Womenpriests! Intercommunion! Pastoral Discernment! Whoopee!!

We can’t really say everything old is new again. It’s really just more of the same.

But we can certainly look behind the headlines to a little bit of recent Catholic history and discover that most of the daily list of horrors coming out of the Vatican and upper levels of the episcopate are nothing new at all. They are, at most, natural developments of what has been going on for 50 years. One might say, the logical results of them

~

Do as we say shall be the whole of the law

For our bulging “Papal Positivism will give us EVERYTHING!” file:

Bishop of Malta doubles down: says its “most traditional idea” to just do whatever this pope says even if it contradicts… well… everything else.

During the meeting, Abp Scicluna repeatedly stressed that there there is only one interpretation of AL – the interpretation given by the Pope himself to the bishops of Argentina. The Abp also said that if this is the interpretation offered by the Pope himself, who are we to say otherwise…

The mantra is this: We have one Pope, the present pope – Francis and reminded his parish priest[s] that this principle is is the most traditional of principles: we follow whatever the Pope says. He went on to say that if the next Pope says something else, we will then follow what he says. We have one choice fundamentally; we are either Catholics with the Pope or we are not. The Archbishop quoted Saint George Preca, the Maltese saint, who said: Ego sum cum Papa semper.

… except of course, it’s completely the opposite of the Tradition of the Church, the dogmatically defined teaching on Papal Infallibility. And of Scripture. In other words, it’s what we call in the biz, “a lie”.

But as always, we can count on the “good” “conservative” priests to take it lying down:

Many parish priests were disgusted at how Scicluna, while brandishing a copy of the newspaper, openly mocked the parish priest for speaking to the journalists about his concerns. Many said after that if this is how he deals with dissent, then they will not speak to him, and prefer to follow their own conscience in the matter.

And that, ladies and gents, is EXACTLY how we got into this situation; by “good” priests keeping their mouths firmly shut and their heads well down. Don’t want to rock that boat/jeopardize our sinecures/our meal tickets, wot?

And of course, while they’re keeping silent, the heretics are leading the faithful over the cliff:

In the meantime, one of Abp Scicluna’s attack dogs, Father Joe Inguanez, who is one of a group of liberal clerics who have plagued the local Church for decades, has written an article in the local press stating that Mueller’s comments in no way correct the Maltese Criteria.

~

Womenpriests! Because, pastoral discernment!

Next we have Magister on the latest from (Jesuit-run) Civilta Catholica saying that womenpriests is only a matter of time.

Recently “conservative” Catholics gasped in horror when the pope ordered a “commission” to “discuss” the possibility of women being ordained to the diaconate.

Now here’s the pope’s confreres/minions bringing that to its obvious next step (remembering that Civilta Cattholica is an official organ of the Vatican, its articles vetted by the Secretariat of State):

… a doctrine proposed by the Church needs to be understood by the believing intelligence. The dispute over women priests could be set in parallel with other moments of Church history; in any case, today in the question of female priesthood the “auctoritates,” or official positions of the magisterium, are clear, but many Catholics have a hard time understanding the “rationes” of decisions that, more than expressions of authority, appear to signify authoritarianism.

“One cannot always resort to the past, as if only in the past are there indications of the Spirit. Today as well the Spirit is guiding the Church and suggesting the courageous assumption of new perspectives.”

Wahwahwah … concrete circumstances … wah-wah … profound social changes of the 20th century … wahwahwah… pastoral development… wahwahwah-wah… courageous assumption of new developments…

Etc.

Once you get past all the Jesuitspeak, what it boils down to is, if we can just ignore “Saint” John Paul II on marriage and Holy Communion, why not on everything else? I mean, we’re already ignoring the black and white words of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as recorded in Holy Scripture, right? What’s a pope after that, amirite? If you say its opposed to Papal Infallibility, we’ll just redefine it or ignore it until it goes away. The end.

And at the risk of making everyone tired of hearing “I told you so” I’ll just say, I told you so. Papal Positivism says that the Faith is whatever this pope says it is today. It is merely the thug-version of the general trend since Vaticantwo, in which whatever anyone believes is Catholic teaching is Catholic teaching. Make your own reality! Everything’s true! There are no contradictions!

And if the pope is dithering, self-contradictory or just plain incomprehensible, it becomes the job of the Pythian Priesthood to interpret his gibbering for us plebs.

Either way, Truth isn’t an immutable, objective thing. Catholicism isn’t about Reality. God is not “the same yesterday, today and forever,” but a fickle follower of cultural fashion and political expedience, very much in line with the gods of the ancient world. Indeed, the changeable god is very popular; Islam’s got one, as do the Mormons.

In short, once you’ve got the positivistic principle in place, we’re just talking about power; we’re just trying to decide who gets to decide. And nothing, no sacraments, no devotional life, no institutions, no religious order, not one bit of the ancient patrimony of the Church is going to be safe.

~

Moving on…

Cardinal Kasper: “Communion for Protestants a natural development of Francisdoctrine.”

Meanwhile, Cardinal Walter Kasper, a close confidant of the Holy Father, has said he believes allowing intercommunion with Protestants in cases such as a mixed marriage is “the position of the current Pope.”

In comments made to Italian television, the cardinal said of Holy Communion: “In certain cases, I think yes, if they share the same faith in the Eucharist, this is presupposed, and if they are interiorly disposed, they can refer to their conscience to go to Communion, and this, I think, is also the position of the current Pope.”

If there is a “couple or a family, you cannot divide them in front of the altar,” Cardinal Kasper said. “

Well, Kasper hardly needs any introduction. Indeed, he’s been singing the same song for 40 years or more.

Actually, it’s a natural development of JPTwoism or simply of Vaticantwoism as it has been promoted abroad by the popes since Paul VI (who was a big fan of Anglicanism, btw). While the secular media was busying itself denouncing John Paul II as an “archconservative” because he wouldn’t say it’s OK to kill babies, the reality was something rather different.

John Paul II’s religious indifferentism was manifest throughout his pontificate.

Here, even though he is at the stage in his life where he could barely speak, John Paul is still one for the Big Gesture, in this case, kissing the ring/hand of the Archlayman of Canterbury, a man from an “ecclesial communion” known for having hanged, drawn and quartered Catholic saints and stolen the entirety of the Catholic patrimony of England. A man, moreover, whose pretensions to the sacrament of Holy Orders were completely denied by John Paul’s much more illustrious predecessor, Leo <cough>absolutely null and utterly void<cough> XIII. On their previous meetings, I think I remember that a more robust John Paul had given Williams a pectoral cross to wear with his dress-up.

I’m not really out to bash John Paul here. I’m just saying that if you think Francis is going the wrong way, it’s time to take a closer look at the path laid down for him since 1965.

Certainly John Paul didn’t start the trend.

This is Paul VI giving then-archlayman of Canterbury, Michael Ramsay,  an episcopal ring.

What is important to understand is that these guys, Marx and Kasper and Francis, aren’t just pulling this stuff out of their hats.

In fact, the groundwork for Kasper’s assertion above was laid quite specifically in John Paul II’s 1983 revision of the Code of Canon Law, prior to which it was forbidden to allow members of non-Catholic churches to receive the Body and Blood of Christ.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church held to the original teaching in one line…

1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.” It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, “when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.”

…but as with most NuChurchian artifacts, immedately walked it back. Citing Can. 844:

1401 When, in the Ordinary’s judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.

~

All of this – and it’s just a small selection from the Daily Disasters – clearly indicates that whatever outrage, whatever heresy, blasphemy or denial of the Holy Catholic Faith we see coming from today’s Vatican, none of it is anything new.

It is all in perfect continuity with everything that has been going on in the Church since the close of Vatican II.

I’ll say it until I die: Francis isn’t the problem. He’s the symptom.

And in many ways, he’s going to be the solution too.

~

14 thoughts on “Womenpriests! Intercommunion! Pastoral Discernment! Whoopee!!”

  1. mark docherty says:

    Francis is the solution. His entire papacy must be nullified and expunged, either by the Barnhardt Solution or by other means. Then the entire great facade must come down. In the words of Lt. Ripley, “It’s the only way to be sure.”

    Or…. Fatima is lived out in front of our lives in 2017 and we begin the great chastisement.

    Whichever, can we please just get on with it?

  2. Barbara says:

    Is this Catholic Alzheimer’s? Our memories get shorter and shorter until it’s all just now. Francis quotes himself, with maybe some very short references to JPII’s modernist writings, and he even gets some of those wrong. The past 250+ Popes just disappear in the dementia.

    Father Hunwicke at his Mutual Enrichment blog has suggested that we “adopt a Pope.” He means pick one of the past Popes, Leo XIII springs to my mind, and find out all we can about our chosen man. What was going on in the world, what kinds of battles did that Pope have to fight if any, what was the art and music like, what kind of churches were being built, what were that Pope’s encyclicals about – and so on….a nice walk back into the history of our beloved Church and a nice break from Francis. Come to think about it, St. Peter might be a good choice. There is nothing going on in today’s world that was not happening then – same people, same sins, same remedies.

    This was a very good post, Hilary, real food for thought.

  3. Evangeline says:

    Yes, what Mark said. It must be a sign of our contemporary impatience that we await every day, some indication there is going to be a thrown down imminently. A throw down between men is interesting, but we may not have any of those available any more. All we have are girly men who trade barbs on Twitter then block each other. Decidedly uninteresting.

    I wish I thought Francis was the solution. I can’t imagine at this point what is going to right this ship, but I’m not very imaginative. I can only guess it will be under the heading “Divine Intervention”. I think I’ve lost faith in people entirely, certainly those who took vows and wear priestly garb. Sorry, not feelin it.

    At the risk of promoting despair, which would be a sin and something I certainly don’t want to encourage anyone to do, I wonder if we ought come to conclusions here, and respond accordingly. Until such time as God intervenes, these men are going to be successful (as they have been) beyond their wildest dreams. This has really all worked out according to plan, and now that they have their guy, it’s go time. Next year what, we’ll be shocked at Cardinals wearing high heels to Santa Marta?
    I’m sick of the whole lot of them, and actually, am beginning to get annoyed with myself for spending the amount of time pouring over it as I do.
    A pox on these destroyers!

  4. Jim Cole says:

    “And that, ladies and gents, is EXACTLY how we got into this situation; by ‘good’ priests keeping their mouths firmly shut and their heads well down.” If you’re right, then isn’t it also a problem for laypeople to stay in the church while keeping their mouths shut? Do we have to leave and shake the dust from our shoes? To whom shall we go? If we stay, do we have to make loud noises of disapproval at every Ordinary Form Mass and parish council meeting? If we don’t leave but don’t loudly dissent, aren’t we also giving silent assent to the heresies? I wonder if some silent priests and laity aren’t needed to act as a faithful remnant, in the same manner as our English forebears in the Faith did when they survived some 250 years as “recusants”?

    Jim Cole

  5. Hilary White says:

    Evangeline,

    I’m kind of there with you. I think I believe Francid is the solution in the way that the Asteroid was the solution to the dinosaur problem.

  6. Michael Dowd says:

    It is coming to a point where all that remains of the Church is the word Catholic which then can be expressed in the lower case. Definitely time for divine intervention. I can see no other solution.

  7. Michael says:

    Asteroids and dinosaurs in the same sentence? That sounds like the evolution narrative. I could provide a hundred and one different ways to show that evolution didn’t happen, but the best and most reliable means to discredit evolution of any kind is to point out that the Church teaches that Scripture is inpspired and inerrant.

    Jim, the best way to protest the Novus Ordo is to go to the SSPX and recommend it to others. You may be surprised how interested people will be to learn that there still exists within the Church a place where one can practice the Faith and receive the Sacraments completely intact and unchanged – including the rite of Holy Orders to the Priesthood and the Episcopacy.

  8. JP says:

    This is exactly how Mormons believe with regard to their “prophets,” that is to say, it’s a dogma of their religion that a living “prophet” always trumps a dead one. Really, it’s the only way to square that circle, when another race goes from “cursed” to “not cursed.” It’s also obviously false.

  9. Nick Frascatta says:

    Thought provoking analysis has been provided here. I hope that you are right in saying that Francis is the solution, insofar as he has laid bare the naked truth about the post-conciliar contagion of lies.

  10. Aurora says:

    These clerics do not care at all about the faithful. They care only about themselves. I am a Catholic convert from 2000. In the early 70s, my neighbor was a devoted Catholic third order nun. She wept bitterly because the statues in the Chicago Cathedral had been cast out and smashed. I didn’t understand then, but I observed her deep sorrow. Now, I am amazed that these clerics in Rome think that they know better than anyone else and actually discount and ignore the desires of the faithful. The term “active participation” makes me laugh. I am a member of a parish in southwest US. It’s really thriving, all masses are SRO, and the priest I count as a good man I only attend this parish because the only TLM is over an hour a way and it is not a parish. Anyway, back to the “active participation.” I always sit on the back row because I do not do the hand gestures of the NO. From my vantage point I can see that no one is actively participating in the “liturgy.” I am the only one who sings the responses and the Creed. I do so because I’m not going to be cowed into being silent. I realize though that people around are uncomfortable because I actually participate in the “liturgy.” What a joke

  11. louiseyvette says:

    I just realised the whole thing is boring me to tears, and I mostly just read the headlines.

    The way I see it is that my job is to shore up my own faith, and the faith of other committed Catholics etc. Just waiting now for Our Lady to intervene.

  12. Hilary White says:

    Um yeah, whatever. It was a figure of speech.

  13. Patricia Cornell says:

    I converted to be Roman Catholic 30 years ago…..my best decision ever. I watched as one by one my Catholic leaders have gone on the opposite direction….
    They left the Catholic Faith, little bit by little bit….pieces of the True Faith scattered on speeches and documents they had the nerve to publish as the True Faith.

    Even Mother Angela of EWTN was ignored when she insisted on the Latin Mass in the very community she started years ago!!!! The bishop’s insisted the NO was the only way to go. So the EWTN has this weak, okayed by Rome, copy of the original Latin Mass.

    I cannot interest women to meet and discuss ways to write a simple letter to the local media about the importance of marriage and children protected in a traditional marriage. So I will do it myself……not just our religious leaders who are distracted….happens to the best of us.

  14. Heminarian says:

    It’s not just the Church’s ancient patrimony which the asteroid kills, but that patrimony going back to Adam and Eve were still riding on dinosaurs.

    For, as C.S. Lewis writes of the controlling generation in The Abolition of Man, “If they accept it [the natural law], they are no longer the makers of conscience but still its subjects, and their final conquest over Nature has not really happened.”

    He also writes, “it is the function of the Conditioners to control, not to obey them [natural laws]. They know how to produce conscience and decide what kind of conscience they will produce.”

    That made the lights go on for me. I’ve been skeptical of the second-marriage adulterer who condfidently approaches Communion with a clear conscience; does he really exist, other than in the mind of Pope Francis and Cardinal Wuerl?

    But now I understand: We’re not talking about God-given conscience here — what Newman called the aboriginal vicar of Christ — we’re talking about the PRODUCED one … and that’s the Conditioners’ baby, and boy are they going to defend it.

Comments are closed.