Saturday, September 24, 2016
I think anyone who visited would say the spiritual encounter has left us a bit overwhelmed.
It was standing room only for the Mass at the Cathedral last night, with hundreds waiting outside to venerate and ask for Padre Pio's intercession.
And what a Holy Sacrifice it was. There is nothing like a Mass filled to the rafters with zealous lovers of Christ. Every prayer is deafening and seems to echo right into the heavens. Sanctifying Grace is palpable.
I read this post and a few others earlier in the day, so chaos caused by this papacy was very much on my mind.
The evening reminded me of that moment in Scripture when the Apostles were being tossed around in the boat while trying to navigate through the storm and Christ finally wakes up to see He's in the boat with wussies and calms the sea.
"What is WRONG with you people?!! Where is your faith?!!!!
I consider my faith to be rock solid right up until the moment Christ does something dramatic to show me His Presence or Power.
There we all were standing in the Cathedral knowing what disappointment we all are to Him and each other but at the same time, every single one of us knowing how much He loves us and how much we all love each other. How absolutely magnificent It is. In spite of it all.
We are so rich.
A friend was telling me he did a little research on incorruptibles and came across St. Rita's story. Another powerful and incorruptible saint, she levitated and opened her eyes during her beatification (and several times since).
Powerful Mass. Thanks brothers. Deo Gratias.
What a wow-this-stuff-is-real moment that must have been.
We were in the presence of the heart who could read hearts, whose love for Christ and His people converted and absolved millions. A man who biolcated, levitated, bore the wounds of Christ. There is no question that power touched the heart of every person who came to see him.
And we were all stunned. Rendered speechless and struggling to hold back tears of gratitude.
Coincidentally, this was yesterday's reading from our 54 day Novena:
The Gospel story Pope John Paul II sets as the foundation for his new millennium appeal is the "Call of the First Disciples" (Lk 5:1-11). This is the classic scene in which Jesus tells Peter to "Put out into deep water (duc in altum), and let down the nets for a catch." Peter's response is: "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets."
They proceed to catch the maximum amount of fish their nets can hold. Peter, filled with awe and wonder once he realizes he is in the presence of divinity, does not feel worthy to be called. But Jesus says, "Do not be afraid, from now on you will be fishers of men."
Why does the Holy Father choose this particular Gospel reading as the basis for his new millennium master plan? Because Peter's words - "We've worked hard all night and haven't caught anything" - could not speak any more directly to the modern tsunami-like wave of secularism rolling across our planet, as well as our endless parade of parish programs that are mostly done as though God were not there (etsi Deus non daretur).
In other words, the story of the great catch is meant to show that when we try to move only under our own natural power without God (we've worked hard), we will flounder in the chaos of darkness (all night) and come up empty (caught nothing) every time. Jesus asks us to get in sync with him (to obey him) and not be afraid to set aside our superficial (man-powered) tendencies, as we enter the depths of a supernatural (God-powered) life.
Everything in the religious order - sacraments, devotions, teaching, scripture, moral discipline, preaching, etc. - is meant to bring us to this deeper state of being, to this Divine Connection. Jesus calls it "abiding" (Jn 15:4). The Latin for this is maneo which means "to remain" or "to stay" or "to endure" (or like the Marine Corps' semper fi). This Divine Connection, this conformity to love, this participation in the Divine Life of God is the very power of the Holy Spirit and is referred to as being in a state of grace. (Excerpt from Church Militant Field Manual).
Cardinal O'Malley mentioned when he was a seminarian, he asked to visit Padre Pio and he was told Capuchins do not go to see Padre Pio. He felt a little like the visit of St. Padre Pio's heart was like a valentine from Heaven.
But it felt deeper than that, almost like our Cathedral and everyone in it was lifted up to Heaven to visit St. Padre Pio.
Sunday, September 18, 2016
I was really dumbfounded when Jeff Mirus said:
In this case, the continuing sins involved in the irregular union on the part of the repentant spouse would seem to be venial—on the grounds that full consent of the will to the moral evil of continued sexual relations is lacking. The sins would be rendered venial by either a very real confusion about the best course or the compulsion inherent in the particular situation, or both.’
So if your husband wants you to break one of the ten commandments, you're only committing venial sin because you're breaking them to keep the relationship.
What if your husband wants you to help him embezzle funds from his employer?
What if he wants to abort your child?
Rorate covers the theological misunderstandings much better than I can.
In this scenario the possibility of confusion about the best course is excluded ex hypothesi, since it is stipulated that the person in question recognises the sinfulness of the relationship. The question is thus whether full consent of the will to sexual relations is lacking. But this full consent is clearly stated to occur. The consent is the whole point of the scenario. The person in question is described as continuing sexual relations in order to prevent their partner in adultery from leaving. Acting for that reason means knowing what you are doing – continuing sexual relations – and choosing to do it in order to obtain a goal – the continued presence of the partner in adultery. Knowing what you are doing and choosing to do it in order to obtain a desired goal is what fully voluntary action consists in. There is no exculpating infringement of the will or lack of voluntary consent in the scenario. There is a fully voluntary choice to do a wrong action, made because doing the action has a result that the agent wants to obtain. Making choices of this kind is what sin is.
This was the very first lesson on sin God provided to us.
Here's what happened when Adam tried to persuade God his wife pressured him into it:
The man said, “It’s the fault of the woman you put here with me. She gave me some fruit from the tree. And I ate it.”
13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What have you done?”
The woman said, “The serpent tricked me. That’s why I ate the fruit.”
17 The Lord God said to Adam, “You listened to your wife’s suggestion. You ate fruit from the tree I warned you about. I said, ‘You must not eat its fruit.’
“So I am putting a curse on the ground because of what you did.
All the days of your life you will have to work hard.
It will be painful for you to get food from the ground. 18 You will eat plants from the field,
even though the ground produces thorns and prickly weeds.
19 You will have to work hard and sweat a lot
to produce the food you eat.
You were made out of the ground.
You will return to it when you die.
You are dust,
and you will return to dust.
Adam was tossed out of Paradise with Eve.
That's all we ever need to know about whether caving to pressure from a loved one closes the door on our salvation.
Saturday, September 17, 2016
If he had stated clearly, in a formal document, that divorced and remarried Catholics might receive Communion, Pope Francis would have been ignoring the strong resistance that he had encountered at the Synod, and thus undermining his claim to be speaking on behalf of the world’s bishops. He would also have been contradicting the teaching of St. John Paul II, who was quite clear in stating, in Familiaris Consortio (#84), that divorced and remarried Catholics must live as brothers and sisters if they wish to approach the Eucharist, because "if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage." The logic of that magisterial statement is compelling. And if Pope Francis reversed the policy set by Pope John Paul II, it would seem clear that a future Pontiff could reverse the policy set by Pope Francis, so that no papal statement would be regarded as conclusive.
Instead, as Royal observes, Pope Francis has chosen to “finesse this process, through accompaniment, discernment, all those words that have no clear limits.” He says that the matter is clear, but does not provide clarity. With his approval, the Argentine bishops say that divorced/remarried Catholics may only receive Communion under certain limited circumstances, but do not specify what those circumstances might be. Everything is left to the discretion of the pastor; the guidance from Rome is that there will be no guidance.
If it's one thing the Holy Father has been consistent about it is slithering around clarity, truth and what he's doing with the heretics he's summoned to the Vatican to help execute his ideas.
As much as we don't want to acknowledge the source of the stink of deception all over this papacy, I think we can all stop wondering if the smoke is deliberately being blown into our family and homes.
The Holy Father has an outcome he desires and HE is taking the actions to bring about that outcome.
Who knew surrounding our families with heretics who misguide them could be deliberate.
Oh wait....WE DID!!!
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
I'm sure you've all read the big news.
Pope Francis has personally confirmed it was his intention to direct priests to give Communion to people living in a state of perpetual sin.
So now we know. We knew before, really, but didn’t have explicit confirmation. The long, agonizing slog, however, is finally over: from Pope Francis’ invitation to Cardinal Kasper to address the bishops in Rome in February of 2014 to the pope’s letter last week to some Argentinean bishops affirming guidelines they had developed in a joint document that, in “exceptional cases,” people divorced and remarried (living in an “adulterous” relationship as we believed for 2000 years in Western Christianity), may receive Holy Communion. This whole affair is bizarre. No other word will do.
I didn't realize people were still waiting for confirmation!
Bizarre is a pretty strong description coming from Royal. Accurate but nonetheless, strong.
And when I read this, it did not go unnoticed that he recently announced he was closing comments!:
I say this in sorrow, but I’m afraid that the rest of this papacy is now going to be rent by bands of dissenters, charges of papal heresy, threats of – and perhaps outright –schism. Lord, have mercy.
We've got a problem. And it isn't a little one!
A few more worthy commentaries
Jeff Mirus is back to defending the indefensible.
He seems to get the public witness loses hundreds in a parish:
The key question is: Which is more important, the potential scandal which could weaken the commitment of others to the Church’s teaching on marriage, or the need for the (venial) sinner (caught in a no-win situation) to be spiritually nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ?
But then scurries right back to marginalizing the Holy Father's catastrophic error:
A final point worth mentioning is that the Church’s prudential judgment about this matter can legitimately change with cultural conditions. For example, in a culture which generally respects the permanence of marriage, the potential scandal might be far greater than in a culture which generally denies the permanence of marriage (in which case it may be difficult to erode that concept any further).
Ed Peters does a decent job calling the position into question.
Long story made short, Catholics who have entered marriages subsequent to mere divorce are objectively disqualified from being given holy Communion (CCC 1650, 2384), whatever might be their subjectively reduced culpability for their state. This is a crucial point: two canons (and the values behind two canons) come into play every time a minister and recipient meet over the Host. Yes, Amoris seems to miss this point and the Buenos Aires Directive clearly misses it. Still.
And finally, this post at Rorate.
In the document, which intends to provide the clergy with some criteria in relation to the eighth chapter of the exhortation, the Argentinean bishops assert that, on the basis of Amoris laetitia, the divorced and remarried, can be admitted to sacramental Communion even if they are in a common-law marriage, with no intention of practicing chastity. Pope Francis expressed his appreciation of this proposition, by writing to the prelates that “the text is very good and explains Chapter VIII of Amoris laetitia in an excellent way. There is no other interpretation. And I’m sure it will do good.” This triggered off immediate controversy and the pontifical letter mysteriously disappeared from the site, in such a way that many began to have doubts about its existence, until the Osservatore Romano confirmed its authenticity.
“There is no other interpretation”. Pope Francis’ position on the divorced and remarried - already expressed on his return flight from the Isle of Lesbos, at this point, seems definitively clear. Yet if this is his thought, why commit it to a footnote in Amoris laetitia and to a private letter not intended for publication, instead of stating it in a clear, explicit way? Perhaps in this way, the contradiction of the perennial Magisterium of the Church would be public and formal, whereas the intention is to arrive at changing the Church’s doctrine in an ambiguous and surreptitious way?
The impression is that we find ourselves faced with a manipulation of information which creates precisely those tensions and divisions inside the Church that the Pope complained about in his discourse at Santa Marta on September 12th:“[…]ideological, theological divisions that lacerate the Church. The devil sows jealousy, ambitions, ideas, but to divide! […]Divisions make you see this part, this one against the other. Always against! There is no oil of unity, the balsam of unity”.(Zenit)
Divisions however, have their source in the two-forked language of the Devil and are defeated most of all by the truth: the truth of the Faith and morality, but also the truth of language and behaviour, which means renouncing all lies, falsification and reserve, following the teaching of the Gospel “[...] let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of the evil one.” (Matthew, 5 v 37)
A lot to digest. We have certainly crossed the Rubicon.
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
From Monsignor Pope.
If this cold once penetrates the soul when (as so often happens) the soul is neglectful and the spirit asleep and if no one (God forbid) is there to curb it, then it reaches into the soul’s interior, descends to the depths of the heart and the recesses of the mind, paralyzes the affections, obstructs the paths of counsel, unsteadies the light of judgment, fetters the liberty of the spirit, and soon—as appears to bodies sick with fever—a rigor of the mind takes over: vigor slackens, energies grow languid, repugnance for austerity increases, fear of poverty disquiets, the soul shrivels, grace is withdrawn, time means boredom, reason is lulled to sleep, the spirit is quenched, the fresh fervor wanes away, a fastidious lukewarmness weighs down, brotherly love grows cold, pleasure attracts, security is a trap, old habits return. Can I say more? The law is cheated, justice is rejected, what is right is outlawed, the fear of the Lord is abandoned. Shamelessness finally gets free rein. There comes that rash leap, so dishonorable, so disgraceful, so full of ignominy and confusion; a leap from the heights into the abyss, from the courtyard to the dung heap, from the throne to the sewer, from heaven to the mud, from the cloister to the world, from paradise to hell (Sermon 63.6b on the Song of Songs, “The Fox in the Vineyard”).
And that's the way it is.
I recently came across this article which affirms Kasper's revelation that the Holy Father has been directly involved in the deliberate sabotaging of Church teaching we have been experiencing during his pontificate.
Even a blind pig finds a truffle once in a while.
in the Church there is a "schism of fact" between the hierarchy and the Catholic community. And I said, blaming the same to a group of cardinals and bishops who had become in recent years the rigorista minority who had always been in the whole of Catholicism; But from now on, without the backing fortunately the successor of Peter....
Fortunately, choosing to emerge Francisco has provided the model of the Church as "mother", because it has bowels of mercy, is more ready to welcome, accompany, discern and integrate it to condemn. And, of course, it is good; but that, contrary to what his detractors may think, it is not silly or prudish nor lax.
Oh, it's coming from bowels all right.
Proof of this is that it has the lucidity and courage required to accept that theirs is to cure, not to condemn; host not exclude; propose, not impose; announce, not silence; forgive, not disavow. And, with regard to sexual morality, he understands that it is time to recognize self-critically that "the message of the Church on marriage and the family" has not been "a clear reflection of the preaching and the attitudes of Jesus while it is proposing a demanding ideal, never lost compassionate closeness fragile, like the Samaritan woman or adulteress "(" Amoris laetitia ", 2016).
As you can see, Francisco does not neglect or forget the doctrine or so -called "non - negotiable truths" of the previous pontificates. Rather, it reads and receives from the centrality corresponding own right, the axiom of mercy. Proceeding in this way, stands on the site that belongs to the so-called "natural moral law" and provides an ecclesial alternative, being inclusive, has more future than his critics and detractors believe; who, incidentally, does not command parade, as was done in the recent past, by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The "schism in fact" of the Catholic Church can dissolve like sugar in water. And not only because it decreases the number of their supporters (sometimes not always confessable reasons) or its anchorage in the rigorista extrapolation, but above all, by the coldness, authoritarianism and theological inconsistency with which they have defended such "truths non-negotiable ".
You know what this analysis forbears?
He's talking about the seven homosexual apostles diligently demoralizing our loved ones for the past fifty years. The author is pointing out what is painfully obvious. The fifty years of brainwashing led to a majority in the episcopate and the Holy Father is working with them to create policies that openly formalize their demoralization as an alternative fiat for salvation.
This sentence is a bit chilling isn't it:
Welcome is the decline of the "master" that has sponsored Church and has been blindly partisan analyzes in black and white juxtaposition between truth and falsehood and condemnation of any discrepancy almost always perceived as breaking off.
I actually don't share the author's confidence that this diabolical force in the Church has or ever will overcome the Master of Truth.
My gut instincts are, those of us who took shelter in apostolates like EWTN and Catholic blogosphere have given them a good run for their money.
I think they were relying upon the sissification of men in the Church and the reluctance of well-heeled Catholic writers to publicly report corruption and wrongdoing of the hierarchy.
I earnestly believe they were counting on the usual suspects to defend the indefensible, as they have been doing for the last 50 years. But, the mounting evidence was just too much to embark on that crusade.
Look, I've been working in Church Militant for decades and I can say with conviction that shutting down nonsense on the parish and diocesan level has been nearly effortless in the past 1 1/2 year or so. There is an element of listening, honesty and right actions that I've never experienced before.
All I have to say to the majority is, buckle up buttercups.
Monday, September 12, 2016
Surprisingly, doubt plays an important role in one’s pursuit of the truth
It's hard to believe there isn't an editor with their finger on the pulse of Sanctifying Grace who wouldn't read through this submission and see the glaring theological buffoonery, but here we are.
Do you believe, with absolute certainty, that Jesus is the Son of God? Are you confident that evidence of His life on earth, and His crucifixion, resurrection and ascension into heaven, is completely irrefutable? Is your belief in God’s love for humanity and God’s forgiveness for human sins perfect and true, down to the very core of your being?
If so, then your faith may be on shaky ground.
Right. Because there's nothing more earth shattering to faith than believing with absolute certainty in Christ, His Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension.
This poor soul has no business writing for a Catholic periodical. He not only lacks knowledge of the fruit of Sanctifying Grace, he sees the fruit as the course to avoid on the road to purification and sanctification.
For centuries, theologians have maintained that pure, absolute conviction, the total absence of doubt in religious and spiritual matters, is anything but a sign of faith.
So much for the theological virtues at the Annunciation.
Furthermore, doubt itself may be essential to a life of Christian faith.
Doubt is the obstacle to Truth. It's the outward manifestation of a sickness in the soul that needs to be cured or a wound that needs to be healed. In practice, doubt prevents people from right judgment and right actions.
Doubt stems from poor catechesis and formation that leads to lack of trust.
We may see doubt on a person's journey of faith but it is never a good thing.
You know what the real problem with this article is?
When a parent, evangelist, priest, bishop, Pope hear a person express doubt, there is NO DOUBT that God has sent us a person walking around with a ball and chain, and we hold the keys to their freedom. With absolute certainty, we respond by supplying that person with the information they need to kick their doubts to the curb.
Yet this author doubts catechized evangelists in a state of Grace!
Then something happens in his life, a relatively inconsequential event or a tragic catastrophe, that undermines his “perfect” understanding of God. Doubt enters the picture, and since God is perfect, the Christian believes he must be flawed. So he tries to flee from doubt – as quickly as possible. After all, perfect faith is the absence of doubt, right?
Every one of us experiences disappointment or frustration when fervent prayer seems to go unanswered by God or something happens in our lives that makes us feel God has abandoned us. Even Christ felt abandonment.
While it doesn't necessarily signal a serious crisis in our faith, its safe to say the sooner we get rid of it, the better!
If it rises to the level of questioning whether Christ is the Son of God, you've got a spiritual emergency on your hands. It's time to hit up the Sacraments, call on Our Lady with the Rosary and do some spiritual readiing. Bishop Fulton Sheen is a good go-to guy in a crisis of faith.
And whatever you do, stay away from diocescan newspapers!
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
The great majority of our parishes have a group of miserable women who run everything.
The bear gives a great example of how they conduct themselves:
Convert mom. Two kids. She brings doughnuts. One of the old people (who make up the bulk of the Bear's dying parish) bitches at her, saying, "It's not doughnut Sunday."
The oldest kid says, "Why don't we go to the Vine. People are nice there and they have doughnuts every Sunday."
Good question. They have better music, better sermons, you never hear a word about global warming, everybody's friendly and they have freaking doughnuts every freaking Sunday. And most of their congregation does not consist of old jerks.
Doughnuts every Sunday? The Bear's so there.
This has nothing to do with doctrine, Vatican II or Pope Francis, It has everything to do with a dysfunctional parish driving people to a Protestant chain congregation. The Bear's parish is so hollow and so doomed. And the Bear does not care. The future does not lie with the Laurence Welk generation.
Anyone who wants to help is, frankly, abused. They don't want help. They want to sit in their sand castle as the tide rolls in.
A shining example of why young families don't feel comfortable or welcome.
What a guy.
If I ever won the lottery, I would put a private detective on these priests so fast their heads would spin.
Monday, September 5, 2016
Seems like a stupid question, but here we are!
I have red oak floors in my house that sometimes take a beating, like when I move furniture or the house is full of guests.
Does my floor get the blues when people are trampling upon it?
Are Catholics obliged to perform acts of charity for their hardwood floors?
How about my refrigerator? Does it know when its empty, feel neglect when it hasn't been cleaned for a few weeks?
You would think the answer would be fairly obvious that oak wood floors and refrigerators don't have the substance to have hurt feelings, have emotions or thoughts or a soul, so consequently they do not have the substance to receive acts of mercy.
For Catholics who have been crying out to the Holy Father for mercy and experiencing his willful deafness for the plight of the family and unborn, hearing his plea to the world to give mercy to objects incapable of receiving this great gift, this is really out there with Shirley McLaine.