I certainly was delighted to see that news this morning. By the way - isn't it just the strangest of coincidences that news like this often breaks on Fridays? It's like some people hope that the weekend will help dissipate interest in the topic at large, right? But I digress.
But as I pondered the pope's request that Wuerl remain as an interim administrator in DC until a successor is named and installed, my jubilation was tempered somewhat. Just how long will this selection process take? Is this "resignation acceptance" thing just a ploy to allow Wuerl to retain all his authority and influence while pretending that he really isn't doing that? Speaking of authority, Wuerl will still retain his position at the College for Bishops. I'd also be willing to bet that he'll have significant input, if not sole discretion, in the selection of his successor.
The CM link has the full text of the pope's letter in which he accepts Wuerl's resignation. As you read it, please have some peptol bismol at the ready and try not to punch your computer screens. His praise of Wuerl is over the top, yapping and yammering about his "heart of the shepherd" and "nobility". Oh, puleeze! Get real! Oh, wait a minute! What can we expect? In many ways the pope and Wuerl are two peas from the same pod.
Another pea from that same pod is Father Rosica - yes, this one! After the news broke, he let loose with a tweet praising Wuerl, saying "he touched us". One might wonder just where was he touched? Given the fact that Wuerl is suffering the just desserts of having covered for McCarrick and other predators, we can only state that Rosica's choice of words was oafish and boorish at best. Or perhaps it was quite the Freudian slip.
Catholics in the DC archdiocese, please be alert as to how this news is handled at Mass this Sunday. Share your reactions in the comment boxes if you'd like. We will all keep praying our Rosaries, as many more clerical dissidents and predators need to be removed.
Showing posts with label Father Rosica. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Father Rosica. Show all posts
Friday, October 12, 2018
Tuesday, August 14, 2018
Rosica And Papolatry
Almost two weeks ago, Zenit published a piece by Father Thomas Rosica entitled "The Ignatian Qualities Of The Petrine Ministry Of Pope Francis". For all his many faults, and they do abound in excess, he certainly seems to be accurate in stating the underpinnings of Pope Francis' thinking. Of course he enthuses about the pope's progressivism, but they do seem to be peas of the same pod.
This most revelatory gem occurred towards the end: "Pope Francis breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants, because he is free from disordered attachments. Our Church has indeed entered a new phase: with the advent of this first Jesuit pope, it is openly ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone or even its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture."
"Whenever he wants"? That is a mark of a tin horn dictator, not the "Servant of the Servants of God". Then he says that the Church is ruled by an individual rather than the authority of Scripture and Tradition. Well, so much for all that "collegiality" talk! Sure sounds like papolatry to me!
Rosica also agrees that the pope doesn't care one whit about defending and promulgating Church teaching and Tradition. In fact, Tradition stems from God Himself, so does that mean that the pope might actually be setting himself before God? For an excellent treatment of this problem, we are grateful for Pope St Pius X and his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis. The current pontiff would do well to read it - if he hasn't already done so and scoffed.
Rosica's piece was published before he and Cdl Wuerl engaged in their mutual-admiration gabfest. I've no reason to doubt that the Cardinal saw it and had not one objection.
This most revelatory gem occurred towards the end: "Pope Francis breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants, because he is free from disordered attachments. Our Church has indeed entered a new phase: with the advent of this first Jesuit pope, it is openly ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone or even its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture."
"Whenever he wants"? That is a mark of a tin horn dictator, not the "Servant of the Servants of God". Then he says that the Church is ruled by an individual rather than the authority of Scripture and Tradition. Well, so much for all that "collegiality" talk! Sure sounds like papolatry to me!
Rosica also agrees that the pope doesn't care one whit about defending and promulgating Church teaching and Tradition. In fact, Tradition stems from God Himself, so does that mean that the pope might actually be setting himself before God? For an excellent treatment of this problem, we are grateful for Pope St Pius X and his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis. The current pontiff would do well to read it - if he hasn't already done so and scoffed.
Rosica's piece was published before he and Cdl Wuerl engaged in their mutual-admiration gabfest. I've no reason to doubt that the Cardinal saw it and had not one objection.
Friday, August 10, 2018
Time For A Ma$$ive Ma$$ive Cri$i$ In ADW Coffers!
The Knights of Columbus held their Supreme Convention in Baltimore a few days ago. In attendance were Cardinal Wuerl and Father Thomas Rosica. Rosica interviewed Wuerl, probably as part of his coverage for his "Salt and Light" thing. You can put both their names in the search box at the top left to understand why this interview is a huge joke. No one with two brain cells firing in syncopation could possibly take this seriously. When Wuerl congratulates Rosica for his "fine work", did he have in mind Rosica's attempt to sue the blogger behind Vox Cantoris?
At 6.35 Wuerl glibly distorts the Fifth Commandment and the Church's Traditional support of the death penalty. He says that (sit down!), the state's usage of armies and death penalty are exceptions to the Fifth Commandment. No, Your Eminence! The Fifth Commandment prohibits murder - that is, the deliberate killing of innocent human beings. The usage of armies and the death penalty were - and are - never proscribed by the Fifth Commandment! A few minutes later, he says, that "we don't have to do that anymore, we can put them in jail". But wait a minute! Pope Francis has also bad-mouthed life imprisonment, calling it "torture". Here we have a prime example of the progressives collectively talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Here is the interview.
Did you catch, at 3:11, when Wuerl says "I don't think this is some massive, massive crisis". He's speaking of the bishop sex abuse scandal. Oh really, Your Eminence? Try saying that to the men who have left the priesthood and even the Faith after they were abused and subsequently dismissed! Try saying that to the parents of the shattered young men!
Well, what might he think is a "massive, massive crisis"? Yes! The shrinkage of archdiocesan bank accounts! Perhaps if we give him that ma$$ive cri$i$, maybe then he and his ilk will understand that we are going to clean house!
Any parishioners of St John Neumann who are reading this, please boycott the CCHD collection this weekend. For your envelopes, you may wish to use the stuffer at the bottom or make up your own note. Let's give them a "ma$$ive, ma$$ive cri$i$" in their wallets!
At 6.35 Wuerl glibly distorts the Fifth Commandment and the Church's Traditional support of the death penalty. He says that (sit down!), the state's usage of armies and death penalty are exceptions to the Fifth Commandment. No, Your Eminence! The Fifth Commandment prohibits murder - that is, the deliberate killing of innocent human beings. The usage of armies and the death penalty were - and are - never proscribed by the Fifth Commandment! A few minutes later, he says, that "we don't have to do that anymore, we can put them in jail". But wait a minute! Pope Francis has also bad-mouthed life imprisonment, calling it "torture". Here we have a prime example of the progressives collectively talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Here is the interview.
Did you catch, at 3:11, when Wuerl says "I don't think this is some massive, massive crisis". He's speaking of the bishop sex abuse scandal. Oh really, Your Eminence? Try saying that to the men who have left the priesthood and even the Faith after they were abused and subsequently dismissed! Try saying that to the parents of the shattered young men!
Well, what might he think is a "massive, massive crisis"? Yes! The shrinkage of archdiocesan bank accounts! Perhaps if we give him that ma$$ive cri$i$, maybe then he and his ilk will understand that we are going to clean house!
Any parishioners of St John Neumann who are reading this, please boycott the CCHD collection this weekend. For your envelopes, you may wish to use the stuffer at the bottom or make up your own note. Let's give them a "ma$$ive, ma$$ive cri$i$" in their wallets!
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
Father Spadaro Points Long Knives At Raymond Arroyo - Call Him Out On It
It was almost exactly three years ago when Father Thomas Rosica, a highly-placed Vatican official, threatened to sue the blogger behind Vox Cantoris (see right side-bar). The latter had commented on public comments made by Rosica that betrayed Rosica's dissident perspectives on matters of Catholic doctrine. Other faithful Catholic bloggers shone the light on Rosica's despicable attempts and he was forced to stand down lest he make the Vatican appear to be a bunch of vindictive fools.
Well, maybe it isn't just a matter of appearances at the Vatican and perhaps they failed to learn their lessons. It appears that Father Antonio Spadaro has drawn his long knives and is pointing them directly at Raymond Arroyo of EWTN. LifeSiteNews shows where Spadaro retweeted a call for EWTN to be put under interdict if they don't fire Arroyo.
I could be wrong, but I don't believe an interdict can be placed on any group of Catholics because of some willy-nilly whim. Certain conditions must be present, one of them being the commission of a gravely immoral act. No one in their right minds can pretend that the discussions in which Arroyo is participating constitute gravely immoral acts. Perhaps the dissident lay Catholic who originally tweeted that nonsense doesn't know that (and maybe doesn't care), but certainly Spadaro should know better than that. Like Father Rosica did three years ago, Spadaro is making himself appear to be the vindictive fool, resenting the light that is being shone on his misdeeds - not to mention ignorance of canon law. But perhaps we're not talking merely of "appearance", but "fact".
As we did for Vox Cantoris three years ago, so again must we do for Raymond Arroyo.
Well, maybe it isn't just a matter of appearances at the Vatican and perhaps they failed to learn their lessons. It appears that Father Antonio Spadaro has drawn his long knives and is pointing them directly at Raymond Arroyo of EWTN. LifeSiteNews shows where Spadaro retweeted a call for EWTN to be put under interdict if they don't fire Arroyo.
I could be wrong, but I don't believe an interdict can be placed on any group of Catholics because of some willy-nilly whim. Certain conditions must be present, one of them being the commission of a gravely immoral act. No one in their right minds can pretend that the discussions in which Arroyo is participating constitute gravely immoral acts. Perhaps the dissident lay Catholic who originally tweeted that nonsense doesn't know that (and maybe doesn't care), but certainly Spadaro should know better than that. Like Father Rosica did three years ago, Spadaro is making himself appear to be the vindictive fool, resenting the light that is being shone on his misdeeds - not to mention ignorance of canon law. But perhaps we're not talking merely of "appearance", but "fact".
As we did for Vox Cantoris three years ago, so again must we do for Raymond Arroyo.
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
Progressive Vatican Hyenas Frothing At The Mouth
One such critter is Father James Martin, author of the misnamed "Building Bridges". That screed is nothing more than a lame attempt to normalize the mortal sin of homosexual perversion. Happily Father Martin has been and is being rebuked by fellow clergy. Cardinal Robert Sarah, in a piece published in the Wall Street Journal, reminded him that "those who speak on behalf of the Church must be faithful to the unchanging teachings of Christ" (italics mine).
Pssst! Father Martin! The Catholic Church has always had the best bridge for those living in perversion to come back to the Church! It's called the Sacrament of Confession! You cannot improve on that!
Archbishop Chaput spoke similar words in his regular column in the newspaper of the Philadelphia archdiocese. In that column Chaput reminds Martin (and all of us) that "the church is not simply about unity - as valuable as that is - but about unity in God's love rooted in truth."
The archbishop's words were enough to arouse the ire of Father Thomas Rosica. It doesn't take too much to get his dander up. I could spend an hour unpacking the errors in this latest of Rosica's rants, but I don't want him monopolizing my time. You might recall that Father Rosica actually attempted to sue one of my blogging colleagues at Vox Cantoris for calling him out on various heresies; his Vatican superiors put the kibosh on that stunt. However, Rosica, in that column, took the occasion to lambast faithful Catholic bloggers as "the dark, dysfunctional side of the Catholic blogosphere...erecting high, impenetrable walls and noisy echo chambers of monologue.” With respect to his badmouthing of us bloggers, maybe someone should remind him that "to use clerical status, episcopal authority, or other forms of leadership to dismiss, disparage or slam the efforts of those who simply want to reach those on the peripheries is not befitting of shepherds, pastors or servants of the Lord. It has nothing to do with the Gospel! It is not who we are!" Now who originally uttered those words?? Hmm...!
Professor Josef Seifert is another faithful Catholic who has taken issue with Amoralis Lamentia. I related a few days ago how he (and many others) were expelled from the Pontifical Council for Life to make room for dissenters. We now learn that he was fired from his position at the International Academy of Philosophy in Granada by the local Archbishop Martinez Fernandez. Seifert rightly pointed out that if unrepentant adulterers and sodomites were seen as justified, then the same could happen for anyone else embroiled in any intrinsic moral evil. He called AL a "theological atomic bomb". That was enough to get him sacked. I suspect that if Seifert advocated for more perversion, he might have been offered tenure.
Moral of the story? When one advocates for rank disobedience to God's moral laws, today's Vatican rewards them with prominent positions. When one defends the timeless teachings of Jesus Christ, the current hierarchy, headed by Pope Francis, plunges the long knives in their back. The persecution is real and is becoming ever more stark; be watchful and praying.
Pssst! Father Martin! The Catholic Church has always had the best bridge for those living in perversion to come back to the Church! It's called the Sacrament of Confession! You cannot improve on that!
Archbishop Chaput spoke similar words in his regular column in the newspaper of the Philadelphia archdiocese. In that column Chaput reminds Martin (and all of us) that "the church is not simply about unity - as valuable as that is - but about unity in God's love rooted in truth."
The archbishop's words were enough to arouse the ire of Father Thomas Rosica. It doesn't take too much to get his dander up. I could spend an hour unpacking the errors in this latest of Rosica's rants, but I don't want him monopolizing my time. You might recall that Father Rosica actually attempted to sue one of my blogging colleagues at Vox Cantoris for calling him out on various heresies; his Vatican superiors put the kibosh on that stunt. However, Rosica, in that column, took the occasion to lambast faithful Catholic bloggers as "the dark, dysfunctional side of the Catholic blogosphere...erecting high, impenetrable walls and noisy echo chambers of monologue.” With respect to his badmouthing of us bloggers, maybe someone should remind him that "to use clerical status, episcopal authority, or other forms of leadership to dismiss, disparage or slam the efforts of those who simply want to reach those on the peripheries is not befitting of shepherds, pastors or servants of the Lord. It has nothing to do with the Gospel! It is not who we are!" Now who originally uttered those words?? Hmm...!
Professor Josef Seifert is another faithful Catholic who has taken issue with Amoralis Lamentia. I related a few days ago how he (and many others) were expelled from the Pontifical Council for Life to make room for dissenters. We now learn that he was fired from his position at the International Academy of Philosophy in Granada by the local Archbishop Martinez Fernandez. Seifert rightly pointed out that if unrepentant adulterers and sodomites were seen as justified, then the same could happen for anyone else embroiled in any intrinsic moral evil. He called AL a "theological atomic bomb". That was enough to get him sacked. I suspect that if Seifert advocated for more perversion, he might have been offered tenure.
Moral of the story? When one advocates for rank disobedience to God's moral laws, today's Vatican rewards them with prominent positions. When one defends the timeless teachings of Jesus Christ, the current hierarchy, headed by Pope Francis, plunges the long knives in their back. The persecution is real and is becoming ever more stark; be watchful and praying.
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
The Church Of Nice Is The Real Cesspool Of Hatred
We haven't had much from the #Rosicagate Department lately, but today Father Thomas Rosica has again made a fool of himself. First, check out this anthology of articles regarding Father Rosica and the animosity that he obviously harbors to those telling the truth regarding his progressive shenanigans. His vituperation inspired him to file lawsuit against Vox Cantoris, if you'll recall; the Vatican, embarrassed by his obvious tempter tantrum, ordered him to drop it and save what remained of his face.
Well, judging from this piece that appears on the Crud site, Rosica still has plenty of axes to grind against us Catholic bloggers. In his rather questionable judgment, we are "creating cesspools of hatred". Then he goes on to spout vitriolic descriptions of us being:
Well, judging from this piece that appears on the Crud site, Rosica still has plenty of axes to grind against us Catholic bloggers. In his rather questionable judgment, we are "creating cesspools of hatred". Then he goes on to spout vitriolic descriptions of us being:
- "obsessed, scrupulous"
- "disturbed, broken, angry individuals"
- "trolling pontiffs, holy executioners"
Coming from him, these choice descriptions are badges of honor! But seriously; he sputters like that, and then has the audacity to accuse us of creating "cesspools of hatred"? At best, I think we have a case of "pot calling kettle black". What's really happening is that we bloggers are not allowing him and his compatriots to have a monopoly on social media and we aren't allowing them to dictate the terms and conditions of public discourse. We can and will call out their dissidence, blasphemies and heresies. I highly suspect that motivated his tirade in Crud and possibly goaded him into trying to sue Vox Cantoris.
By the way - Rosica still occupies his position in the Vatican. I suspect his employment there does not so much continue in spite of his hatred for faithful Catholic media but because of it. Given what we've seen from the Vatican - and the pope - over these past few months, I think my suspicions have valid basis.
Another way to put this situation is that those of Rosica's ilk resent us combating their "church of nice" instead of following their lead like sheeple. Read what Michael Voris has to say about how the "church of nice" is the antithesis of true charity. Father Rosica inadvertently illustrates that fact with his screed in Crud. Did you notice, as you read Rosica's words, that he didn't offer one objective rebuttal to anything we've broached over the years? He cannot for his "church of nice" isn't at all interested in objective truth, and in the God reflected in that truth.
We must continue to pray for those seduced by the "church of nice". We will also continue to speak the truth.
We must continue to pray for those seduced by the "church of nice". We will also continue to speak the truth.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Remedial Catechism Classes Needed For Some SinNod Fathers
Those in desperate need of such instruction include Fathers Lombardi and Rosica. From Vatican Insider we read talk that, had I uttered this in first grade, would have caused me to flunk religion class and brought scoldings from the Sisters who taught at Notre Dame in Baltimore. That was way before the place became a feminazi cesspool, but I digress.
Get a load of this pig-vomit: “The teachings of the Church and Catholic theology on issues relating to marriage and the sacraments are not absolutely steadfast". One might think this was prattle emanating from some left-wing nutso professor at Berkeley, but this spewed forth from the mouth of Father Lombardi, director of the Vatican Press Office. Does anyone still wish to pretend that the pope bears no responsibility? He owns this mess.
I believe this SinNod still has quite some time to do serious damage. It's already off to a roaring start.
Get a load of this pig-vomit: “The teachings of the Church and Catholic theology on issues relating to marriage and the sacraments are not absolutely steadfast". One might think this was prattle emanating from some left-wing nutso professor at Berkeley, but this spewed forth from the mouth of Father Lombardi, director of the Vatican Press Office. Does anyone still wish to pretend that the pope bears no responsibility? He owns this mess.
I believe this SinNod still has quite some time to do serious damage. It's already off to a roaring start.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
News Flash! Father Rosica Has Been Healed!
Towards the end of this tome, Father Rosica said that the visit of Pope Francis to the United States caused him to be healed! Healed of what, dare we ask? There are several possible maladies that come to mind.
- Perhaps he's been healed of the regrettable (and petulant) tendency to try to sue Catholic bloggers who call his words and behaviors into question.
- Or maybe it's his view of the Holy Family - recall that he called them "irregular".
- Confusing faithful Catholics with the taliban
- His adulation of pope Francis, going so far as to call him "prince of peace" - a title reserved to Jesus Christ Himself
Well, here's hoping and praying that a miracle did indeed occur. If not, though, I'll not be too surprised.
Monday, September 21, 2015
A Prince Of Peace Is Coming To Town??!!?
That's what Father Rosica said of Pope Francis' visit to the DC area. In this clip you'll see both Rosica and Cardinal Wuerl being interviewed on Fox News Sunday (ht Pewsitter). The commentator is questioning Rosica and Wuerl about US Rep Paul Gosar's announcement of his boycott of the Pope's planned address to Congress. Both clerics poo-poo the idea that the Pope will be promoting any kind of political agenda, let alone a leftist one (although Wuerl admits to political "ramifications"). When asked if the Pope will broach religious freedom, contraception, etc when he meets with Obama, Rosica emphatically answers "no" (at the 3:40 mark). Then at the 5:00 mark we hear Fr Rosica call the pope a "prince of peace". There is so much to unpack I almost don't know where to begin.
Let's start with this "prince of peace" crack. In all of Scripture and Tradition, only One Person has ever been identified as "prince of peace" and that is Jesus Christ. No one has dared called another person - even a previous pontiff - as "prince of peace". That is a title that has always been reserved for Our Lord and Him alone. Is there some attempt at deification here?
Now as far as lack of political agenda goes, that too is stuff and nonsense. Does anyone doubt that Laudato Si will not at least be mentioned? That thing itself is chock-full of leftwing envirowhacko socialistic screed. Rep Gosar is correct. Read this Breitbart article (and associated links) for his level-headed, truly Catholic thinking. I commend him for his boycott and hope he's not alone in his principled stance.
In the video that I'll post below, Judge Andrew Napolitano is being interviewed about the Pope's trip. Identifying himself as a traditional Catholic, he opines that Pope Francis is a "challenge and an obstacle" to traditional Catholics. Napolitano succinctly states why it is simply wrong for the pope to lend the solemn dignity of his role as Vicar of Christ to his mere personal opinions.
I'll also link to an article written by Michelle Malkin (another Catholic) as she explores the ramifications of apparent papal disdain for air conditioners. She's correct about all these folks bemoaning "carbon footprints" from their air-conditioned offices or their private jets. Napolitano mentioned that the pope is charged with teaching on faith and morals. We'd all be much better off if he paid attention to that mandate. He is Christ's Vicar, not a rival "prince of peace".
Let's start with this "prince of peace" crack. In all of Scripture and Tradition, only One Person has ever been identified as "prince of peace" and that is Jesus Christ. No one has dared called another person - even a previous pontiff - as "prince of peace". That is a title that has always been reserved for Our Lord and Him alone. Is there some attempt at deification here?
Now as far as lack of political agenda goes, that too is stuff and nonsense. Does anyone doubt that Laudato Si will not at least be mentioned? That thing itself is chock-full of leftwing envirowhacko socialistic screed. Rep Gosar is correct. Read this Breitbart article (and associated links) for his level-headed, truly Catholic thinking. I commend him for his boycott and hope he's not alone in his principled stance.
In the video that I'll post below, Judge Andrew Napolitano is being interviewed about the Pope's trip. Identifying himself as a traditional Catholic, he opines that Pope Francis is a "challenge and an obstacle" to traditional Catholics. Napolitano succinctly states why it is simply wrong for the pope to lend the solemn dignity of his role as Vicar of Christ to his mere personal opinions.
I'll also link to an article written by Michelle Malkin (another Catholic) as she explores the ramifications of apparent papal disdain for air conditioners. She's correct about all these folks bemoaning "carbon footprints" from their air-conditioned offices or their private jets. Napolitano mentioned that the pope is charged with teaching on faith and morals. We'd all be much better off if he paid attention to that mandate. He is Christ's Vicar, not a rival "prince of peace".
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
If Personnel Is Policy, We Have Glaring Indications Of Dangerous Vatican Policy
Sandro Magister has done the Catholic world immense service by exposing the progressive machinations within the Vatican, particularly with its conduct during last October's sin-nod. Eponymous Flower has more detail on Magister's service to truth. Most recently he published a leaked version of the Laudato Sii encyclical, which is scheduled to be released tomorrow. Tancred also details how Magister's Vatican press credentials were immediately revoked. Dare we opine that Father Lombardi's outrage is rather biased?
Regretably Lombardi's alleged zeal for ethics seems to be a thin pretense for sacking Magister on the flimsiest of excuses. Such bias is evidence by the people who are allowed to remain at the Vatican. Who can forget the book theft engineered by Cardinal Baldiserri at the sin-nod? How about Father Rosica's spiteful conduct in filing suit against Vox Cantoris? So here we have a Prince of the Church engaged in mortal sin against the Seventh Commandment and a Vatican official engaged in unethical intimidation (fortunately for him his higher-ups yanked his leash). To the best of my knowledge, they still retain their high positions, despite their arguably serious sins. So yes, we do have a purging of the faithful from the Vatican.
Concurrent with this purging of the faithful is the placement of those whose public opinions are openly hostile to the Teachings of Jesus Christ. As mentioned before here, Hans Joachim (John) Schnellnhuber, population control afficiando, will be one of the four who will assist tomorrow in the roll-out of Laudato Sii. Schnellnhuber is on record as saying that the world's population should be reduced to under one billion people - a reduction of about six billion. So how, dare we ask, does Schnellnhuber propose to accomplish this massive reduction? We wait with bated breath for the answer to that question.
Perhaps the Vatican should have awaited the answer to that crucial question before they named him to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Yes, you read that correctly. A rabid population-control advocate, instead of receiving the boot on ass, is actually admitted to a Vatican position. If we know his wishes to reduce the earth's population, surely the Vatican does too - and I mean the pope!
As the saying goes, personnel is policy. I think we now have more than an inkling as to what Vatican policy is. And yes, ladies and gentlemen, with all due honor and respect to the office of the papacy, we cannot kid ourselves and pretend that the current occupant of Peter's chair is blithely unaware of these events. He is enabling them if not outright orchestrating them. Please pray for him and for Holy Mother Church.
Regretably Lombardi's alleged zeal for ethics seems to be a thin pretense for sacking Magister on the flimsiest of excuses. Such bias is evidence by the people who are allowed to remain at the Vatican. Who can forget the book theft engineered by Cardinal Baldiserri at the sin-nod? How about Father Rosica's spiteful conduct in filing suit against Vox Cantoris? So here we have a Prince of the Church engaged in mortal sin against the Seventh Commandment and a Vatican official engaged in unethical intimidation (fortunately for him his higher-ups yanked his leash). To the best of my knowledge, they still retain their high positions, despite their arguably serious sins. So yes, we do have a purging of the faithful from the Vatican.
Concurrent with this purging of the faithful is the placement of those whose public opinions are openly hostile to the Teachings of Jesus Christ. As mentioned before here, Hans Joachim (John) Schnellnhuber, population control afficiando, will be one of the four who will assist tomorrow in the roll-out of Laudato Sii. Schnellnhuber is on record as saying that the world's population should be reduced to under one billion people - a reduction of about six billion. So how, dare we ask, does Schnellnhuber propose to accomplish this massive reduction? We wait with bated breath for the answer to that question.
Perhaps the Vatican should have awaited the answer to that crucial question before they named him to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Yes, you read that correctly. A rabid population-control advocate, instead of receiving the boot on ass, is actually admitted to a Vatican position. If we know his wishes to reduce the earth's population, surely the Vatican does too - and I mean the pope!
As the saying goes, personnel is policy. I think we now have more than an inkling as to what Vatican policy is. And yes, ladies and gentlemen, with all due honor and respect to the office of the papacy, we cannot kid ourselves and pretend that the current occupant of Peter's chair is blithely unaware of these events. He is enabling them if not outright orchestrating them. Please pray for him and for Holy Mother Church.
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Just Who Is Silencing The Church's Voice?
Almost two weeks ago I noted the peculiar definition of "dissent" as coined by Cardinal Wuerl in a blog post that he wrote. He hopes to warp the meaning of the word to convey "one who disagrees with the pope because he does not agree with them and therefore follow their position". Yes, I agree the structure of that sentence is awkward but it isn't mine. The structure is twisted because of the attempt to twist the meaning of the word "dissent".
Because almost everyone with a brain understood him to imply that Cardinal Burke is a "dissenter" (according to his odd definition of that word), he felt impelled to go into "damage control" mode. Often, though, "damage control" winds up causing more damage. America magazine interviewed him. (Hint: For examples of "dissent" as the word is classically defined, just read an issue or two of that rag! But I digress!) As my friend at the Tenth Crusade noted, the Cardinal does a "Fred Astaire", or at least he attempts it.
Here's a rather telling statement from him, regarding the sin-nod (in response to the first question). "In the closing hour of that daylong discussion, I noted in my brief intervention that obviously there is no challenge to the teaching of the church on the indissolubility of marriage. I also pointed out that many participants distinguish between the doctrine on marriage and the pastoral practice of reception of Communion for those divorced and remarried." (Italics mine) May I assume from this that in addition to Cardinal Burke being a "dissenter", that Cardinal Gerhard Muller also fits Wuerl's definition of that word? Cardinal Muller did state, "Each division between ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ of the faith would be a reflection of a subtle Christological ‘heresy." What Cardinal Muller said is very true. Those "many participants that Cardinal Wuerl mentioned are dabbling in heresy. Enough of that for now.
Three days ago, Cardinal Wuerl posted another piece on his blog. This one is entitled, "Silencing The Church's Voice". In it he voices this complaint: "But today there is a new challenge. Some who reject the Church’s teaching – who choose to live by another set of values – not only find the voice of Christian values annoying, they would like to see it silenced or at least muted. Thus we have a whole new upside down version of words like 'discrimination,' 'freedom' and 'human rights,' and laws to enforce the new meaning." While these words are true enough, they ring ironic and I daresay hypocritical in light of his treatment of Father Marcel Guarnizo three years ago. I now present an anthology of posts I did as that incident and its fallout were unfolding at the time. To reiterate: Father Guarnizo withheld Holy Communion to a flagrantly practicing lesbian. This woman and her cohort raised a ruckus, whereupon the Archdiocese of Washington immediately surrendered to the gay community and threw Father Guarnizo under the bus. In this scenario it was Cardinal Wuerl who played the part of the one "silencing and muting the voice of Christian values". If he truly is serious about what he wrote three days ago, he might want to revisit his conduct (along with Bishop Knestout) of three years ago for his actions against Father Guarnizo can only have emboldened those who seek to stifle Christian morality in our culture today.
Another cleric who tried to silence the "voice of Christian values" is Father Thomas Rosica. You might recall that he threatened to sue David Domet, the blogger behind Vox Cantoris because he had been shining the light on Father Rosica's misconduct. After other faithful Catholics (and bloggers) got wind of it, we caused that light to be glaring. Father Rosica caught a glimmer of that light (or he was instructed by higher-ups to stand down) and backpedaled on his legal threat.
Along with prayer, we'll have to continue to speak out. If we shine the light on these folks relentlessly, we can at least mitigate the damage if not eliminate it altogether.
Because almost everyone with a brain understood him to imply that Cardinal Burke is a "dissenter" (according to his odd definition of that word), he felt impelled to go into "damage control" mode. Often, though, "damage control" winds up causing more damage. America magazine interviewed him. (Hint: For examples of "dissent" as the word is classically defined, just read an issue or two of that rag! But I digress!) As my friend at the Tenth Crusade noted, the Cardinal does a "Fred Astaire", or at least he attempts it.
Here's a rather telling statement from him, regarding the sin-nod (in response to the first question). "In the closing hour of that daylong discussion, I noted in my brief intervention that obviously there is no challenge to the teaching of the church on the indissolubility of marriage. I also pointed out that many participants distinguish between the doctrine on marriage and the pastoral practice of reception of Communion for those divorced and remarried." (Italics mine) May I assume from this that in addition to Cardinal Burke being a "dissenter", that Cardinal Gerhard Muller also fits Wuerl's definition of that word? Cardinal Muller did state, "Each division between ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ of the faith would be a reflection of a subtle Christological ‘heresy." What Cardinal Muller said is very true. Those "many participants that Cardinal Wuerl mentioned are dabbling in heresy. Enough of that for now.
Three days ago, Cardinal Wuerl posted another piece on his blog. This one is entitled, "Silencing The Church's Voice". In it he voices this complaint: "But today there is a new challenge. Some who reject the Church’s teaching – who choose to live by another set of values – not only find the voice of Christian values annoying, they would like to see it silenced or at least muted. Thus we have a whole new upside down version of words like 'discrimination,' 'freedom' and 'human rights,' and laws to enforce the new meaning." While these words are true enough, they ring ironic and I daresay hypocritical in light of his treatment of Father Marcel Guarnizo three years ago. I now present an anthology of posts I did as that incident and its fallout were unfolding at the time. To reiterate: Father Guarnizo withheld Holy Communion to a flagrantly practicing lesbian. This woman and her cohort raised a ruckus, whereupon the Archdiocese of Washington immediately surrendered to the gay community and threw Father Guarnizo under the bus. In this scenario it was Cardinal Wuerl who played the part of the one "silencing and muting the voice of Christian values". If he truly is serious about what he wrote three days ago, he might want to revisit his conduct (along with Bishop Knestout) of three years ago for his actions against Father Guarnizo can only have emboldened those who seek to stifle Christian morality in our culture today.
Another cleric who tried to silence the "voice of Christian values" is Father Thomas Rosica. You might recall that he threatened to sue David Domet, the blogger behind Vox Cantoris because he had been shining the light on Father Rosica's misconduct. After other faithful Catholics (and bloggers) got wind of it, we caused that light to be glaring. Father Rosica caught a glimmer of that light (or he was instructed by higher-ups to stand down) and backpedaled on his legal threat.
Along with prayer, we'll have to continue to speak out. If we shine the light on these folks relentlessly, we can at least mitigate the damage if not eliminate it altogether.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
From The #Rosicagate And Maturation Departments: More Food For Thought
Father Timothy Scott, a Basilian priest in Canada and former spokesman for that order, tweeted an obscene acronym to Cardinal Burke. After well-deserved outcry from Catholics everywhere, Scott took down the tweet and issued an apology (of sorts) to the cardinal and Catholics in general.
Most people will recall that Father Thomas Rosica is also a Basilian priest with strong Canadian ties (namely his Salt and Light broadcast venture). Like Michael Voris and so many others, I see a strong correlation between Scott's tweet and Rosica's legal action against Vox Cantoris.
Michael Voris produced a Vortex today that asks many relevant questions regarding these two. The timing of these is no accident, as Voris points out. I'll go a few steps further than Voris and postulate that these actions are part and parcel of the "maturation" that the pope wants us to undergo to soften us for the deluge of heresy that will probably pour forth from next October's sin-nod. As an aside, I too look askance upon all this legal expense being incurred by Rosica. Where is this "poor humble church" about which the pope waxes so eloquent?
It is clear from the Vortex that it was created before the news broke that Scott has been removed as spokesman for the Basilians. Will he also be removed from the Canadian Bishops' Conference? We might also ask if Rosica will keep his job at the Vatican. If he does, I believe that will be quite indicative of the mindset of Father Lombardi and perhaps the pope himself.
Most people will recall that Father Thomas Rosica is also a Basilian priest with strong Canadian ties (namely his Salt and Light broadcast venture). Like Michael Voris and so many others, I see a strong correlation between Scott's tweet and Rosica's legal action against Vox Cantoris.
Michael Voris produced a Vortex today that asks many relevant questions regarding these two. The timing of these is no accident, as Voris points out. I'll go a few steps further than Voris and postulate that these actions are part and parcel of the "maturation" that the pope wants us to undergo to soften us for the deluge of heresy that will probably pour forth from next October's sin-nod. As an aside, I too look askance upon all this legal expense being incurred by Rosica. Where is this "poor humble church" about which the pope waxes so eloquent?
It is clear from the Vortex that it was created before the news broke that Scott has been removed as spokesman for the Basilians. Will he also be removed from the Canadian Bishops' Conference? We might also ask if Rosica will keep his job at the Vatican. If he does, I believe that will be quite indicative of the mindset of Father Lombardi and perhaps the pope himself.
Monday, February 23, 2015
#Rosicagate - Vortex Reveals More Of Fr Rosica's Chequered Past
How this man was ever ordained, let alone promoted to his current post, will remain a mystery to me.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
From The #Rosicagate Department - The Underlying Madness
Note before we begin. Yes, we have both a new "department" and hashtag here. I will be using them and invite others to do the same as new developments will undoubtedly unfold.
The Lepanto post linked to an address given by, and an article by Fr. Rosica. They are fascinating for they reveal the true dissident mindset of this Vatican official.
First, let's look at an address that Rosica gave at Loyola University in Baltimore. The Catholic Review published a transcript of that. Please read it on their site. I'll highlight some rather revealing snippets from that. I'll do that "bullet style".
The Lepanto post linked to an address given by, and an article by Fr. Rosica. They are fascinating for they reveal the true dissident mindset of this Vatican official.
First, let's look at an address that Rosica gave at Loyola University in Baltimore. The Catholic Review published a transcript of that. Please read it on their site. I'll highlight some rather revealing snippets from that. I'll do that "bullet style".
- Speaking of Pope Francis' election to the papacy he asks "How can we describe the sense of springtime that has come upon the church?" What??!!? This is rather revealing of his attitude towards Pope Benedict XVI and perhaps toward Pope St John Paul II. Further talk of "revolution of tenderness" underscores this point.
- He writes "He has declared that the church’s main mission would no longer be as a lead combatant in the culture wars." Let's clarify terms, shall we? By "culture wars" we are talking about the core spirituality and morality that define western civilization. Western civilization is being threatened with the acceptance of abortion, homosexual lifestyles, contraception, euthanasia. Additionally, western civilization is unraveling because of an abandonment, if not outright rejection, of its Christian heritage and history. Part and parcel of the Church's primary mission - to save souls - is to combat the moral rot that will lead to the damnation of souls. As the Church established by Jesus Christ Himself, it is only fitting that the Church retains and even expands its leadership role in the "culture wars".
- He asked and answered a question: "What is the most important achievement of Pope Francis? He has rebranded Catholicism and the papacy." Well, he certainly has done that to the latter; but why should that be considered an "accomplishment"? The papacy is 2000 years old, established by Jesus Christ Himself. What? Did Our Lord not do a good enough job of "branding the papacy"?
- In short, Rosica has shown his disdain for the history and traditions of the Church by portraying the Pope as some avant-garde person who will attempt to set the Church on a new course. While his portrayal of the pope's intents may well be correct, his enthusiasm over the de facto mutation of the papacy is nonetheless regrettable.
This next article he wrote on the occasion of Ted Kennedy's very public funeral. In it he excoriates those of us who protested the laudatory accolades afforded to someone who used his position to foment the murders of millions of tiny children in their mothers' wombs. I won't pick apart his numerous logical fallacies regarding the funeral per se, nor even of his disparagement of concerned pro-life blogs. I do want to point out some odd contrasts between what he wrote in this article and his actions against Vox Cantoris.
- He says the writings of pro-life bloggers reveal "a new form of self-righteousness, condemnation and gnosticism reveals authors who behave as little children bullying one another around in schoolyards- casting stones, calling names, and wreaking havoc in the Church today!" Speaking of "bullying" and "wreaking havoc", how may we characterize his legal threats against a Catholic blogger?
- He writes "What such people fail to realize is that their messages are ultimately screamed into a vacuum. No one but their own loud crowd is really listening." Well, that's not true and he knows it. Else, why is he attempting to sue Vox Cantoris into silence - and to intimidate the rest of us?
I refer you to the Lepanto post for more ironies and contradictions evident between Rosica's lofty words and his despicable actions towards Vox Cantoris. I publicly call upon the Vatican to rein in Father Rosica as his actions are besmirching their appearance before the eyes of the world.
Friday, February 20, 2015
More On Father Rosica Spouting Dissident Quackery
There's a reason why Father Rosica has the long knives out for Vox Cantoris. It can be summed up in a saying: cockroaches flee the light. We Catholic bloggers are shining the light on those who dissent from the Teachings of Jesus Christ. I am proud to consider Vox Cantoris as a colleague in the fight for timeless truth. So why is Vox Cantoris targeted? I believe it's because both Rosica and the Vox blogger are Canadians. If you read the linked lawyer letter closely, you'll notice that the lawyers are also Canadians, and Canadian law is invoked therein. Mind you, the Vatican, through Rosica, are making their proverbial "shot across the bow" at all of us, but they perceive legal vulnerability with Vox Cantoris.
Lots of us Catholic bloggers have weighed in on the matter; the Tenth Crusade published an anthology of our posts. I refer you to Michael Hichborn's post in Lepanto. Hichborn makes a number of interesting points. I won't comment on them all but will take minor exception to one. He notes the priest's role to be a victim (read the article for context on that), and Rosica's refusal to follow that precept in this situation. I hold it would be logically impossible for Rosica to try to adopt a victim's stance in that manner, for to truly be a victim, one must be innocent. As Hichborn and others so aptly demonstrate, Rosica is guilty of objective wrongs, both in the wrongs that Vox and others pointed out and in the conduct of the lawsuit itself.
Besides yesterday's post, I've a number of them that mention the problematic statements of Rosica, including him calling the Holy Family "irregular". Today Michael Voris released a Vortex regarding Rosica, including an encounter he had with Rosica while he was in Rome covering the sin-nod last October. With this encounter, Rosica made plain that his status as "dissenter" is well-earned. See for yourselves now. After you watch the video, you may wish to contact the Vatican as suggested by Les Femmes. You may also wish to pop over to the Salt and Light site (of which Rosica is CEO) and voice your displeasure there; at the bottom of that page is his Twitter address. Since he's obviously been on Twitter a lot, he'll certainly get your message there.
Lots of us Catholic bloggers have weighed in on the matter; the Tenth Crusade published an anthology of our posts. I refer you to Michael Hichborn's post in Lepanto. Hichborn makes a number of interesting points. I won't comment on them all but will take minor exception to one. He notes the priest's role to be a victim (read the article for context on that), and Rosica's refusal to follow that precept in this situation. I hold it would be logically impossible for Rosica to try to adopt a victim's stance in that manner, for to truly be a victim, one must be innocent. As Hichborn and others so aptly demonstrate, Rosica is guilty of objective wrongs, both in the wrongs that Vox and others pointed out and in the conduct of the lawsuit itself.
Besides yesterday's post, I've a number of them that mention the problematic statements of Rosica, including him calling the Holy Family "irregular". Today Michael Voris released a Vortex regarding Rosica, including an encounter he had with Rosica while he was in Rome covering the sin-nod last October. With this encounter, Rosica made plain that his status as "dissenter" is well-earned. See for yourselves now. After you watch the video, you may wish to contact the Vatican as suggested by Les Femmes. You may also wish to pop over to the Salt and Light site (of which Rosica is CEO) and voice your displeasure there; at the bottom of that page is his Twitter address. Since he's obviously been on Twitter a lot, he'll certainly get your message there.
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Vatican Spokesman Suing Faithful Catholic Blogger
My blogging colleague Vox Cantoris has been targeted by Father Thomas Rosica, Vatican spokesman. Within the linked post you can see another link that is a pdf of the letter he received from Rosica's attorneys. Take a look at it and you can see that Rosica doesn't like it when his public statements draw comments that aren't favorable to him. The whole list of grievances reads like a big temper tantrum.
Here's a post from Vox that probably knotted his knickers. Notice the picture of a tweet that Rosica sent. A reasonable person might conclude that Rosica agreed with the depiction of Cardinal Burke as a "dissenter" (the word "dissenter" being redefined by Cardinal Wuerl). Yoo, hoo! Father Rosica! Here's a fact that you'll do well to learn: when you make a public statement, you invite public comment! If those comments are going to hurt your poor widdle feel-bads, you'd do best not to put them out there until you grow up a bit!
I'm also a bit bemused by what appears to be a double-standard being exercised by Rosica. His lawyers are carrying on about "defamatory statements" and "damage to reputation". Father Rosica (and lawyers), what about these statements that Rosica lodged against LifeSiteNews several years ago, voicing publicly his opinions that LifeSiteNews is:
Here's a post from Vox that probably knotted his knickers. Notice the picture of a tweet that Rosica sent. A reasonable person might conclude that Rosica agreed with the depiction of Cardinal Burke as a "dissenter" (the word "dissenter" being redefined by Cardinal Wuerl). Yoo, hoo! Father Rosica! Here's a fact that you'll do well to learn: when you make a public statement, you invite public comment! If those comments are going to hurt your poor widdle feel-bads, you'd do best not to put them out there until you grow up a bit!
I'm also a bit bemused by what appears to be a double-standard being exercised by Rosica. His lawyers are carrying on about "defamatory statements" and "damage to reputation". Father Rosica (and lawyers), what about these statements that Rosica lodged against LifeSiteNews several years ago, voicing publicly his opinions that LifeSiteNews is:
- "not ethical"
- "not honest"
- "bombastic"
- "not credible"
- "doing the work of Satan"
So Rosica can voice his opinions against a faithful Catholic outlet, but let another Catholic outlet voice their opinions about his public conduct - and he tries to break out the long knives? I fail to see how this is proper conduct for a person involved in the media, let alone a Catholic priest.
In that incident with LifeSiteNews, Rosica trash-talked LSN in the same breath that he used to call for "civility, charity, kindness and humanity". I now believe that was a tactic to try to stifle LSN. That didn't work so now he's going the legal route. That won't work, either. We will speak the truth.
Today's Vortex deals with this matter. Here it is.
In that incident with LifeSiteNews, Rosica trash-talked LSN in the same breath that he used to call for "civility, charity, kindness and humanity". I now believe that was a tactic to try to stifle LSN. That didn't work so now he's going the legal route. That won't work, either. We will speak the truth.
Today's Vortex deals with this matter. Here it is.
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Of New Things And Surprises And Diabolical Subtleties
A little note before I begin this post. I will be expounding on these rather bizarre statements from the Pope, understanding of course that they are not spoken ex cathedra. However, because there are some good-hearted people who think that every word he utters is a prophetic declaration or that it's just wonderful when he dons a clown nose for a silly selfie, there needs to be some input that is not derived from the "three monkeys" approach. I'm pleased to note that many of my fellow bloggers seem similarly persuaded. In fact, I shall be linking to them (as I often do).
Within the past several weeks Pope Francis has said some things that are perilously close to being logically, philosophically and theologically impossible. These anomalies of thinking seem to be shared by prelates such as Cardinal Kasper, and their stench emanated from the SinNod.
On October 13, the Catholic Herald (UK) reported on the Pope's homily. In that, he reportedly stated that "if laws do not lead people to Jesus they are obsolete". It's obvious that he is confusing God's law with Pharisaical customs, for there is nothing inherently evil about eating with sinners (we all are sinners). Why that distinction was not drawn is not so much careless, but now in light of the SinNod, somewhat suspect. God's laws will never be obsolete. They are His word, and as God Himself is eternal, so are His laws as they reflect His eternal will.
We certainly did see an attempt during the SinNod to question the eternity and relevance of God's laws, especially with the indissolubility of marriage and the gravity of the sins of sacrilegious Holy Communion and sodomy. They are contained in those three paragraphs that should have been removed but in reality they still remain part of the report despite the votes of the prelates in attendance.
Regarding the fallacy of the law "not leading people to Jesus", recall that it's God's law that is indispensable to our discernment of Jesus in our lives and Church as opposed to some counterfeit. Let's look at that statement again, rephrasing it ever so slightly. "If laws do not lead people to Jesus, it's because that pseudo-lovely image of Jesus is a counterfeit. God's authentic laws will never lead to anyone but Jesus." With all due respect, I think this statement to be tad more accurate than the former.
In that article, we also heard about this "god of surprises", and he has been throwing that phrase at us ever since. You'll notice that I did not capitalize that "g". "God of surprises" is not a phrase that I've ever seen in the Scriptures nor in any other Church documents (I suppose that omission renders them "obsolete"?). What is with this fetish about "being surprised"? In the various contexts in which this phrase is bandied about (including the closing address of the SinNod), I suspect this "god of surprises" is not much more than a pagan idol designed to lure the naive into abandoning the One True Faith.
Let me share a particularly blasphemous manifestation of this "god of surprises", with thanks to Vox Cantoris. Father Thomas Rosica, official of the Vatican Press Office and player in the SinNod, tried his best to make those in irregular marriages (that is, adultery) seem legitimate by opining that the Holy Family was "irregular"! To suggest any hint of sin about the Holy Family is both intellectually insulting and blasphemous. Is it, as the blogger suggests, part of the campaign for us to "mature", as said Pope Francis in his closing address? Most likely so. In saner times, Father Rosica would have been disciplined if not defrocked. Now he'll probably be rewarded.
During the Mass during which Pope Paul VI was beatified, Pope Francis said repeatedly that "God is not afraid of new things". There is truth to that statement - for several good reasons. First, we read in Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 that "there is nothing new under the sun". God is eternal. His Word and Law is eternal. Furthermore, we know that all public revelation has occurred and ended with the death of the last Apostle (John). If there is any new "dogma" or tweaking of settled Church teaching, the impetus of such is utter foolishness at best and diabolical at worst. Of course God can overcome all such duplicity; we weak humans need to exercise prudence and discernment. Those two qualities must not be confused with fear and suggestions for such confusion must be rejected.
Let's face it. This talk of "god of surprises" and "new things" is progressive manipulation of words to manipulate the Catholics into questioning the Magisterium and the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself, this time in regards to divorced/remarried Catholics and those embracing the sin of sodomy. Even now they are preparing in earnest for next year's ordinary synod, where they hope that they will be more successful in undermining the Faith.
Within the past several weeks Pope Francis has said some things that are perilously close to being logically, philosophically and theologically impossible. These anomalies of thinking seem to be shared by prelates such as Cardinal Kasper, and their stench emanated from the SinNod.
On October 13, the Catholic Herald (UK) reported on the Pope's homily. In that, he reportedly stated that "if laws do not lead people to Jesus they are obsolete". It's obvious that he is confusing God's law with Pharisaical customs, for there is nothing inherently evil about eating with sinners (we all are sinners). Why that distinction was not drawn is not so much careless, but now in light of the SinNod, somewhat suspect. God's laws will never be obsolete. They are His word, and as God Himself is eternal, so are His laws as they reflect His eternal will.
We certainly did see an attempt during the SinNod to question the eternity and relevance of God's laws, especially with the indissolubility of marriage and the gravity of the sins of sacrilegious Holy Communion and sodomy. They are contained in those three paragraphs that should have been removed but in reality they still remain part of the report despite the votes of the prelates in attendance.
Regarding the fallacy of the law "not leading people to Jesus", recall that it's God's law that is indispensable to our discernment of Jesus in our lives and Church as opposed to some counterfeit. Let's look at that statement again, rephrasing it ever so slightly. "If laws do not lead people to Jesus, it's because that pseudo-lovely image of Jesus is a counterfeit. God's authentic laws will never lead to anyone but Jesus." With all due respect, I think this statement to be tad more accurate than the former.
In that article, we also heard about this "god of surprises", and he has been throwing that phrase at us ever since. You'll notice that I did not capitalize that "g". "God of surprises" is not a phrase that I've ever seen in the Scriptures nor in any other Church documents (I suppose that omission renders them "obsolete"?). What is with this fetish about "being surprised"? In the various contexts in which this phrase is bandied about (including the closing address of the SinNod), I suspect this "god of surprises" is not much more than a pagan idol designed to lure the naive into abandoning the One True Faith.
Let me share a particularly blasphemous manifestation of this "god of surprises", with thanks to Vox Cantoris. Father Thomas Rosica, official of the Vatican Press Office and player in the SinNod, tried his best to make those in irregular marriages (that is, adultery) seem legitimate by opining that the Holy Family was "irregular"! To suggest any hint of sin about the Holy Family is both intellectually insulting and blasphemous. Is it, as the blogger suggests, part of the campaign for us to "mature", as said Pope Francis in his closing address? Most likely so. In saner times, Father Rosica would have been disciplined if not defrocked. Now he'll probably be rewarded.
During the Mass during which Pope Paul VI was beatified, Pope Francis said repeatedly that "God is not afraid of new things". There is truth to that statement - for several good reasons. First, we read in Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 that "there is nothing new under the sun". God is eternal. His Word and Law is eternal. Furthermore, we know that all public revelation has occurred and ended with the death of the last Apostle (John). If there is any new "dogma" or tweaking of settled Church teaching, the impetus of such is utter foolishness at best and diabolical at worst. Of course God can overcome all such duplicity; we weak humans need to exercise prudence and discernment. Those two qualities must not be confused with fear and suggestions for such confusion must be rejected.
Let's face it. This talk of "god of surprises" and "new things" is progressive manipulation of words to manipulate the Catholics into questioning the Magisterium and the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself, this time in regards to divorced/remarried Catholics and those embracing the sin of sodomy. Even now they are preparing in earnest for next year's ordinary synod, where they hope that they will be more successful in undermining the Faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
