?” It’s never: “Are you with Jesus or not?”
(6) FOLLOW YOUR OWN CONSCIENCE APART FROM THE CHURCH: There are plenty of “Conferences of Bishops” of particular states, such as Colorado, which are offering letters of religious objection to the vaccine (even though this is also a matter of the natural law available to everyone). Great! But then all of them, as far as I know, praise whatever it is that individuals and their consciences come up with, for or against the vaccine. No. The vaccine is evil intrinsically. As Saint Pope Paul VI said in Humanae Vitae about contraception: It’s intrinsically dishonest. And that would be a mortal sin. Pope Francis’ Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith put out a statement affirming conscience as well, but then added, like, you know, most of the time the mandates are not right. Lots of wiggle room for steamrolling people there. And Pope Francis is smashing people down. Imagine what he would do if bishops or priests who were to greet him on his trips or who would want to continue to work in Vatican City would refuse to get the vaccine. This is a scandal, and I must do my part for the tiny portion of the Lord’s Little Flock in this parish to do the right thing, to set the record straight. How is it that even the most “orthodox” amongst priests and bishops and browbeating fellow priests to encourage people to do whatever the hell they want and it’s all good? Oh, I forgot: the stated purpose of the Synod on Synods, to say that everyone is infallible. Yep. More on that in a future post.
That baby is reaching out of the uterus and grabbing hard on the finger of the surgeon. In organ harvesting “vaccine” times, this baby’s organs would be ripped out of him. But that’s all good and holy, is it? That baby is the image of Jesus. How are you going to rationalize that to Jesus and His blessed Mother. No. Pope Francis and the bishops and priests who support him are risking going straight to hell because of their approval and encouragement of the vaccines. I have to reprimand them for the sake of their own eternal salvation, from Pope Francis on down. If I don’t, I will go to hell. But I want to go to heaven.
“While we can reflect on this communion in a theological way, we ought to examine it practically, namely by measuring to what extent we as individuals and our local churches have received the Magisterium of Pope Francis. […] The pastoral thrust of this pontificate must reach the American people, especially as families continue to demand of dioceses and parishes the accompaniment envisioned by Amoris laetitia.”
And that’s a green light for bishops to smash down priests who simply want to be priests of the Catholic Church, of Jesus, faithful to the Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition and the constant and infallible Magisterium of the Church. This is bullying, and a signalling of a new inquisition in which faithfulness and goodness and kindness and actual mercy and truth is punished.
What a joke. Pfft. The grace of Jesus, friendship with Jesus, is stronger than threats, stronger than our weakness, stronger than marginalization and torture and death. What a joke. I mean, look at the hellish betrayal of China by the Holy See. What do we expect? Of course it will be our turn. As the Master, so the disciple.
Look, people: This isn’t things falling apart. As a friend in Rome said: “Finally! A persecution! It means that Jesus loves us, that He hasn’t forgotten us. Finally we have the gift, the privilege to witness to Jesus.”
So, most of the German bishops, mere politicians that they are, are pushing for NON-Catholic spouses to receive Holy Communion. Seven German bishops complained about this, asking the Holy See to intervene and, you know, kick those other bishops in the kiester. So, that makes the ol’ Vatican the bad guy bully even while the failed majority of bishops become the heroes of the oppressed Masses up to now not receiving Holy Communion. Meanwhile, priests will be brow-beaten into giving Holy Communion to spouses of Catholics anyway, and everyone is that much closer to total and declared apostasy. The seven bishops in the minority, believers that they are, nevertheless just don’t get the politics. You just can’t out-politic Pope Francis.
In a coup for the faith, Pope Francis had a message delivered by messengers. Hah. And all he said was that the whole conference of bishops was to come up with a unanimous solution, knowing, of course, that the seven bishops aren’t going to budge. So, this was an effective intervention of Pope Francis over against the heretic bishops of the majority done in such a way that they couldn’t at all make themselves heroes with “the people” and moreover would be shown what total idiots they are with the faith, unable to agree among themselves.
Mind you, even if the seven bishops were to cave to the majority, stupidly, it still couldn’t be accepted by the Holy See, by Pope Francis, for the rule of the process is that they are to come up with a solution ” in the spirit of ecclesial communion.” Hah. The only way that comes about is fidelity to Mary’s dearest Son, Jesus, our Lord and Savior. Hah. And even with the entire conference going heretical, they wouldn’t be heroes, for this would look like they were doing this in bad faith, merely for self-congratulation.
In doing this, Pope Francis has actually just insisted against “decentralization”. Are pundits really unable to see this?
The point is that we are not to use the successor of Peter to beat up on others in a first instance, but we are to evangelize ourselves, but always with the idea that the bishop of Rome (who can only be the Successor of Peter for theological neophytes) is the Supreme Pontiff. The seven bishops say that the faith shouldn’t be decided by a national bishops conference. Right. Well… Pope Francis never said that it should, did he? No. He didn’t.
Then, in a huff, all upset, ALL those bishops will complain by saying:
“That’s terrible. Because then we’ll like, you know, have to pray together, and like, pray, and stuff. And use real reason. And pray, and, like, stuff.”
I think I get Pope Francis now.
If he were to make an ex-Cathedra statement about marriage and the family as he said he would during his speech on the 50th anniversary of the Synods of Bishops, this would be nice, but it would stop the sinking in of the conclusion that we have to pray and help each other in the faith. Or am I totally totally wrong?
This guy’s number two to Archbishop Fisichella, therefore the Secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, the umbrella organisation for the Missionaries of Mercy.
His talk is entitled “Pastoral Indications on the Sacrament of Reconciliation.” I’m guessing this will be a rehash of the Vademecum for Confessors. It would be great to hear a few words on the Curé d’Ars. This being the closing conference, a bad and evil temptation to entrench in a bad and evil thought came to me, that this will be all about Amoris laetitia, reducing the Missionaries of Mercy to only one perspective of the ever so political chapter 8 of that iteration of what Pope Francis himself in the same papered volley calls a dialogue. In view of the other conferences, I have to doubt that. It’s been all good, in fact, fantastic up to this closing conference. It’s been my fear during these years that we would be political pawns in a much larger chess board. But that’s just stupid me, and I know it. I’m sure I’ll rejoice.
Confessors must be faithful, dedicated, joyful, conscientious.
Missionaries of Mercy are to promote the Sacrament of Confession in their dioceses.
Priests are instruments of Jesus’ mercy, acting in His Person in this Sacrament.
Those in the darkest of existential peripheries want a Confessor who totally understands them and is in solidarity with them to bring them into the light of the joy of “seeing” the risen Lord.
Don’t treat penitents badly!
Mulier adultera of John 7:53–8:11. All traditional interpretation.
Curé d’Ars! Yay!
San Leopoldo Mandić, OFM.Cap. Yay!
The joy of filial dignity provided to the penitent.
That’s it! Great!
Fisichella is adding a personal story about Padre Pio…
After Father Thomas Weinandy resigned from his post at the USCCB, I offered this comment on this blog:
“Dear Father Weinandy, I’m hoping that Pope Francis will reject the sycophants at the USCCB and reinstate you for your honestly trying your best to lay self-referential interests aside in favor of the Church and indeed the whole world. We all need such honest friendship. The Holy Father can take or leave what you say, but one should treasure any sincere words that you offer just because first of all they are offered in good faith. The USCCB has made it all about bullying. That’s so sad. I thank you for making it all about Jesus and His Immaculate Bride, the Church. May Mary’s Son strengthen you.”
Later, I received this comment from my internet bully:
“You are leading the good life as a pastor. But are you really, really following Christ? Are you not just swimming with the tide? Why don’t you support Fr Wineandy? Are you looking for a comfortable life?. Are you like the Apostles who when Christ returned the third time found them still sleeping? Are you sleeping like them? Don’t defend or support a bad Pope just because he was nice to you.”
In other words, if there is any priest in good standing actually carrying out his duties as a priest of Jesus Christ in this One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, he is therefore, by definition, a hypocrite, and the only way for him to follow Christ is to resign from active ministry in protest against Pope Francis. That’s the litmus test: resign in protest against Pope Francis or go to hell. No, really! After uncountable messages along these lines, I see this one in the moderation queue, one of the first comments for 2018. This internet bully guy has a mania, and I’m his target. This is, it is said, a citation from one of Padre Pio’s letters:
“And yet, once our last hour has come, and our hearts have ceased to beat, everything will be finished for us and the time to merit as well as to demerit. We will present ourselves to Christ the Judge just as death finds us. Our cries of supplication, our tears, our sighs of repentance, which while still on earth would have won God’s heart, could have made us with the help of the sacraments, saints out of sinners, today is worthless; the time of mercy is passed, now begins the time of justice.”
Nice citation, except that it is about whether I resign in protest against Pope Francis or not. If I resign I am saved. If I don’t resign as a priest in good standing from active ministry as a protest against Pope Francis I am surely then going straight to hell.
Someone who continuously sends such messages citing other-world eternal consequences (going straight to hell) for not complying with a litmus test having this-world life-changing consequences (resigning as a priest in good standing from active ministry as a protest against Pope Francis) – continuously for three full weeks after being asked to stop – is someone who is well able to think that he has a divine mandate to begin that “time of justice” already in this world.
Of course, if I actually resigned just to do it I would be condemned by Jesus for running away from the wolves as a mere hireling. And if I don’t resign then I am already damned by my internet stalker, who I think is at the ready to take “justice” into his own hands.
Golly! I don’t know what to do! Oh, I know! I think I’ll just be faithful to Christ Jesus, continue to be a good son of the Church in the best way I know how, continue to be a priest in active ministry (Hey! I love it!), following Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, the great interventions of the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church, and, with consistency, mind you, also be loyal to Pope Francis, that is, by supporting the person of the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, of Christ, mind you, Jesus, the Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception, He who will come to judge the living and the dead and world by fire. Amen.
For those of you paying attention, there are those who are upset with what Pope Francis and some of his Argentinian friends have been up to in the AAA (Acta Apostolicae Sedis), and, of course, part of the process of whatever maneuvers is for the Holy See to see who says what about whatever. One of my more visited posts, with heavily renewed interest, is this one, including today from the Holy See:
By the way, if it’s still a dialogue and not any kind of teaching, if some Argentinian bishops and the Bishop of Rome in these last few days want to raise all this to some form of Apostolic letter, well, whatever, it simply means nothing as a dialogue is not ever any kind of teaching. That’s like saying that black is white and apples are oranges and 2+2=5. Dialogue is simply dialogue, not any kind of teaching. Period.
However super officially you say it, it just means that it really super officially means absolutely nothing. So, big deal. It doesn’t disturb my peace. I am in anguish that so many are thrown into anguish and so many will likely go to hell because of all this. But, hey, I don’t want to go to hell so I don’t want to lose my peace. I’m still one little happy back ridges mountain priest already in the back sides of the darkest of existential peripheries, and I’m a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. I can’t be hurt. I don’t have any sycophantic fear. I follow Jesus, and any authentic teaching of the hierarchy. If anyone wants to kick me in the face for following Jesus, that just makes me rejoice.
And if the Holy See wants to know what I really think about it, those interested should read this, and pass it on to Pope Francis:
As it is, I hold myself to be a faithful son of the Church and a faithful son of Papa Francesco. I stand in solidarity with him not necessarily meaning that I agree with everything he says, but by praying for him and getting others to do so: Hail Mary…
Dear Father Weinandy, I’m hoping that Pope Francis will reject the sycophants at the USCCB and reinstate you for your honestly trying your best to lay self-referential interests aside in favor of the Church and indeed the whole world. We all need such honest friendship. The Holy Father can take or leave what you say, but one should treasure any sincere words that you offer just because first of all they are offered in good faith. The USCCB has made it all about bullying. That’s so sad. I thank you for making it all about Jesus and His Immaculate Bride, the Church. May Mary’s Son strengthen you.
It states that the pope has, by his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, and by other, related, words, deeds and omissions, effectively upheld 7 heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments, and has caused these heretical opinions to spread in the Catholic Church.
The words “effectively upheld” constitute a new level of teaching, I guess, below an ex-Cathedra statement, I guess, but effectively, I guess, on par, I guess, with the Ordinary and therefore also infallible Magisterium of the Church… I guess.
Too much guesswork for me. That’s too exhausting. Here’s the deal: all this time, for years now, it seems to me that I’m the only one in the world who happens to notice that in the first paragraphs of Amoris laetitia that what the Holy Father has proffered is merely a volley in dialogue. Period. Nothing more. He actually uses the word. And while that dialogue is not nothing in itself, it actually doesn’t amount to something. Clear? No? And so, therefore, what does it all mean? Well, it all just means nothing. So, whatever.
Am I not upset that ambiguity taken up by bullies, say, in Malta, or Argentina, or Chicago is destroying the salvation of souls? Yes, I’m upset.
But I also think it’s even hurtful effectively to say that the Holy Father has effectively propagated heresies, effectively on the level of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church. That kind of language effectively leads to a mistaken ecclesiology which effectively is itself heretical.
Again, does that mean that I think that the Holy Father effectively backing rubbish in Malta and Argentina, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. [and I could go on…], isn’t hurtful? No, it doesn’t mean that. I do in fact think it’s extremely damaging to souls and to the very person of the Successor of Saint Peter. I grieve.
But we have to take great care in the ecclesiological language we use. Right? So, I will not sign. Meanwhile, another priest, for whom I have a great deal of respect, and who has given his life in the “priesthood exclusively for the salvation of souls,” the great Father Pinsent has this interview with LifeSiteNews. Here’s a snippet:
“The contradictions now being introduced deny reason, which is contrary to the heart of Catholic theology, the examples of great saint scholars like St. Thomas Aquinas, and the consistent teaching of our two most recent popes. Such divisions of faith and reason are catastrophic for the Church’s mission of the salvation to souls.”
I agree with all that wholeheartedly. And I entirely understand where the framers and signers are coming from. It’s just that “effectively upholds” and “propagates” seems effectively to say that this is all effectively part of the Ordinary Magisterium, when instead a dialogue is not that at all. One must be exact in these things, you know, to be filial about it, and so as not to cancel the very correctio that one attempts to make.
Quapropter aequum iudicavimus Adhortationem apostolicam post-synodalem conscribere,quae sententias colligeret duarum proximarum de familia Synodorum, aliis additis considerationibus quae cogitationes, dialogumvel pastoralem actionem dirigere, et eadem opera animum erigere, concitare familiasque iuvare earum in muneribus ac difficultatibus possint.
Since it is all as ambiguous as ever and I have absolutely no idea what it means in the least, I will continue to adhere to Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the authentic interventions of the Magisterium of the Church throughout the centuries, such as we find in the Sacred Council of Trent. Period.
And that’s all the thought I’ll give to this. As it is, I’m late for my “day-off” and much, much more important things than unhelpful confusion. To those who are upset with mere vacuousness, listen up:
We know the absolutely clear teaching of Jesus, who is God.
We know the absolutely clear teaching of Sacred Scripture, both old and new Testaments.
We know the absolutely clear teaching of Sacred Tradition spoken to us by the Holy Spirit and to which we listen as if it were given to us by hand (quasi per manus as the Council of Trent put it in its first dogmatic decree of April 8, 1546).
We know the absolutely clear teaching of the authentic interventions of the Magisterium of the Church, including, for instance, Pius XI, Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II, and the great Councils throughout the history of the Church.
At the judgment, we won’t be able to blame anyone’s “dialogue” for our moral failure if we go ahead and use “dialogue” as an excuse to reject Jesus, Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Period.
Jesus said to his disciples:
“This is my commandment: love one another as I love you.
No one has greater love than this,
to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.
You are my friends if you do what I command you.
I no longer call you slaves,
because a slave does not know what his master is doing.
I have called you friends,
because I have told you everything I have heard from my Father.
It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you
and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain,
so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you.
This I command you: love one another.”
That’s today’s Gospel. Jesus is commanding us to ask for the grace of martyrdom, laying down one’s life for one’s friends, the greatest love, how He loved us. That’s the logic of that passage. Inescapable. Totally. This is what we are to ask of our Heavenly Father. I’m guessing that that request would make our dear Mother Mary most happy.
The flowers I put up for this post are in front of the statue of the Immaculate Conception at the rectory. They are yellow and white, the colors of the Holy See, a tad bit Papist of me. Yes. This really makes people angry. It makes Islamists upset. It makes ultra-traditional-ism-ists upset. It makes the filthy liberals upset.
It is most Catholic to support not only the idea of the office of Peter (which support, cut off from Peter himself as so many do, is a heresy for the reason that the Church is founded on Peter and not on a mere idea of an office), but it is also most Catholic to support Peter himself, his very person, which filthy liberals, ultra-traditional-ism-ists, Islamists, etc., are loathe to do. I take a lot of heat for supporting the very person of Pope Francis. And that’s just fine with me.
Just because one is supporting Peter himself doesn’t mean that one is supporting everything that Peter says. That would be absurd. Peter himself wouldn’t stand for it. I couldn’t care less if Peter bets on a certain horse for the Kentucky Derby. I’ll bet on my own horse, or actually not bet at all. But I will pay attention when the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ speaks not just for himself but as the head of the Catholic Church, and not just to some group or another or as part of some dialogue (such as is the case with Amoris laetitia), but when he is speaking to the universal Church, to everyone, and as a teacher, not a mere participant in ongoing dialogue, and also, conjoined to this, when he speaks on a matter of faith or morals as found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (or in the natural law for that matter), especially when this is deciding a controverted point.
But not only. I will also pray and stand in solidarity with Peter to the point where I feel that it is true that he who insults Peter insults me. Indeed, he who insults Peter insults Jesus who established Peter as the Rock upon which the Church is built. He who insults Jesus insults me. Why? Because Jesus did the same for the likes of horrible, sinful me. Thank you, Jesus.
But Father George! You don’t understand! Pope Francis blah blah blah blah blah. Yes, I’m aware of that and about a million other things you haven’t even thought about. I know. And so I ask: “So? Does that mean I shouldn’t pray for him? That I shouldn’t be a good son of the Church? Does it mean I can’t do my best to be the best priest I can be, teaching the best I can, praying the best I can, encouraging the best I can? I stand with Peter. I’m Catholic. I’m a priest.
John was already baptized, so we brought him through the ceremony to bring him officially into the Church prepared by Reconciliation. He was then Confirmed, was Wedded, and received his first Holy Communion. I couldn’t but snap the picture above at the reception as it speaks of the colors of the flag of the Holy See. We went through the process with the Tribunal of the diocese of Charlotte and, in fact, a previous “marriage” of his bride-to-be was declared null from the beginning, leaving them free to marry. In preparing John for the big day there was no hiding truth or making excuses for the cross. Instead, the boast is in Jesus, who is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Both Bride and Groom cried about through the whole day, for joy. It was one of the best days of my own priesthood, very much feeling to be the father of the parish family.
If I might say this: To date, on the one hand, I have not met anyone who is interested in doing things the way our Lord commanded to also be interested in Amoris laetitia‘s ambiguity and rejection of the cross and of conversion. If one loves our Lord, one wants to keep His commandments. Period. It’s a matter of love, and love makes it possible.
On the other hand, I get the impression from anyone who is interested in rejecting the commandments that Amoris laetitia has only made them terribly bitter with the Church. What they really wanted was a steadfast hand up but let themselves be thrown down at the first opportunity by which it seemed they could sin and please God at the same time, finding out that that just isn’t the case; they feel terribly betrayed by those who should have helped them and instead gave them Amoris laetitia, and thus they let those dark emotions entrench them all the more into being alienated to the peripheries which they were mistakenly led to believe was ‘accompaniment.’
People are thirsting for the truth, that is, the Living Truth, Jesus, divine Son of the Immaculate Conception who loves us so very much.
Also, just to say, we’re getting ready to set a time when John will be able to give me some pointers about how to shoot my Glock the right way. :-)
Your Grace: Why did the Malta Times take down their article about you? Were they wrong? Did they misrepresent you? Really? Since you invite dialogue, as a Missionary of Mercy I will put some questions before you for the sake of, you know, promoting justice, for the good of the Church, pro bono ecclesiae. So…
Your Grace: You say that the teaching of the Church — let’s just call it by the name of the encyclical Humanae vitae — is only for married couples which you say can be constituted only of one man and one woman, but that you don’t judge other couples, though you insist that extramarital sex is sinful but at the same time insist that adulterous couples can receive Holy Communion if they are at peace with themselves regardless of their flagrant rejection of Jesus’ teaching, of Sacred Scripture, of Sacred Tradition, of the constant interventions of the Magisterium of the Church: does this mean that you are making a sacrament of sinful behavior?
Your Grace: Lest anyone think that is a sarcastic question, let’s provide an analogous question regarding your longstanding promotion of the civil celebrations of homosexual love in civilly recognized homosexual unions, as long as there is no sexy hanky panky going on, though all love including homosexual love, you say, is given by God and is good and holy: are you saying with your recent statements about peaceful consciences for adulterous couples that homosexual acts are also a kind of sacrament, objectively sinful as they may be, as long as the homosexuals involved are at peace with themselves regardless of their flagrant rejection of Saint Paul’s teaching, of Sacred Scripture, of Sacred Tradition, of the constant interventions of the Magisterium of the Church?
Your Grace: You seem to be throwing a tantrum that the Malta Times got it wrong, but would you say that — you know, in being honest here — that they had a good instinct about your utter hypocrisy regarding sexual morality, so that anything whatsoever is just fine, including contraception also in marriage as long as those involved are at peace with their consciences?
Your Grace: Do you put condom dispensers in your Catholic parochial school bathrooms for those who judge their consciences to be at peace? Or do you put those dispensers out, say, in the lunchroom along with free copies of the Qur’an which you let be taught in your parochial schools?
Your Grace: Jesus warned those who teach people to break the commandments, so are you going to spit on Jesus while you continue to teach people to break the commandments?
Your Grace: You slit the throats of those seminarians who wish to follow the teaching of Jesus and Paul, that is, those seminarians who do not reject Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and the constant interventions of the Magisterium of the Church: so do you think that Jesus, who is calling them to His priesthood, is happy with your violence against them?
Your Grace: Your close friend (Monsignor) Edward Arsenault, at the epicenter in so many ways of the abuse crisis, just got out of prison and is in home confinement, where he just received the news that he has been dismissed from the clerical state (laicized): is what you are doing with your not so ambiguous and inconsistent but really very clear statements related somehow to demands of his, you know, because he could spill the beans about how things have actually gone in these USA, over in Europe, and at the Holy See?
Have you heard the hearsay that it was heard from Pope Francis himself that Pope Francis thinks that there cannot possibly be anything any more utterly boring than Fundamental Theology? If he truly said something along those lines, it’s not that that’s a lie, though I would say that it is disingenuous, which is how Pope Francis once described himself.
On the one hand, he might well think that studying Fundamental Theology is utterly boring. On the other hand, he might well think that steering the course of Fundamental Theology is entirely enthralling, an adrenaline rush even. So, that leaves us with two questions: (1) What exactly is Fundamental Theology; (2) Is it legitimate to steer the course of any theology apart from the expected sources of theology, to wit: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the infallible Magisterial interventions of the Church (this apart from the added help of the Fathers when they agree)?
(1) What exactly is Fundamental Theology?
Good question. It seems to me that Fundamental Theology is an illegitimate however popular tract of theology effectively created by the progressivist liberal minded almost sarcastic manualist Father Adolphe-Alfred Tanquerey (1854-1932), a Sulpician “Thomist” [not in my opinion] and Canon Lawyer [who combines a bit too nonchalantly morality and law perhaps that there might be an opening for a loophole for anything…]. People think he’s ultra conservative and therefore “right” because he wrote in Latin and before Vatican Council II. A very famous canon lawyer once insisted that that is in fact the case about everything written in Latin before the Council…
Because his not simply distilled but actually reductionist manuals with their wild innovations were easily used as a kind of collection of cheat-sheets for exams in the seminary, he was treated as a kind of god who was always right and could not possibly ever be critiqued (an attitude betraying a weak mind that is afraid of thinking, at attitude utterly un-Thomistic). I’m hoping Tanquerey is not among the ossified manualists held up by some. That would simply be wrong. He’s not ossified (how very un-Thomistic!), but rather slimey, goopy, yucky. Although Tanquerey taught in these USA, surely laying the foundations for making Saint Mary’s in Baltimore the horror that it later became, he also influenced seminaries right around the world, including that of Jesuit scholastic efforts. Even Jesuits like progressivist liberal cheat-sheets.
The Common Doctor, that is, Saint Thomas Aquinas (a Dominican mind you), not Tanquerey the Sulpician, did in fact brilliantly contrast divinely given faith as opposed to our assent to the faith, that is, by way of Theology. In this clarity, Sacred Tradition is manifest for what it is, the univocal supernatural revelation of the articles of faith to the soul by the Holy Spirit such that in consequence the content of the faith to which we assent by way of the conscience seems to be handed on almost as if by hand, but it is not, as this is indeed the work of the Holy Spirit. That conscience is free to decide is a total misunderstanding of how the conscience operates.
At any rate, for Tanquerey, merely exterior and historically occasioned manifestations of this Sacred Tradition (which is a distinction which must be kept [see the Council of Trent’s reference to quasi per manus]), such as with doctrinal Conciliar decrees, are seized upon by Tanquerey and then equated with the much more fundamental, if you will, work of the Holy Spirit, so that the mere listing of Magisterial interventions throughout the centuries is somehow equated with Sacred Tradition (which is absurd) and then rejected altogether by the lockstep consequence brought to bear by the likes of Father Bernard Lonergan, S.J. (a Jesuit of course), who trumpeted the psychological and otherwise historically conditioned circumstances in which the now presumed merely human handing on of the faith occur, making it seem quite impossible that divine revelation is not over time morphed by political correctness and the general weakness of mankind. Lonergan is another of the gods of the liberals, whereby no truth is possible as no truth is personal (an irony of relativism if there ever was one). By the way, Lonergan had a kind of think-tank, shrine even, at the Casa Santa Maria, where I once lived (the post-grad priest residence in Rome of the USCCB. It was under lock and key, kind of like a tabernacle, you know, because there is no absolute truth other than the absolute truth of Lonergan that there is no absolute truth.
(2) Is it legitimate to steer the course of any theology apart from the expected sources of theology, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the infallible Magisterial interventions of the Church?
I’m opining that Pope Francis loves his attempt to steer the course of Fundamental Theology, so that the historically conditioned circumstances even within sinful “structures (in that view)” can manifest God’s love regardless of whatever is said in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the infallible Magisterial interventions of the Church.
I’m guessing that this manipulation of Fundamental Theology by Pope Francis by way of exercises in the field hospital that is Church is not seen by him as adding something to the sources of theology in that what he trying to pay attention to is the love of God that would be crucified for us, that would enter the hospital, as it were, for us. The last thing I would want to say is that Pope Francis is insincere, however much he calls himself disingenuous.
Yet, it must be said that this appreciation of Jesus in those who have suffered the malfeasance of recalcitrant catechists (clerical or religious or lay) so that they suffer from having no formation in the faith, is an appreciation of Jesus which is off the mark, forcing that imaginary Jesus (the “Jesus of Faith” utterly cut off from the “Historical Jesus”) upon patients in the field hospital instead of Him who is right now both the Historical Jesus and the Jesus of Faith, right now the Way, the Truth and the Life.
Rejecting free will and grace makes for a Fundamental Theology which, however adrenaline pumping, is simply an expression of that which is, for all intents, constructions and purposes, none other than Pharisaical casuistry that is Promethean, Neo-Pelagian, and, inasmuch as this depends on oneself as an overriding source, also self-absorbed and self-referential and that which ensures that instead of sharing the joy which is the Person of the Lord who IS Truth, one instead keeps others cast into the darkest of existential peripheries, picking them up from their stretcher at the Triage center of the field hospital and throwing them right back into the violence and smoke and fire and darkness of the peripheries. I say this in all peacefulness and charity as a son to a father. Is that permitted?
In the end, after the adrenaline has worn off, and the faith is no more, what’s left except perhaps some illegitimate sexual experiences for example, you know, the kind spoken about in Amoris laetitia, the kind pushed in Malta and Germany and…
Error is what is boring especially after popularity wears off. And sex out of place also becomes boring, which is why it leads, as Saint Paul says in Romans 1, to violence and yet more violence.
I could well be wrong. On the one hand, Pope Francis lets Amoris laetitia slide along with truly anti-Catholic guidance by Charles Scicluna and others. On the other hand, he holds their conclusions to be wrong in other circumstances with other people. What does Pope Francis really think? I don’t know. He promised on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Synods of Bishops to make a kind of ex-Cathedra conclusion about the controversies. He certainly has not done this to date. Why not? Good question. Here’s what I wrote about that, what I think is all we can know, and that’s not much:
It ain’t gonna happen. It can’t happen. That’s not how it works. Anyone who thinks the contrary, anathema sit, as that’s straight out and out heresy. Traditional-ism-ists, that is, as personifiers of ideology, can be heretics like any others. I remember a certain seminary back in the day citing Hans Küng of all people to justify their irregular situation in the Church. Sometimes opposites attract, right?
If a Pope can be deposed for what he himself says is a non-Magisterial contribution to a dialogue, a contribution held by some to be outrageous (whether it is or not being beside the point), that means that any Pope for any reason can also be deposed by people who make up the rules as they go along (what they call constitutionalism: note the “-ism). Thus, in that view, a Pope such as Pius V or Pius X could also be deposed for personally being saints and for speaking clearly and rightly to the whole Church.
Also, in that case, and this is the point, such is the Protestant mis-exegesis of Matthew 16. The Rebels say that Jesus founded the papacy on Peter’s faith, not on his person. The Catholic doctrine is that Jesus founded the papacy on Peter.
I suggest to the tender snowflakes that they stop cowering before their own hurt emotions, grow up, and do something helpful to bring about a good situation for the salvation of souls. But this bit about deposing the Pope because their feelings are hurt is not helpful. It just reveals something under the snow.
The Archbishop of Malta told his seminarians to leave the seminary if they disagree with his own wild interpretation of chapter 8 of Amoris laetitia, which Pope Francis describes instead as a mere contribution to dialogue that has nothing to do with any magisterial intervention. To viciously smash down Jesus’ vocations based on a diverse contribution to dialogue is… well… let’s just say I wouldn’t want that on me going to the judgment before Jesus who called those young men to be His priests. All this while the priests of Malta are being bullied without mercy. Here.
To those seminarians in Malta I say: Just be faithful. Always in everything. This is about respect for Jesus. You are called to be faithful to Him before you are called to be priests by Him. If Jesus wants you to be a priest, He will make it happen. But you be faithful. Those kicking Jesus in the face think they have power because they are not yet killed by the holy angels of the Most High while they continue to kick Jesus in the face. But don’t agree with them. They have no power. Jesus took on the worst onslaught of hell when all His apostles ran away from Calvary. Stay with Jesus. Don’t compromise, ever. The Love Who is Living Truth is the Way. Don’t be afraid. No terror allowed! Rejoice and be glad. Read the beatitudes… to each other… support each other…
To +Charles: This is your moment, friend. That’s all you get. Happy?
A priest-friend sent this in from a twitter account. So, we have an analogy: This is the image of the fall of a venial sin in which we are nevertheless still assenting to being dragged to heaven by our Lord (via Calvary and the Cross). A mortal sin would be to jump off altogether in contempt.
Saint Thomas Aquinas speaks of repentance from a mortal sin, whether one can, as it were, jump back on where one left off in the spiritual life. He answers that, yes, this is possible, depending on one’s contrition, one’s purpose of amendment, the grace of God’s charity to which one assents in order that this contrition is brought to fruition with the indwelling of the Most Holy Trinity. It does, in grace, also depend on our generosity in following the grace being given. What would prohibit this assent would be presumption, lack of contrition, lack of firm purpose of amendment. But, all things being equal, as it were, yes, one can come back into God’s good friendship, whether a bit diminished, whether pretty much the same, whether far advanced. But NO presumption, with contrition and purpose of amendment being necessary.
Tangled webs can be woven. But tangled webs can be broken. Sometimes things are difficult.
Confession brings things back in good order. Sometimes we need the help of others, of the Church, of Jesus. Find a good confessor.
I guess Cocco wrote a book. Sigh. He didn’t even show up for the presentation of his personal opinion. It means less than nothing. No one cares.
Should he be taught some lessons in ecclesiastical Juris Prudence especially with canons dealing with natural law, not to mention that which is in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the great interventions of the Sacred Magisterium of the Church. Yes.
Is the best way to go about this to throw this out as shark-bait? No. That helps no one but hurts very many gravely. We can note it, be aware of it, for after all we have to live and deal with situations which may well be nuanced by what he says even as a personal opinion. But shark-baiting isn’t necessary.
Here’s the deal: Jesus has risen from the dead. I, for one, am happy with that, because, you know, I’m the one who threw Jesus to the sharks with my sin, and He forgave me. What about you? There is no reason to lose the peace of Christ. You can agonize. Jesus sweat blood. But don’t lose your peace.
Might I write something about irony regarding a personal experience concerning all these matters and the Cardinal heading up the Pontifical Council for the Authentic Interpretation of Legislative Texts, an experience so ironic it could just about stop your heart? Yes, I could, and I just might. Yes, I think I will.
A bishop cannot legitimately legislate anything against the universal law of the Church, particularly that law which is based on Divine Law. A bishop cannot legitimately posit administrative acts imposing penal sanctions on a priest based on illegitimate law. For instance, Amoris laetitia cannot legitimately be used as a foundation upon which legislation and penal sanctions are based for the reason that statements in Amoris laetitia are merely posited as a continuation of dialogue. That’s what the Supreme Legislator said in Amoris laetitia 3-4. That’s the mind of the legislator. Any illegitimate legislation or illegitimate penal sanctions, whether inescapably implied by Malta’s document (paragraph 10) published in l’Osservatore Romano, or (apparently) explicitly accomplished in Colombia, or anywhere else in the world, are, in fact illegitimate and have no bearing in truth on anyone’s status.
Thus, on the one hand, if a priest would like to continue accompaniment of a certain divorced and civilly “remarried” couple by not providing sacraments which he judges that couple are not able to fruitfully receive, he has done nothing wrong, as such a judgement is his to make, but if bishops put pressure on him nevertheless to provide those sacraments, somehow inserting themselves impossibly into the internal forum, they have done a grave disservice to the couple, to the priest and to the Church, and it is such bishops who should be disciplined and, in my opinion, very severely, as what they are doing, inter alia, is in direct contradiction to the directives of pastoral care by priests given by Pope Francis himself; such bishops are openly and obstinately insulting the Supreme Pontiff.
If, on the other hand, this is all according to the mind and non-public directives of Pope Francis, and this is actually a persecution of faithful priests in the Church, then I, as a Missionary of Mercy of Pope Francis, ask that I also be held to be excommunicate along with any other sanctions he can think of, so that I might be in solidarity with those who may at one time or another be unjustly trampled into the ground. Fine with me. None of that is legitimate even on the part of the Holy Father, for such legislation and imposition of penal sanctions, however much real pain they may bring in this world, have no legitimate entry into the judgment of a soul of a priest who goes before the Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception with the “crime” on his soul of being a faithful son of the Church. I couldn’t care less about doing the will of Pope Francis or any bishop on this earth if it contradicts the will of God himself. It is not they, but rather Christ Jesus, the King of kings, the Lord of lords, the Wonder Counselor, the Prince of the Most Profound Peace, who will – do not be mistaken – come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire, the very fire of God’s love, the fire of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Now, having said that, we don’t know anything whatsoever about what Pope Francis thinks about illegitimate legislation and illegitimate penal sanctions, do we? No, we don’t. I’m guessing that we will see something about all that in the not too distant future.
Meanwhile, I restate my filial obedience to the Holy Father, as I must assume until otherwise indicated that he has not legislated or imposed penal sanctions for illegitimate reasons, or, for that matter, that he has even provided benign neglect to the persecution of the priests of our One High Priest, Jesus Christ, Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception.
P.S. I’m guessing that as the real persecution ensues among renegade rebels, wrought by those who posit that which is ultra vires, beyond their powers to do so, that there will be no suspensions or excommunications, but rather simply removal from any assignment and then, eventually, seeing that the faithful priest is useless to the Church precisely and only for the reason that he is faithful, he will be dismissed from the clerical state, laicized, he being a mere liability and a waste of space in this world, kind of like, you know, Jesus. Meanwhile, he will be discredited as having committed all sorts of crimes, such as not being pastoral, being divisory, not being easy to work with, not having a team spirit, etc.
Great! The beatitudes come into play. We will have plenty of priests rejoicing and being glad that their reward is great in heaven. And that’s very cool indeed. Wonderful. I can’t wait for my turn. May it please Mary’s Divine Son that I may be counted worthy to suffer for his sake and the sake of those he is saving unto eternal life. Amen.