Good Reporters … report … they don’t spin, they don’t fabricate, they don’t “follow the party line”. Good reporters report the story, the whole story, and nothing but the story, and leave it up to the reader/viewer to put their own interpretation on things according to the viewer/readers own conscience or lack thereof.
Diane Montagna is the Rome correspondent for LifeSiteNews.
It appears to me that Diane Montagnais a “Good Reporter”, one of the few, the blessed few. Diane Montagna is the Rome correspondent for LifeSiteNews.
She began translating papal addresses under the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI for Zenit News Agency, and has served as a translator for the English edition of the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano.
Her work has also appeared in the National Catholic Register and Humanitas Christian Anthropological Review. Before joining LifeSite, Diane served for several years as Rome correspondent for the English edition of Aleteia.org.
She has also taught children’s and adult faith formation classes, and holds a License in Sacred Theology from the International Theological Institute, Gaming Austria and a B.A. in Italian.
One of her latest articles is a report on the Final declaration of the recently concluded conference ‘Catholic Church, where are you going?’ this was an all Italian conference held in Rome. Reading this clearly reveals the difference between true reporting, op-ed, and tabloid media.
Final declaration of the conference ‘Catholic Church, where are you going?’
Rome, April 7, 2018
Due to contradictory interpretations of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, growing discontent and confusion are spreading among the faithful throughout the world.
The urgent request for a clarification submitted to the Holy Father by approximately one million faithful, more than 250 scholars and several cardinals, has received no response.
Amidst the grave danger to the faith and unity of the Church that has arisen, we baptized and confirmed members of the People of God are called to reaffirm our Catholic faith.
The Second Vatican Council authorizes us and encourages us to do so, stating in Lumen Gentium, n. 33: “Thus every layman, in virtue of the very gifts bestowed upon him, is at the same time a witness and a living instrument of the mission of the Church itself ‘according to the measure of Christ’s bestowal’ (Eph. 4:7).”
Blessed John Henry Newman also encourages us to do so. In his prophetic essay “On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine” (1859), he spoke of the importance of the laity bearing witness to the faith.
Therefore, in accordance with the authentic tradition of the Church, we testify and confess that:
1) A ratified and consummated marriage between two baptized persons can be dissolved only by death.
2) Therefore, Christians united by a valid marriage who join themselves to another person while their spouse is still alive commit the grave sin of adultery.
3) We are convinced that there exist absolute moral commandments which oblige always and without exception.
4) We are also convinced that no subjective judgment of conscience can make an intrinsically evil act good and licit.
5) We are convinced that judgment about the possibility of administering sacramental absolution is not based on the imputability of the sin committed, but on the penitent’s intention to abandon a way of life that is contrary to the divine commandments.
6) We are convinced that persons who are divorced and civilly remarried, and who are unwilling to live in continence, are living in a situation that is objectively contrary to the law of God, and therefore cannot receive Eucharistic Communion.
Our Lord Jesus Christ says: “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (Jn 8: 31-32).
With this confidence we confess our faith before the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church and before the bishops, and we ask them to confirm us in the faith.
Not much else to say. So refreshing to be allowed to arrive at one’s own conclusions without being directed towards the agenda of the media.
With patience, humility, and charity towards all …
“Brothers In Arms”, Dire Straits, from the album “Brothers In Arms”, 1985
Continued from the last post and the one before that and so on … can’t believe I am already doing part 6 … and I thank gentle reader for their patience and understanding as I try to chart a course through the reefs from scandal to peace.
It seems, on the face of it, that the logic of the Winnipeg Statement rises again in Amoris Laetitia, like the monster from the slab.
And, I continually discover that I am not alone, not the only one having these visions, these flashbacks and hallucinations concerning ducks. I read over on Father Hunwicke’s blog:
“(1) Bergoglians urge upon us “Amoris Laetitia” under the pretext that, with a culinary dash of Newman’s “Development” stirred into the pot and with a large dollop of subjective guilt reduced from “Mortal” to “Venial” (‘Here’s some I did earlier’), we can cook Communion for “Adulterers? NO!” until it is nicely tenderised into Communion for “Adulterers? YES!”.
Kardinal Christoph Schönborn bei der Neu-Einweihung des Papstkreuzes (Donaupark, Wien) am 16. Juni 2012
And, of course, this lays the way open for homosexuals, polygamists, paedophiles, polyamorists, therogamists, batrachophiles, and all the other categories that the Graf von Schoenborn and Fr Rosica may or may not have on their lists. … I’ve got a little list …
OK, Ko-ko (is there a Cardinal Ko-ko? in today’s Gilbert-and-Sullivan Vatican, there jolly well should be). Splendid. And all the basic work, all the heavy lifting, has already been done by Tucho in between ‘supermystic’ kisses (is there a Tucho in Gilbert and Sullivan?). What more could …
But this particular sleight of hand will not avail (as far a I can see) when these same Magisterial Minds turn their attention to the next nut that needs to be cracked: the priestly Ordination of Women.
Can anybody suggest how (again with appropriate assistance from Development and with their usual claims about the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit) they will chart their journey from “Womenpriests? NO!” to “Womenpriests? YES!?”
Father Thomas Rosica C.S.B. photographed by Chris Adamczyk, Manager, Marketing and Communications, Salt and Light Catholic Media Foundation
In other words, what conjuring tricks, accompanied by the Graf’s sad but winning smile and Rosica’s air of patient condescension, will enable the Bergoglians to argue that the Ordination of Women is merely a natural and inevitable development springing fully-formed from the head of Ordinatio sacerdotalis?
(2) When Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman was faced by the protoBergoglian campaign at Vatican I to formulate the Petrine Primacy in a superhyperueberpapalist way, he characterized his contemporary Ultras as “An aggressive and insolent Faction”.
Perhaps we should resurrect this beautifully expressive phrase to describe our own dear and much-loved Ultras. And, ‘for short’, we could refer to them simply as “the Faction”.
One should never stray too far from Dr Newman.”
And sin entered into the world … the first humans believed the lie that they would become like god … and the knowledge of good and evil gave birth to an endless iteration of rationalization of how evil was not actually evil.
Evil is simply a difference of opinion, a misunderstanding; that whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience. Now that sure sounds like a “Final Solution” moment to me.
Gerhard Cardinal Müller’s explanation, in the spirit of charity, urges caution and restraint. The Roman Catholic Church has come a long, long way, in human terms, all the human folly and antics notwithstanding.
Again I repeat the mantra “the Roman Catholic Church is not and never has been a product of the Roman Curia.” This becomes almost a prayer, a repeated prayer, a reassurance, an incantation against demons.
So, in the spirit of fraternal charity, I try to remember what I have been taught about the history of the Real Church, the Church founded by Jesus Christ … that “Paradisaical Church”.
I’m trying to remember, and to keep in mind, what I have been taught about the orthodox, paradisaical view of the origin, unity, and primal perfection of the Roman Catholic Church.
The Church as it began, before Satan, and the original sin of Clerical Pride and secular politics poisoned the well with the offal of human desires. I think I read the story of the next few paragraphs somewhere but I can’t remember where now. It reads with a lyrical simplicity which my writing often lacks.
Nothing in the history of mankind was smaller and more humble in its beginnings than the Kingdom of Heaven. It’s founder was born in a stable, in abject poverty. He grew up in poverty, and worked as a humble carpenter for the first 30 years of his life, unrecognized and completely unknown.
He completed his mission, the mission for which he came into the world, in only 3 years of preaching to poor people. His doctrine was so simple that even the unlearned peasants could understand it. His public life ended in his murder by the religious and civil authorities of his day.
When Jesus died the Church was established by a mere dozen ordinary men gathered about a humble peasant woman, Mary.
But this tiny core grew with such vitality that in only a few years it spread into all the countries of the vast Roman Empire, and so on into the whole world … even to the ends of the earth.
This was and is the Church of Jesus Christ … handed to the Apostles, the first bishops, to preach the gospel and spread the Catholic Church to the very ends of the earth.
And to conserve the truths received at the hand of Christ and pass them on “unadulterated” by fashion or opinion.
So, I have got a lot more thinking ahead of me, a lot more self examination. More thinking about “Obedience”. Obedience is the voluntary submission of my God given free will to the demands and commands of my superiors. More thinking about my failures and mistakes, my faults.
With respect to these failures, mistakes and faults, my daily errors, I instinctively try to excuse myself. My pride is unwilling to admit its mistakes and schemes. My pride wants to hide my mistakes under false pretexts, always trying to find some way to blame them on others, on the conduct of others, or on the circumstances of my life.
I believe that we find the will of God in the every day minutia and duties of our station in life, the daily duties which we are called to perform to the best of our ability and will. I believe that I give glory to God both by performance of these duties and by obedience to the commands of my superiors.
Calm day North Atlantic, 1976
In my military days I had no difficulties identifying my superiors, and for the most part no trouble obeying them, having internalized the familial hierarchy and the code of military conduct of my chosen tribe to the level of unthinking habit.
I had voluntarily brainwashed myself such that I rarely put a foot wrong. The habit of my daily life rarely fell out of line and then only in minor social matters, worthy of Captains Defaulters at times but never of anything serious requiring Court Martial.
But now, decades later, as my own boss, in my own business, I have no superiors says my ego. Where am I now required to give obedience to the commands of my superiors. When I think my own ideas and opinions are “superior” who reins me in? Where is the abnegation of self now?
When now do I struggle to obey without resistance or resentment, when do I struggle for a voluntary abnegation of self and of self determination? I am answerable to God and Jesus Christ and to no man (well, maybe to my wife sometimes but that’s another story).
I believe this, but I have great difficulty putting this into practice because without a human superior riding herd I acknowledge that I am very attached to my own opinion and my own understanding of my observations, my own judgement, the quality of my self, my self love.
I am not a religious, belong to no order, have taken no vows of obedience or otherwise. If my wife doesn’t object then who is my superior? And yet, in honesty, I have to recognize a “nominal” superior. As a self identified member of the Body of Christ, by baptism, and by active membership in the Roman Catholic Church my Superior is Jesus Christ, the head of the Body of Christ.
And his appointed representative on earth, his steward, if you will (with a nod and a wink to Gondor), is my superior by proxy, whether I like it or not. So Pope Francis is my superior, for now, until he passes on, or Christ comes again.
Hilaire Belloc, by Emil Otto (‘E.O.’) HoppÈ, vintage bromide print, 1915
And what exactly has Pope Francis commanded and what does he command with respect to we the faithful? Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow creeps on this petty pace … I have to keep it ever before me … the Roman Catholic Church is not and never has been a product of the Roman Curia.
As Hilaire Belloc famously said: “The Catholic Church is an institution I am bound to hold divine—but for unbelievers a proof of its divinity might be found in the fact that no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight.” -Hilaire Belloc. Oh me of little faith.
A prayer … O Jesus Christ, Son of the eternal Father, our Lord, true King of all things! “What didst Thou leave in the world for Thy descendants to inherit from Thee? What didst Thou ever have, my Lord, save trials, pains, and insults?”
Indeed You had only a beam of wood to rest upon while drinking Your bitter cup of horror. Those of us, then, who desire to be Your true children, and not to renounce their inheritance, must never flee from suffering.
Your banner is five wounds! So too that must be our badge, our crest, our banner, if we would inherit Your kingdom!
Nothing but trials, pains, and insults … when Abraham sincerely offered to sacrifice his only son God promised him that his descendants would be more numerous than the stars.
And God promised those descendants life IF those descendants followed His commandments, the Manufacturers instructions.
And, two thousand years on, Abraham’s descendants murdered God’s Son. So much for keeping the covenant. A couple of thousand years more and schoolyard bullying in the Vatican seems pretty small potatoes compared to murdering God’s Son.
So what about our trials, pains, and insults? What about our Fear Uncertainty and Doubt? What about our doctrinal controversies?
These trials and pains seem, at times, to be tailored to exactly those aspects of our life which we are most attached to, like our opinions, of others, and ourselves,
Among other things, “Amoris Laetitia” created controversy following its publication regarding whether or not Chapter 8 of the exhortation had changed 2000 years of the Catholic Church‘s sacramental discipline concerning access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist for divorced couples who havecivilly remarried.
All the “traditional” sins of the 60’s, sexuality, license, gender issues, married clergy, female priests, so on and so forth, really all the little peccadilloes which the “West Wing” of the (Liberal) Catholic Curia have been striving to “sanctify” since at least Vatican II in the 60’s.
It, the mess, or “lio” as Pope Francis is fond of excusing, is sort of like washing a pair of new paradigm jeans with your traditional whites … everything starts looking blue, and it sure looks intentional from here.
So what? So, I guess that is what Canon 212 is about …
I find myself wishing with Frodo: “I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo. “So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. ” All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us. (Gandalf, “Lord of The Rings”)
Medieval times, no web, no tweets, no 24 hour news, no social media, no problem.
Am I a throwback, an avatar from an earlier time, a man out of time, a 13th century man …
“Twilight And Shadow”, Howard Shore, from “Lord Of The Rings”
Acouple of posts ago I posted a long article on the moral controversy surrounding the subject apostolic exhortation by Pope Francis. This post is another where the writer has articulately pointed out the significant moral equivalencies between the Pope’s memo and the Nazi program of extermination – the final Solution.
Go there. or read it here, or if you roll that way, just ignore it, along with abortion and euthanasia and all the other nice progressive amoral planks of our modern progressive society. Your call.
According to AL, a conscience may “recognize that a a given situation does not correspond objectively to the demands of the Gospel” but sees “with a certain moral security … what for now is the most generous response”.
Let us examine how this moral principle might apply in situations of organised and industrialised genocide. A man involved in the extermination of Jewry, for example … if he were to decline to collaborate in any more murders, not only might he be subjected to discriminatory responses, but his family also might suffer grievously. His marriage might suffer!
Is he, perhaps, required by the Bergoglian moral principle of “what is for now the most generous response” to try, gradually so as not to be noticed, to reduce the number of Jews whom he kills each day? Or might Bergoglianism mean that he should do his very best to see that they die less painfully? Or should he attempt, again without drawing too much attention to himself, so to work the system that in three months time he gets transferred to duties which involve him less directly in extermination … like, for example, harmlessly organising the train schedules?
I am aware that my questions lay me wide open to an accusation that I am either an unbalanced crank in making an equivalence between well-mannered habitual adultery among the nice, if rather gleefully rutting, German middle-classes, and genocide; or ‘antisemitic’ for illustrating a moral priple by talking so calmly about something as vile as what Nazi Germany did to the Jews.
It is my view that such an accusation by such an interlocutor would in fact amount to an admission that Adultery is not really sinful … that it is, well, perhaps not technically in accordance, quite, with the book of rules, but it is not really wrong. Cardinal Coccopalmerio has in fact said something rather like this.
It is also my view that a mortal sin is a mortal sin is a mortal sin is a mortal sin. And Mortal Sin is the area into which, like several fair-sized and unstable bulls in a very tiny china shop, Bergoglio and his cronies have strayed. And by sanctioning what Fr Aidan Nichols has neatly called “tolerated concubinage”, I do not think they will bring a single murdered Jew back to life or even save a single victim in future genocides. In fact, quite the contrary. Do we save lives … or marriages … by chipping away at the Decalogue, or by shoring it up when it comes under threat?
A person, you tell me, may well know a rule yet be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently. So …. if this does not also apply within genocidal situations, where can it apply?
A person’s long involvement, you tell me, in sinful actions may well so habituate him to those actions that the subjective sinfulness, as AL claims, is radically diminished … yes; I happen to agree with you there, and, like all confessors, I am mindful of this when I sit with my ear against the grill. But you won’t forget, will you, that somebody who has been killing Jews for a couple of years might also well be in such a condition. And the tribunals which judged War Criminals after 1945 don’t seem to have taken this laudable casuistic principle into their jurisprudence.
Bergoglio’s ‘jesuitical’ campaign to circumvent Veritatis splendorparagraph 80, as well as Familiaris consortio, is both a moral and an ecclesial disaster. If Bergoglian ‘moral principles’ prevail, then, as Fr Aidan Nichols has accurately put it, “no area of Christian morality can remain unscathed“.
“Crux Fidelis”, Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles, from the album “Lent at Ephesus”, (2014)
So, it is Sunday morning again, and as usual on Sunday mornings my thoughts turn to our one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. Like all organizations or institutions involving human beings, our church has not been without it’s share of serious controversies and problems over the last two thousand years.
It is noteworthy, however, that it is the ONLY institution in existence today which has actually survived ALL of these controversies and problems over the course of the last two millennia and continues to this day – and so do the problems and controversies. It’s as if this unique institution enjoys Divine protection because it is not actually a human institution.
This is a “Catholic” post. This article references or is lifted mostly fromFr. Z’s blog. It is something of interest to Catholics especially but also to non-Catholics who may be interested in the shenanigans currently eventuating in the Roman Catholic curia and the senior reaches of the Catholic Church administration. I post the whole thing here in its entirety because of the importance of the information and one can visit the original at Fr. Z’s Blog.
For those with a taste for history it should be noted that this modern “Liberal Progressive” vs “Conservative Traditionalist” civil war within the Roman Catholic Church has been ongoing at least since Vatican II in the 60’s and was most evidenced in Canada by the notorious “Winnipeg Declaration” or the “Winnipeg Statement“ of the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops.
A case might be made that subsequently the Canadian Catholic Church was in de-facto schism from Rome to the extent that even things as basically Catholic as the Canadian Liturgy and the Canadian Missal was not approved by Rome, that is, they had no imprimatur and that the Canadian Bishops basically thumbed their noses at Rome at that time and for several decades thereafter.
And he is as prolific a theological writer as Joseph Ratzinger (on whose theology he wrote a still normative guide, long before the election of Benedict XVI).
Now Fr Aidan has delivered a characteristic lecture on the crisis which has been precipitated by Amoris laetitia.
I can’t find the full text on the internet (yet), but the Catholic Herald gives a report. And Fr Zed reproduces the Catholic Herald report. I urge everybody (Catholics at least) to read it; and to take it very seriously.
Leading theologian: change canon law to correct papal errors
Fr Aidan Nichols, a prolific author who has lectured at Oxford and Cambridge as well as the Angelicum in Rome, said that Pope Francis’s exhortation Amoris Laetitia had led to an “extremely grave” situation.
Fr Nichols proposed that, given the Pope’s statements on issues including marriage and the moral law, the Church may need “a procedure for calling to order a pope who teaches error”.
The Dominican theologian said that this procedure might be less “conflictual” if it took place during a future pontificate, rather as Pope Honorius was only condemned for error after he had ceased to occupy the chair of Peter.
[Honoris (+638), desiring to avoid the notion that Christ had two wills in conflict with each other, strayed towards the heresy of Monothelitism, the error that Christ has but one will. Constantinople III condemned him in 680. That said, later it has been concluded that the Pope didn’t formally teach error.]
Fr Nichols was speaking at the annual conference in Cuddesdon of an ecumenical society, the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius, to a largely non-Catholic audience. [Oh dear.]
He said the judicial process would “dissuade popes from any tendency to doctrinal waywardness or simple negligence”, and would answer some “ecumenical anxieties” of Anglicans, Orthodox and others who fear that the pope has carte blanche to impose any teaching.
“Indeed, it may be that the present crisis of the Roman magisterium is providentially intended to call attention to the limits of primacy in this regard.”[…]He has not publicly commented on Amoris Laetitia until now, but was a signatory to a leaked letter from 45 priests and theologians to the College of Cardinals. The letter asked the cardinals to request a clarification from the Pope to rule out heretical and erroneous interpretations of the exhortation.
In his paper Fr Nichols mentioned some of the same concerns as the letter: he noted, for instance, that Amoris Laetitia could seem to imply that the monastic life was not a higher state than marriage – a view condemned as heretical by the Council of Trent.
Pope Benedict XVI
The exhortation has also been interpreted as arguing that the divorced and remarried can receive Communion without endeavouring to live “as brother and sister”.
This contradicts the perennial teaching of the Church, reaffirmed by Popes St John Paul II and Benedict XVI. [Yes, it does. AL is objectively ambiguous on this point, open to bad interpretation.]
Fr Nichols said that this interpretation, which Pope Francis has reportedly approved, would introduce into the Church “a previously unheard-of state of life. Put bluntly, this state of life is one of tolerated concubinage.” [Did you get that? “TOLERATED CONCUBINAGE”. Card. Kasper referred to “tolerated, but not accepted”.]
But Fr Nichols said the way in which Amoris Laetitia argued for “tolerated concubinage” (without using the phrase) was potentially even more harmful.
He quoted the exhortation’s description of a conscience which “recognizes that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the demands of the Gospel” but sees “with a certain moral security…what for now is the most generous response.”
Fr Nichols said this seemed to say “that actions condemned by the law of Christ can sometimes be morally right or even, indeed, requested by God.” [Which undermines everything we believe about Christ.]
This would contradict the Church’s teaching that some acts are always morally wrong, Fr Nichols said. He also drew attention to the statement – presumably referring to attempts to live continently – that someone “may know full well the rule yet…be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin”.
Fr Nichols noted that the Council of Trent had solemnly condemned the idea that “the commandments of God are impossible to observe even for a man who is justified and established in grace.” Amoris Laetitia seemed to say that it is not always possible or even advisable to follow the moral law. [AL is open to bad interpretations. And those who wanted their heterodoxy and heteropraxis confirmed have indeed chosen the bad interpretation.]
If such general statements about moral acts were correct, Fr Nichols said, “then no area of Christian morality can remain unscathed.” He said that it would be preferable to think that the Pope had been merely “negligent” in his language, rather than actively teaching error. But this seemed doubtful, given the reports that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had suggested corrections to Amoris Laetitia, and was ignored. [Nichols seems to have built a case.]
His Eminence Walter Brandmüller, President emeritus of the Pontifical Commission of Historical Sciences, His Eminence Raymond Leo Burke, Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, His Eminence Carlo Caffarra, Archbishop emeritus of Bologna (Italy), and His Eminence Joachim Meisner, Archbishop emeritus of Cologne (Germany)
Cardinal Raymond Burke has publicly discussed making a formal correction of the Pope. However, Fr Nichols said that neither the Western nor Eastern Codes of Canon Law contain a procedure “for enquiry into the case of a pope believed to have taught doctrinal error, much less is there provision for a trial.”
Fr Nichols observed that the tradition of canon law is that “the first see is judged by no-one.” But he said that the First Vatican Council had restricted the doctrine of papal infallibility, so that “it is not the position of the Roman Catholic Church that a pope is incapable of leading people astray by false teaching as a public doctor. [Yes, Pope’s can teach error. The Holy Spirit doesn’t guarantee the veracity of everything they teach.]
“He may be the supreme appeal judge of Christendom… but that does not make him immune to perpetrating doctrinal howlers. Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly given the piety that has surrounded the figures of the popes since the pontificate of Pius IX, this fact appears to be unknown to many who ought to know better.” [Like certain gnostic papalatrous writers at CRUX, whom I shall not name]
Given the limits on papal infallibility, canon law might be able to accommodate a formal procedure for inquiring into whether a pope had taught error. Fr Nichols said that bishops’ conferences had been slow to support Pope Francis, probably because they were divided among themselves; but he said that the Pope’s “programme would not have got as far as it has were it not the case that theological liberals, generally of the closet variety, have in the fairly recent past been appointed to high positions both in the world episcopate and in the ranks of the Roman Curia.” [To our horror.]
Fr Nichols said that there was “a danger of possible schism”, but that it was unlikely and not as immediate a danger as “the spread of a moral heresy”. The view which Amoris Laetitia apparently contains would, if it passed without correction, “increasingly be regarded as at the very least an acceptable theological opinion,and that will do more damage than can easily be repaired.”
He concluded that the law of the Church will live on, because of those who “give the law life by faithfulness in love”. Yes, friends, there is now a danger of the spread of moral heresy. You hear it and read it more and more often now. We need saints to rise up in our day.
We also need lay people, the rank and file, to put their noses collectively into books like the Catechism of the Catholic Churchand get informed. Friends, get together with your friends and form “Base Communities of Resistance” against the “danger of moral heresy”.
“The more vigorously the primacy was displayed, the more the question came up about the extent and and limits of [papal] authority, which of course, as such, had never been considered.
After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council.
Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West.
In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith. … The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.”
“We as Catholics have not properly combated (the culture) because we have not been taught our Catholic Faith, especially in the depth needed to address these grave evils of our time. This is a failure of catechesis both of children and young people that has been going on for fifty years. It is being addressed, but it needs much more radical attention…
What has also contributed greatly to the situation is an exaltation of the virtue of tolerance which is falsely seen as the virtue which governs all other virtues. In other words, we should tolerate other people in their immoral actions to the extent that we seem also to accept the moral wrong. Tolerance is a virtue, but it is certainly not the principal virtue; the principal virtue is charity…
Charity means speaking the truth. I have encountered it (not speaking the truth) many times myself as a priest and bishop. It is something we simply need to address. There is far too much silence — people do not want to talk about it because the topic is not ‘politically correct.’ But we cannot be silent any longer.”
Raymond Card. Burke
As always Catholics, Pray, Pray, Pray …
As just another weary foot soldier in the battle of eternity, we are not promised victory in this life. This is the Long Defeat. This life is Boot Camp. We are simply called to remain faithful. Never give up, never give up, never give up.