Storm Over the Vatican: Pundits Stoke Fires of Dissent

VATICAN-POPE-ST PETER4S BASILICA...This picture shows the dome o

 “Things are different under Francis.”
Editorial Headline, National Catholic Reporter

The National Catholic Reporter tells us: “In Francis we see a great deal of discontinuity with Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II. And it is about time.”

Lest we failed to read what it said already, the Reporter tells us again, and with emphasis: “Things are different under Francis, who seems far more comfortable applying pastoral theology first and consulting the moral texts and canon law later. If that’s a mistake, the church has survived far worse.”

What is the Reporter claiming?  Are they claiming that the pastoral theology of a Pope can trump both canon law and the moral law?  If so, then it’s a radically new interpretation of our Faith, our Church, and the moral law.

Of course, the Reporter is not the first journal promising revolutionary changes in the Church; nor is it alone. Almost daily now, I hear news of others trumpeting a new dawn of “freedom” in the Church, while still others (as the Reporter rightly notes) do cringe when they hear those same trumpets.

Responding to editorials like this one from the National Catholic Reporter and from other such journals is like trying to wrestle an octopus: you don’t know what to grab first; and whatever you do catch hold of is so slippery you can’t hold on to it for long.

Fortunately, wrestling octopi is not my job.

I leave that work to the team of fine thinkers that now grace the pages of our online Crisis Magazine.

You see, Crisis is precisely the kind of journal we need to help us continue lighting candles in the growing darkness.

Each day we bring you thoughtful essays that address the issues of the day with clarity and charity. Emulating another Francis from an earlier time, Crisis Magazine sees itself as an instrument of peace:

Where there was error, Crisis sowed truth;
Where there was doubt, faith;
Where there was despair, hope;
Where there was darkness, light.

Earlier this week I told you that of the $100,000 it takes to help equip you intellectually and spiritually for this struggle, Sophia Institute Press contributes  $40,000 in goods and services, charging Crisis nothing for rent, editing, billing, data entry, phone services, and the manifold other costs, large and small, that eat away at the vitality of most businesses.

Of the remaining $60,000, we’ve managed to raise only $15,000!

We need you to visit our secure online donation form and help.

Every dollar you send will go towards developing solid, reliably orthodox Catholic content for Crisis.

Now is the time for us to redouble our efforts to stay informed and to inform others; to clarify our own minds and purify our wills so that through our efforts—and our example—the minds and wills of others may grow strong for the good fight that is soon to the the work of our generation.

Will you please make an online donation in the amount of $25, $50, $100, $250, or even $500 or $1,000?

More importantly, will you please become a monthly donor to Crisis by choosing that option on the second line of our donation form?

We truly rely on our monthly supporters to pay our authors and cover our costs, and it is the most important way you can help Crisis.

Please give, and please give generously at this link.  And whether or not you can give, please keep our work in your prayers.

Yours in Christ,

Charlie McKinney
President

 

Click here to make a contribution to Crisis Magazine

Please choose to become a monthly donor.

If you prefer to donate by mail, you may send a check to:

Crisis Magazine
PO Box 5284
Manchester, NH 03108

You may also make a donation by phone:

1-800-888-9344

Charlie McKinney

By

Charlie McKinney is the president of Crisis Magazine and CEO of Sophia Institute Press.

  • Nestorian

    Both Crisis and the National Catholic Reporter have it wrong. On economic matters, Pope Francis’s teaching is manifestly moral, not merely pastoral. As such, the shoe is now on the other foot: It is Crisis and others of like mind who are playing the role of dissenters and “Cafeteria Catholics” to papal teaching, not the National Catholic Reporter.
    Insofar as the irony is not profoundly tragic (which it is), it is hilarious.

    • Guest

      Where is Crisis wrong exactly?

    • Walter Lauinger

      BS. Amen.

    • Art Deco

      And with this “moral” teaching, what is he critiquing that has ever been advocated by anyone here or by anyone endorsed by anyone here?

      • Eved HaMelech

        “Destroying through forgetfulness or ignorance the social and moral character of
        economic life, it held that economic life must be considered and treated as
        altogether free from and independent of public authority, because in the market,
        i.e., in the free struggle of competitors, it would have a principle of self
        direction which governs it much more perfectly than would the intervention of
        any created intellect. But free competition, while justified and certainly
        useful provided it is kept within certain limits, clearly cannot direct economic
        life – a truth which the outcome of the application in practice of the tenets of
        this evil individualistic spirit has more than sufficiently demonstrated.
        Therefore, it is most necessary that economic life be again subjected to and
        governed by a true and effective directing principle.” Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, official magisterial Catholic economic principles. Time to put away childish Americanisms, free-marketisms and any and all other forms of liberal modernisms, and embrace the fullness of Catholic truth.

        • Art Deco

          When you are ready to respond to my question, please do so. Cut-and-paste is not a response.

    • http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com/ Scott W.

    • hombre111

      Thanks, Nestorian. As a Pope John Paul survivor, I rejoice in the presence of an amiable man. You don’t have to be grim to be Christ-like.

      • Art Deco

        “Survivor”? I think I’ve figured out who “Hombre111″ is

        http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20094517,00.html

        • Adam__Baum

          I wonder if upon his reassignment Hombre’s parishioners will describe themselves as [insert fist and middle names of Hombre here] survivors.

        • thebigdog

          That’s a relief — I was concerned that he was this guy:

          http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24244282/#.UqttYvubwwg

      • Maggie Sullivan

        It is kinda funny that pro-aborts and culture of death supporters like Francis. These people who like Francis are the same kind who hated Christ.

        • hombre111

          Whew. Talk about a straw-man.

          • Maggie Sullivan

            Yes, Francis and his saying people should stop “obsessing” about the mass murder of babies, his saying “who am I to judge” about sodomy, his allowing the German Bishops to give communion to people who get a secular divorce then get married for a second time to receive communion are built on straw….a straw that lights the fires of hell.

            • hombre111

              I hear your pain. Maybe a few deep breaths and a prayer for the Holy Father?

              • Guest

                I think you are grafting your ideas onto the Pope’s words. How does one divorce and “remarry” outside the Church and claim they are a victim? Were they forced to “marry” again? Did they suddenly just find themselves “married” by accident?

              • Art Deco

                Right Wing Catholics are blindly voting for men whose policies are
                trashing the earth, savaging the growing numbers of the poor, and
                pushing the agenda only of the richest Americans.

                I need to notify a bishop somewhere in the Deep South that there is a man impersonating one of his priests and making crank posts on a magazine site.

        • Guest

          That is a phenomena I have never seen addressed.

      • Bono95

        What did Blessed JP II ever do to you?

        • hombre111

          Excellent question. The thing I hold most against him is the priesthood crisis. He refused to even allow a discussion about the possibility of ordaining married men. And so I found myself pastor of four parishes, about fifty miles apart. Other priests are even more heavily burdened. The quality of priests has definitely diminished, and now we have language problems as foreign priests assume assignments in our diocese. The fiasco goes on as the lower management in the Church collapses.
          He created a horde of “John Paul Priests” who see themselves law enforcement and celebrators of dignified liturgies. The notion of servant seems to escape them.
          I also resented his attitude toward women, and watched in dismay as some of her best and brightest walked out the door.
          He took sides in the Church culture wars, and left the Church more divided than he found it.

          • Adam__Baum

            But who are you to judge?

            • Guest

              Sinkspur? Apparently he may judge because he is the authority.

              • Adam__Baum

                And we all know what a menace a ‘dignified liturgy” is..

    • Adam__Baum

      Hey “Nestorian” when are you going to call out Hombre for his lack of charity with regard to his incessant vitriol against that “dour old pole” (ethnic prejudice is such an evil, unless exhibited by the left) and the Pope Emertis?

    • John O’Neill

      This has nothing to do with economic theories; socialism or capitalism, American Liberalism or Conservatism. Belloc and Chesterton who were very orthodox Roman Catholics dispensed with this silly argument a century ago; they put a pox on both isms and offered a more Christian distributionism which was renounced by the modernists. No, the economic theory of Francis is not the key to the dissent; the American government controlled media is just blowing smoke in our faces in order to distract us from the wholesale looting which is occurring in the American State. No this about a man who is elected Bishop of Rome, de facto leader of the Roman Catholic church who answers a question put to him by a secular media person about homosexuals serving in the priesthood and he answers rather cavalierly that He will not judge anyone. What does that mean? To millions of NCR American Catholics it means that he is open to the homosexual agenda and it is a mere matter of time for orthodox Catholics to be driven from the Church if they do not show the same compassion that this man shows. He has opened the Pandora’s box and there is no way to close it now. NCR is triumphant. Traditionalists and Orthodox must seek a new center of Christianity. Maybe it will be found in the Eastern Church. Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders.

      • Art Deco

        Well, if you can figure out what ‘distributionism’ is. There is a Distributist Review. It is edited by a real estate agent named John Medaille who professes to believe that contemporary economics is malarkey. The only economist among their contributors is a fellow from Australia named Race Matthews.

        Of course you can also listen to Theodore Seeber’s rendering of Ezra Pound talking about Social Credit. (At least I think that’s what it is). (And while you’re at it, you can listed to Theodore Seeber’s unique exegesis of Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution. After that, you can listed to Theodore Seeber explain that selling something on commission constitutes “fraud”).

        • John O’Neill

          The point is that these economic arguments are not relevant to the discussion of Church morals. If the Church is no longer going to teach the primacy of the family in the human society, then what use is all this malarkey about being fair and extending equality to the whole world. As Flannery O’Connor put it to American sophisticate and society bien pensant Mary McCarthy when McCarthy remarked that O’Connor’s preoccupation about the quaint symbolism of the Divine Presence was endearing; O’Connor replied well if it is only symbolism than the hell with it.

        • Eved HaMelech

          In addition to Medaille other serious CAtholic minds such as McCall, Santelli, and Ferrara have all elaborated upon the rich history of CAtholic economic teaching, most of which I think can fall under the rubric of distributionism. This entails promoting, in varying ways and varying kinds of authority, depending upon context and use of discretionary judgment, employee ownership of economic entities, use of just price and just wage mandates, abolishment of usury, outlawing of any economic enterprise that contravenes natural law and/or represents economic irresponsibility, and recognition of a healthy government prerogative to intervene as is prudentially judged appropriate in such matters. As opposed to free market worship, incessant liberalism, and sublime sloganeering from tri-corner-hat wearers proclaiming no to socialized medicine, keep your hands off my Medicare.

          • Adam__Baum

            “This entails promoting, in varying ways and varying kinds of authority,
            depending upon context and use of discretionary judgment, employee
            ownership of economic entities, use of just price and just wage
            mandates, abolishment of usury, outlawing of any economic enterprise
            that contravenes natural law and/or represents economic
            irresponsibility, and recognition of a healthy government prerogative to
            intervene as is prudentially judged appropriate in such matters.”

            Run-on sentences comprised of noble sounding, but substatively vacant words do not comprise a workable system. (Blah, blah, just, blah blah, prudential, blah, blah.

            This is a fantasy, nothing more, nothing less.

            Of course, to prove just how intellectually vacant this really is, one need only notice the personal imposition of Medicare as an element of this fantasy.

            By the way it’s not “your” Medicare

          • Art Deco

            I have had exchanges online with Mr. Medaille. Not too edifying, he.

            The United States has had extensive experience with wage and price regulation as well. The ill-effects evidently escaped you.

            Good luck defining ‘just price’ and ‘just wage’.

            Credit has a price, like anything scarce. You can recognize that, or you can concoct rococo substitutes for putting a price on credit (something at which financiers in the Muslim World are adept).

          • Art Deco

            As opposed to free market worship, incessant liberalism, and sublime sloganeering from tri-corner-hat wearer

            Well, Eved, we often do not see ourselves as others do.

      • Adam__Baum

        Appeal to Authority Fallacy Alert:

        Chesterton and Belloc were writers, men with quick, deep and devasting wits, often with piercing grasp of history, not matters of filthy lucre.

        They had no particular understanding of economics that might be gained through study, experience or participation, and apparently not cautioned by their ignorance. Their intellects no more made them competent practicioners of the dismal science (assuming of course there is such a thing) than it made them physicians. Of course much the same thing can be said of modern Phd’s who engage in “blackboard economics” with enthusiatic assurance of their sagacity and unimpeachability.

        It has been said the first rule of economics is that all goods are scarce, and what should be the first rule ABOUT economics should be this:

        “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

        F.A. Hayek

      • Margaret

        I totally agree. I fear that we have a pope who is naive, not well traveled, or educated in economics. He has done great damage to the people in the pews, most of whom have had little or no catechesis in sexual morality and whose ideas of right and wrong have been formed by secularists and Leftists.

        Illinois legislators, many Catholic (In Name Only) used his words about “Who am I to judge?” to justify their vote for same-sex marriage this fall.

        He seems to be unaware or uncaring about the struggle we are enduring in the U.S. to hold the line against truly “Godless Communism” or “Fascism/Crony Cpitalism” if you prefer since only the banks and auto companies were taken over for a time by the government. The middle class and small businesses are being destroyed in the name of helping “the poor,” most of whom seem to be able-bodied, young and fat. Everyone is destined by this regime to either work for the government or be dependent on it for welfare — as jobs are being destroyed, welfare is expanding to include nearly half the population. He just fired up the legions wanting “their fair share” whatever that is.

        As someone said, “We have survied the Borgias . . . “

        • John O’Neill

          We should also point out that American Catholics have been betrayed by their bishops. These worthy gentlemen have failed to show leadership in their basic role which is to teach the Faith. Cardinal Dolan seems to prefer hitting the cocktail parties of the rich democrats in NYC and kowtowing with the Obama rather than showing any leadership at all. What we do not need is an American like pope who seeks the popularity of the media rather than the cross of Christ.

          • Margaret

            Agree again. I have never “not liked” a pope before and it is a very disturbing experience to distrust one so thoroughly. In fact, popularity with enemies of the Faith should put all Catholics on alert. Didn’t Jesus say, “If they hated me, they will hate you”?

            I admit that I don’t even speak up as much as I should among my fellow Catholics because they are so ungrounded in Catholic teaching that I almost don’t know where to begin without sounding like a “big-mouth crank” by going into the basics at some length.

          • Adam__Baum

            “We should also point out that American Catholics have been betrayed by their bishops. ”

            Repeatedly, over fifty plus years.

            • Art Deco

              The Bishops (with some exceptions like Cdl. Egan) were commonly parish clergy. The bishops are more addled by institutional wheel spinning than parish clergy, but I will wager you that their dispositions toward the faith improve on thems that work for them. The bishops are not forcing ghastly liturgy down everyone’s throat and crafting worthless CCD programs. That’s your pastor.

              • Adam__Baum

                If a Bishop has to authority to “request” that a letter be read at Mass, I’m sure that authorities could shut down liturgical novelties. If nothing else, reassignment is always an arrow in their quiver.
                Of course, I grew up in a diocese where people routinely put pen to paper to address a letter to the local newspaper (that featured a young hip priest of dubious orthodoxy who publicly sparred with the Bishop until some of the files on his computer became a matter for the authoities) about the annual episcopal appeal being a cover to fund the Bishop’s personal fortune, or to complain about his arrogance in requesting people decline to attend a rock concert on Good Friday.
                Then as school after school and church after church were closed they complained bitteerly . (Same people that think voting for the donkety is the eight sacrament).
                That Diocese is de facto mission territory.

                • Art Deco

                  Whose talking about liturgical novelties? I am talking about the crud which goes on week after week (and is likely not too incongruent with black letter texts and instructions.

                  Generally, pastors have some protection in canon law from summary re-assignment. In the system in effect in the diocese I know best, terms are for six years, renewable once. Of course, a great many parishes are staffed by administrators.

                  An interesting idea would be for the bishop to leave the rector to attend to the Cathedral and hit the road, making two or three visits to parishes every Sunday, some scheduled, some surprises. You could make unscheduled visits to all the parishes in an ordinary diocese in about two years.

                  Another would be to replace some of the people doing paper projects in the chancery with a corps of examiners who would proctor tests delivered to candidates for first communion, confirmation, and RCIA.

                  A third would be what the pseudonymous Diogenes suggested years ago – a thorough review of the personnel files upon installation.

                  • Adam__Baum

                    Whose talking about liturgical novelties?

                    The bishops are not forcing ghastly liturgy down everyone’s throat and crafting worthless CCD programs. That’s your pastor.

                    • Art Deco

                      There is a distinction between liturgical novelties (e.g. Robert ver Ecke’s dance Mass) and the sort of tasteless behavior that pastors and the lay scrum around them engage in every week (though I think that the omnipresent eucharistic ministers are now a violation of standing instructions).

                    • Adam__Baum

                      When I say “liturgical novelties”, I take an expansive view.I’m not make a categorization between something people might consider a benign avante garde sort of thing and something more nefarious. I see no point in making the distinction, if it’s a deviation, it’s a deviation.

        • Bono95

          “Illinois legislators, many Catholic (In Name Only) used his words to justify their votes on same-sex marriage this fall.”

          It’s said that the devil can quote Scripture to suit his purposes, and it’s well-known that anti-Catholic Protestants can too. Does this make the Bible, wrong, a lie, anti-Catholic? No, it means that good words are being taken out of context, misquoted, and otherwise twisted to serve an evil end that they are not at all meant for. That’s just what happened here. The liberal Catholics are twisting Pope Francis’s words to justify and encourage sin in just the same way the devil twisted God’s words to Adam and Eve on that fateful day in the Garden.

          • Anthony Zarrella

            Precisely. Is Pope Francis as precise in his speaking and as canny in his management of the media as he could be (or as his predecessor was)? No. But that doesn’t mean he’s courting heresy or encouraging modernism.

            He was absolutely right in refusing to judge priests suffering from homosexual inclinations but honestly striving to serve God. Only God judges souls. Pope Francis merely wasn’t canny enough to add the caveat that Benedict might have: “Who am I to judge? Only God may judge souls. We must, however, always condemn wicked *acts* so as to guide our brethren away from their sins.”

            Basically, when Pope Francis speaks, we simply have to be aware that he means what he says, but that we can’t read into what he *doesn’t* say, because unlike Pope Emeritus Benedict, he says what he feels and doesn’t always think about how it could be twisted by the Enemy.

            I would agree that he is “naive,” but in the best of ways: he is so inclined to seek out the good in the world, and so focused on the love and joy of service to God, that he is largely incapable of putting himself in the mindset of the wicked. Not being able to think like a willful malefactor, he cannot anticipate the weaknesses they may find in his words. [NOTE: I am not suggesting that Pope Francis is sinless, or cannot empathize with sinners - there is a difference, though, between sin (which is present in all of us) and wickedness, which I use to refer to those who take what is sin and make it their virtue]

            • Bono95

              Thanks, Anthony, God Bless You, and Merry Christmas. :-)

              • Anthony Zarrella

                Merry Christmas, and may He bless you as well!

    • Guest

      Such a general assertion is almost meaningless. The Pope himself said he is not a technician. You should leave theology to those who understand it.

    • Anthony Zarrella

      Two points: one, that Pope Francis has not said anything about economic matters that is incompatible with traditional Catholic morality – a warning to not allow unrestrained capitalism to harm the poor and vulnerable is nothing new to Catholics. Conservative Catholics simply prefer to help the poor and vulnerable through the excellent and holy work of the multitudinous Church-sponsored charitable organizations, not through government mandates.

      Two, that sermons by the Pope mandate no more than respect (that is, they are not commands from the Pope, but a sharing of his personal thoughts on Christian life), and even encyclicals, while requiring “religious submission” (meaning, consider it to be true and don’t preach against it, but it’s OK to doubt or privately question) do not require “full assent of faith.” Contrast with explicit, authoritative statements of doctrine and dogma – which demand “full assent of faith” (meaning IT IS TRUE, period – strive to avoid even private doubt, and *definitely* don’t lead others to doubt).

      In other words, someone on this site, or any “traditional” Catholic, who says, “I disagree with the Pope’s latest sermon” hasn’t committed any sin at all. Someone who says, “I think maybe the Pope’s latest encyclical might have been wrong” probably commits a sin, but likely a minor one (provided that they are willing to obey despite their misgivings), and the encyclical *could* be overridden by a future Pope or Council.

      By contrast, someone over at NCRep. (to distinguish from the fully orthodox “National Catholic *Register*) who says, “I think the Church’s teaching on gay marriage is wrong” (despite having been definitively stated as a matter of eternal Church doctrine by more than one Pope) commits the sin of heresy (which is a big one, needless to say).

      The point is this: don’t imply moral equivalence between those who respectfully question the prudential teachings of the Pope and those who rebelliously deny elements of core Catholic doctrine.

      • Adam__Baum

        Let’s assume for a minute that your paraphrase captures the spirit of what the Pope wrote in E.G.(It’s not exact, but for the sake of argument…)

        Cautioning against unrestrained Capitalism is a little like warning a forest goer in the Northwest Part of The United State to be wary of the “Bigfoot” or “Sasquatch”, a phantom that may exist, but likely does not, based on the simple absence of a carcus.

        The greater danger in that area is in fact a known predator that exists outside “cryptozoology” and has an impressive and well verified and documented capacity to kill-the grizzly bear. The grizzly bear is unrestrained government.

        Time to stop “squatchin’” and go get a bear hide.

        • Anthony Zarrella

          Ha! I like it! Politically, I couldn’t agree with you more. Theologically, I’m not sure it makes any difference. (And yes, I’m well aware that my paraphrase is very loose – I’ve been buried in law school finals and haven’t had a chance to closely read the original text yet. If you’d like to offer what you think is a more accurate summary, I’d love to hear it and would be more than happy to talk about it.)

          • Adam__Baum

            Since I don’t read Spanish, can’t do that.

  • John O’Neill

    Back in the post Vatican II days of the 1960s and 1970s also called the silly season people like the NCR theologians ran the American Church. I remember the absurd liturgical dancers, the easy morality and the politically directed American bishops. If these times are returning the Churches will become emptier and emptier. During those times a good friend of mine who also taught religion and held his Masters from St.Charles seminary decided to put his six children in a Ukrainian Byzantine parish and started to worship there. He found that Vatican II had not infected the Ukrainians as much as the Americans. There are still the options of Ukrainian or Orthodox for true believers who feel betrayed by Francis’ free wheeling ways. Let the NCR Americans run their “bare ruined choirs”.

    • hombre111

      Vatican II was an infection? The Pope and all the bishops of the world gathered together in an ecumenical council? If that was not a time for the Holy Spirit, there is no such time in the Church. Nestorian is right. Crisis becomes the home of the new cafeteria Catholic.

      • Adam__Baum

        No V2 wasn’t an infection. However, the people that have misappropriated are very much vectors, and the proximate cause of its disrepute.

        Of course, you (who persists in your libel against the future Saint and promotes Mennonite theology, and tells of your homosexual ex-priest friends with approval) calling anybody “cafeteria” is rich.

        But here, check this out: A huge chainsaw for that log in your eye.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brfKKehFtmw

        • hombre111

          After all the obstructionist effort of two popes, Pope Francis says, “Half of the Vatican Council has yet to be implemented.”

          • Adam__Baum

            A dour old troll was Hombre…

            • Guest

              Maybe he is related to the infamous “sinkspur” of free republic fame?

          • jacobhalo

            Let’s implement the other half of Vatican II so we can completely destroy the church.

            • hombre111

              Dodo birds and other extinct critters could not cope with change.

              • Art Deco

                Catastrophic demographic collapse in the religious orders; knock-on ruin of the economy of Catholic schooling at all levels; prevalence of priests and religious who are anything but Catholic (“Jungians, Unitarians, and goofies, as Fr. Joseph Wilson put it); escalating problems with sexual perversion in the clergy (at least until about 1980); knock-on ruin of the pedagogy of Catholic schooling; confessionals used to store folding chairs; Masses designed to appeal to the demographic which enjoys greeting cards (and no other demographic); Masses which collectively incorporate perhaps 30% of the baptized Catholics in a parish (if that); the diocesan annulment factory; sacramental capons employed by lady ‘parish administrators’ (who helpfully offer ‘reflections on the readings’ each week); and a laity shot through with people who dislike anything ‘negative’ but are committed to precisely nothing beyond the mode of suburban living.

                Yeah, we’re all ‘coping with change’.

                • hombre111

                  Whew. That explains a lot. Your glass is half empty. Mine is half full. My diocese has not experienced your disaster, apart from the religious order and priesthood shortage, the latter of which I blame on Pope John Paul, who still waits for all those celibates to fall out of the sky.

                  • thebigdog

                    “Half of the Vatican Council has yet to be implemented.”

                    Yes, the half that makes sense and can survive real world application. It’s unbelievable that there are still some prideful, blowhard dinosaurs who believe that replacing Latin with the Guitar Mass was a good idea.

                    “My diocese has not experienced your disaster”

                    What diocese would that be? Pray for the courage to answer a direct honest question Hombre.

                    • hombre111

                      My diocese somewhere in God’s garden.

                  • Adam__Baum

                    Your diocese is statistically insignificant, as is mine.

                    Anecdotal evidence at best, but we have no shortage of seminarians, at least relative to other places. Then again, I always hear the Gospel and not the Dialectic at Mass.

                  • Art Deco

                    the latter of which I blame on Pope John Paul,

                    We’ve been over this. It antedated John Paul and is not manifest in dioceses with serious episcopal leadership (e.g. Lincoln).

                    Fraud.

                    As for the rest, the only Roman-rite diocese I have chanced in where this was not the case was that of Austin, Tx.

                  • Deacon Ed Peitler

                    I am curious how you view your own celibacy.

              • jacobhalo

                I can cope with change for the better. Vatican II was a change for the worse. You defend Vatican II as you continue to see the downfall of Catholicism.

                • Bono95

                  Can you prove that everything would have been better without Vatican II? Can you show definitively that there really would have been less people weakening in and losing their faith if it had never happened?

                  Someone in another article comment pointed out that for all we know, things might have well been worse had V II never happened. And someone else asked an important and interesting question: if we blame Vatican II for all the problems in the Church today, to what do we attribute the blame for what caused the people who truly misinterpreted the council to act thusly? Where did they get their bad influence, if they lived and worshipped for most of or a significant part of their lives before the Council was ever held? I don’t know, but I do know that Vatican II is not the root of all evil, and that it was a fully inspired and legitimate Church Council.

                  • jacobhalo

                    I go by the results of Vatican II. Pre-Vatican II, churches were full, seminaries and convents were full, Catholic schools were full, long lines at confession and very few cafeteria Catholics. Vatican II changed the infallible doctrine of no salvation outside the church. Now we hear that atheists can get into heaven. Take a look at my quotes from Jesus about who can be saved and tell me he is inclusive. No, Vatican II is not the rooted of all evil, but it is the root of the decline in the Catholic church. There was no reason for the council. The council wanted to bring the church into the modern world. What their goal should have been is to bring the modern world into the church.

                    • Anthony Zarrella

                      As Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said, Vatican II was not the problem. Vatican II was a valid Council of the Church, and mandates at least “religious submission” if not necessarily “assent”. The problem was the “virtual” Council – the principles and practices that people “read into” V-II that were never actually there.

                      For example, V-II instituted Mass in the vernacular so that the faithful could understand what they were praying. In and of itself, that’s a good thing (though not an essential thing – I would never deny the validity and sanctity of the Latin Mass). The problem was when freewheeling translation destroyed the worldwide unity of the Mass and introduced theologically imprecise language that led people into doctrinal error.

                      Again, V-II affirmed the virtues of ecumenism and religious toleration. In and of themselves, good things (because *any* sincere attempt to seek God has *something* of virtue in it, and because we should lead people to God, not force them). The problem was when liberal modernists seized on those principles and perverted them into the idea that all religions are *valid* (or even *equally* valid) and that we should *syncretize* other people’s religions.

                      V-II said laity should participate in the Mass (given that, pre-Council, in a majority of parishes the congregation was silent). This was then expanded by some to give over all but the Sacramentally essential portions of the Mass to laity.

                      V-II said that no one should be subject to hatred or discrimination on basis of their beliefs or “condition of life.” This was then twisted to mean that no one should be rebuked for beliefs or ways of life that run counter to Church teaching and morals.

                      In other words, Vatican II was not the problem. The supposed “spirit of Vatican II” is the problem. Vatican II *did not* attempt to conform the Church to the modern world, but merely to explain how the eternal truths of the Church *apply* in the modern world. The “spirit of Vatican II” (which may well be the urging of a spirit, but not one sent by God) then went on to assert that the message was “the Church needs to get with the times”, it needs to be “relevant,” it needs to be “tolerant,” and “accepting.” None of this was part of what the Council actually declared.

                    • jacobhalo

                      Thank you for your excellent post. I must disagree with you as to the affirmation of ecumenism and religious toleration. Ecumenism had never been accepted by the church. Ecumenism pre-Vat. II meant that the church was to try and convert those to Catholicism. Ecumenism took on a new meaning at Vatican II. The infallible doctrine “no salvation outside the church” was never mentioned at Vatican II as it is never mentioned even today. As far as religious toleration, the church never tolerated other faiths. Catholicism was the true faith, and all the rest were false religions. Even though, I accept any Christian denomination as part of the doctrine “no salvation outside the church.” To affirm ecumenism and religious toleration means that it was a part of the church pre-vatican II, which is was not. If you read my previous posts, you will read where I quote Jesus concerning the salvation of Jews and those who do not believe. These people cannot be saved. This has not been taught since pre-Vatican days. I know, because I attended Catholic schools in the 1950′s.

                    • Anthony Zarrella

                      I respect your position, but I must disagree in turn.

                      First, ecumenism still does have as its goal the unity of all people into the Catholic Church. V-II simply acknowledges that we may take note of, and respect, the elements of similarity as well. In other words, there is nothing wrong with a Bishop talking religion with a Protestant pastor *without* making the conversation about “why Luther was wrong.” Instead, they could agree to set aside the controversial issues for the time, and spend the time talking about how best to convey to the secular world the truth of Christ’s resurrection (on which they both agree).

                      V-II ecumenism (as distinct from “spirit of V-II ecumenism”) does not say that the differences between Catholicism and other faiths are unimportant, or that we should pretend they aren’t there, or that it is not good to try to bring people of other faiths into full communion with the Church. Rather, it says that those of other faiths, while lacking the fullness of truth that inheres in the Catholic Church, have still been blessed with *some* measure of truth, and should be respected for that. Most especially, all those who have been baptized are our brethren in Christ, for “we confess one baptism,” so we should treat them as brothers and sisters in Christ (though possibly prodigal or estranged, yet still loved) whom we greatly desire to bring into a closer family relationship – not as adversarial strangers trying to lay claim to our rightful inheritance from our Father.

                      Second, religious toleration *does not* mean affirmance of the validity of other faiths – as I said, that is a “spirit of V-II” perversion. We *still* hold that other religions are false. the difference is twofold – 1) We recognize that the are not all *culpably* false (that is, not all who believe a falsehood are willful heretics), 2) We recognize that the Kingdom of God is better served by dealing with false religion via persuasion and holy witness, not denunciation and condemnation (though obviously this does not apply to those who actively promote sin).

                      Third, the doctrine is still “no salvation outside the Church,” but we recognize that the saving power of Jesus is not limited by our own limited abilities of persuasion and outreach. Think about it this way: Simeon never even heard Jesus preach, yet he was almost certainly saved. The thief on the cross was never baptized, yet Jesus promised him salvation. There were *thousands* (perhaps millions) of people who were alive on earth after AD 33, but who died before the first missionary reached their land – were they denied salvation merely because transoceanic travel was slow or impossible?

                      More to the point, what happens if someone’s first exposure to Christianity is when someone sticks a Chick tract on their windshield? First, are they to be condemned simply because Jack Chick’s vitriolic drivel fails to convince them of the truth of Christ (and maybe convinces them that Christians are hateful bigots)? Second, if they *are* persuaded by the tract, are they to be condemned because they were fooled by Chick into believing that the Church is the Antichrist?

                      Moreover, we are taught (by the pre- and post-conciliar Church) that faith is a gift of the Spirit. If, like all other gifts of the Spirit, it is given in different measure to different people, and if, like all other gifts of the Spirit, it is impossible to attain through one’s own efforts alone, then are people to be condemned for not having been given a sufficient share of faith?

                      The basic point is that Lumen Gentium asserts that salvation is available by Divine Providence for “those who, *without blame on their part,* have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God” (emphasis mine). It doesn’t assert that there is salvation outside the Church – it asserts that God’s Providence is great enough to make provision for those who we, poor stewards that we are, have failed to bring within the Church. It asserts that the Head of the Church can, by His power alone, and even in the absence of our earthly efforts, bring into His Church a person who strives with all sincerity to know Him, even if that person is prevented, by earthly impediments, from coming to a full and conscious understanding of the nature of the Church he or she seeks.

                      Not only is this not inconsistent with prior Church teaching, but is is a logical extension of the long-affirmed doctrines (dating to at least the Middle Ages) of “baptism by blood” and “baptism by desire.” Baptism by desire, in particular, holds that if a person, desiring to be baptized, dies before the baptism can occur, that person is nonetheless saved. The medieval doctrine would seem to imply specific desire, but I can’t see any theological reason why a person should not receive the benefit of baptism by desire merely because they do not understand what it is that they long for. (By the way, denial of baptism by desire caused the excommunication of Father Leonard Feeney – in 1953, which was before Pope John XIII was even elected, so V-II can’t be blamed.)

                      Moreover, this expanded concept seems to me to be required in order to accommodate the veneration of the Holy Innocents (practiced in the Church since at least the Fifth Century). It is undisputed that the infants massacred by Herod were not Christians, and were never baptized.

                      Likewise, what of the child or severely mentally-challenged individual who is going to be baptized into the Church but dies beforehand? They cannot possibly have the requisite specific desire spoken of in the medieval doctrine.

                      Please note, I am not saying (nor is the Church) that “be a good person” and “follow your conscience” are substitutes for Catholicism. Rather, merely that (in the words of the 1992 Catechism), “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments,” and therefore He may, in His mercy, make special provision for those who might otherwise be condemned (just as He did for the thief, who had neither baptism, nor specific desire for baptism, but only sincere desire to honor Jesus and His Kingdom).

                    • jacobhalo

                      Simeon and the Good Thief were believers. They believed in the son of God. Those who reject Jesus as the Messiah, such as the Jews and atheist cannot be saved. Jesus said to the Jews, if you don’t believe that I am He, you will die in your own sins. He says to the unbaptized and non believers, Those who believe and are baptized will be saved. Those who don’t believe are already condemned. Secondly, Father Feeney was not excommunicated because of his disbelief in the baptism of blood. He was excommunicated because of he disobeyed the pope to go to Rome for a meeting. Father Feeney was banned from teaching at Boston College because he was teaching the infallible doctrine of ‘no salvation outside the church.” The left-wing Jesuits did not adhere to that doctrine, which, by the way, Father Feeney was a Jesuit and before the uproar about Father Feeney, he was considered the best theologian in the USA. Like our present Jesuit pope, Pope Francis is not adhering to church doctrine. He says that atheist can get into heaven? sorry, not according to Church doctrine. Can Jews get into heaven, yes, if they embrace Jesus as the Messiah. Yes, I believe in the baptism of blood and desire, but how many people will that affect?

                    • Anthony Zarrella

                      Jesus was speaking to people who were in a position to know Him, and to make a conscious choice to accept or reject Him – He said nothing (at that point) about people who had never had any contact with Him.

                      Father Feeney was, indeed, excommunicated for refusing a summons to the Vatican, but he was summoned after a refusal to stop teaching against baptism of desire. What *else* would the summons have been about?

                      Also, as to your words about our Pope, you are aware, right, that “In his Encyclical, Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII made some important clarifications, due to a current error to minimize the range of teaching that Catholics are obliged to believe. He wrote, “Nor must it be thought that things contained in encyclical letters do not of themselves require assent of the mind on the plea that in them the pontiffs do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. These things are taught with the ordinary magisterium, about which it is also true to say, `He who hears you, hears me’” (Luke 10:16).” (Again, this is Pius XII – pre-Vatican II)

                      Furthermore, the basic principle that salvation is at least theoretically possible for non-Catholics comes first from Lumen Gentium (a conciliar document, so while not infallible, entitled to *even greater* deference than a basic encyclical). Moreover, Pope Pius IX said, “Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation **unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control**.” (emphasis mine).

                      So, in one corner, we have *Pope* Pius IX, *Pope* Pius XII, *Popes* John XXIII and Paul VI (who ran Vatican II and produced LG), and *Popes* John Paul II and Benedict XVI (who both affirmed the canonical status of Vatican II), and lastly, *Pope* Francis. In the other corner, we have *Father* Leonard Feeney. Hardly the prizefight of the century. (And let me note again that two of those Popes are pre-V-II, one of whom was almost a century earlier, so you can’t blame any “modernist” errors of V-II)

                    • jacobhalo

                      Read the three books that I recommended about Father Feeney. You might change your mind.

                    • Anthony Zarrella

                      If I have time over the Christmas break (and can find them at the library), perhaps I will.

                    • jacobhalo

                      Don’t you think that the Jews of today, and especially the Jews who are ecumenically attached to the Vatican, know the teachings of Jesus? They have rejected Jesus as the Messiah, so Jesus is addressing the Jews of today. Those Jews cannot be saved.

                    • Anthony Zarrella

                      They know the teachings of Jesus to exactly the extent to which we’ve been successful in evangelizing them. I would contend that Pope Pius IX’s reference to “ignorance beyond his control” refers not only to cases where the person literally doesn’t know what the Church teaches, but also to cases in which it has been poorly presented to them, such that it is the fault of the messenger, not the recipient, that they do not believe the message.

                      For a long time, we (all the Church) did a very poor job of evangelizing the Jews, and so, if they are resistant to accepting Church teachings, perhaps it is we who are to blame. I have no special knowledge of who will or will not be saved, but don’t you think it is telling that the Church (throughout its history) has held that certain people (the Saints) *must* be held to be in Heaven, but has *never* named a single person who is infallibly known to be in Hell?

                    • jacobhalo

                      You can really make the excuses. I’m sure that the Jews that are in harmony with the Vatican know fully well the teachings of the Catholic church. The Jews are an intelligent people and I’m sure they have studied the teachings.

                    • Anthony Zarrella

                      Perhaps they have – I don’t know, God knows. I’m not trying to argue that they’ll all be saved. I’m just saying we have no warrant to insist that they cannot be. Besides, what does it possibly gain us to compile a “Book of Death” to stand parallel to the Book of Life? What do we gain by insisting that certain people *must* be damned?

                      Perhaps I haven’t made my position clear – I’m no modernist, saying that salvation is equally available in all religions, and that you just have to “follow your heart” and “be good.” I’m just remembering Jesus’ words to the Pharisees: “If you were blind, you would have no sin.” Given that Jesus is very clearly speaking of spiritual blindness here (given the end of the sentence, “but since you say, “We see,” your sin remains”), I take it to mean that merely having the truth presented is not always enough – some people can have the truth laid out for them plainly, but are unable to see it (*unable* not unwilling), and that is not their sin.

                      On the flip side, I’ll be one of the very first to say that anyone who *deliberately rejects* the Church, despite having a clear *subjective* sense (i.e. a sense that they *actually* have, not just one that a reasonable person *would* have in their situation) that it is the true Church of Christ – that person condemns him-or-herself.

                    • jacobhalo

                      Bravo! Signore.

                    • jacobhalo

                      Let me ask this question. Instead who can be saved, who can’t be saved?

                    • Anthony Zarrella

                      I don’t feel that I can state the limits of God’s saving power. Let me be clear – I am *not* a believer in universal salvation. Hell is not empty – many are called, but few are chosen.

                      I’m making an epistemological argument – that we can’t *know* any single person who is definitively damned, not that there *is* no such person.

                      Actually, I take it back – we do have concrete evidence of one such category: those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit (as Christ specifically says they will never be forgiven). However, it is important to note that in Biblical times, blasphemy was a *very specific* sin. It could only be committed by a believer, because it had to be actually directed at God – so someone who doesn’t believe the Holy Spirit exists cannot blaspheme against it, because their insulting or irreverent words are directed towards a belief held by others, not towards an actual divine Person. Hence, the Babylonians were not automatically guilty of blasphemy when they denied the Lord – but the man in Leviticus 24:11 was guilty, because he believed in the Lord, and yet spoke against Him. Likewise, if a non-Christian speaks against Christ or the Spirit, it is not blasphemy – only if a Christian does the same. Note that Jesus spoke to the Pharisees in a subjunctive form – He didn’t say, “*You* will never be forgiven for your blasphemy against the Spirit”, but rather, “[W]hoever speaks against the Holy Spirit.” He said it this way because it was a warning, not a condemnation – the Pharisees had not blasphemed, but in the future they (or and disciples listening) might do so.

                    • jacobhalo

                      According to your picture, you are a young person(compared to me) I wished you could have experienced the pre-Vatican II era. The popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, nuns were strong in the opinions and in their teachings. You didn’t have to interpret what they said, as you do with the post-vat. clerics. Listen to Bishop Sheen and let me know if he needs interpretation.
                      You seem to agree with Vatican II. Do you agree with the results of Vatican II? Do you agree that a council was necessary? The church was vibrant before Vatican II. We have very few cafeteria Catholics as we do today. Why?because the church spoke forcefully and didn’t try to be politically correct as they are today. If the teachings offended anyone, well, to bad, because these are the teachings. Not the church teachings, but the teachings of Jesus. Today’s church has gotten away from the fire and brimstone sermons. Now, you will rarely hear a negative sermon, e. g. 50% of Catholics are pro-choice. Have you ever heard a priest chide the congregation from the pulpit? One priest said he didn’t want to turn the people off. I wonder if Jesus ever said that. Our priest at the EF of the mass, had sermons on homosexuality, abortion, etc. all the issues that the Novus Ordo priest won’t touch from the pulpit. We have a 98% attendance at our masses. You turn off people by not be specific, like our present pope.
                      I do respect you. You seem to be well educated. But you fit in with the Post-VaticanII people with your wishy-washy thoughts.

                    • Anthony Zarrella

                      As to whether a council was *necessary,* I’m not sure either of us is in a position to second-guess that. I *do not* agree with most of the results of V-II, though I agree 100% with the Council itself.

                      As I said, V-II *properly and faithfully interpreted* is a blessing to the Church. V-II *as it is so often misinterpreted* is not. If I could go back in time to the 60s, the first thing I’d do is warn Pope Paul VI that *as soon* as the Council’s results were released to the public, he’d have to grab the reins *hard* to keep the Church on course – to immediately and unequivocally condemn misinterpretations of the conciliar documents.

                      As I said, I think what V-II *said* was good – what modernists decided it *meant* was awful. Even on the issue we’ve been debating – what the Council *said* was that God’s power to save is not limited by the deficiencies of His servants. What the modernists *heard* was Pope Lennon saying, “All you need is love.”

                      I agree that in the pre-V-II era, the Church tended to speak more directly – but even then, V-II itself is evidence of the fact that modernists and other dissenters will find a way to twist virtually any words. I would love to hear Pope Francis say, unequivocally, “Look, I still think we should focus more on the message of Christ’s love than on the condemnation of sin… but I’m telling you right now, abortion is an intrinsic evil that can never be tolerated, there can never be female priests, and the only proper sexuality is between one man and one woman joined in the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.” Truly, I’d love it. But I don’t think the fact that he hasn’t done so indicates any doubt in his mind about the issue – he’s trying to “catch more flies with honey,” as it were, and for what it’s worth, I think when it all shakes out, it will turn out to have worked. He’s not the type of Pope *I* would have nominated (I’m much more of a Benedict XVI type guy), but in hindsight, I think perhaps he’s the right Pope at the right time, and I’ve never had any cause for anything but admiration towards his deep faith and love.

                    • jacobhalo

                      I can state the words of Jesus( God) as to who can be saved and not be saved. Read (John 8:24) He tells the Jews that they can’t be saved unless… The Jews who have inter-religious dialogue with the Vatican know the teachings of Jesus. Don’t you think that other religions who have inter-religious dialogue with the Vatican know the teachings of the church? That quote applies to them. Do you think that this Pope would ever utter that quote to the Jews? The clerics of today would never utter that quotation. What I’m trying to say is that it seems like since Vat.II the popes have been saying anyone can be saved. The Vatican II clerics are not clear in their teachings. That is why we see so much confusing among Catholics. Do you believe in the doctrine, no salvation outside the church? Have you ever heard that said since Vatican II?

                    • jacobhalo

                      Concerning Father Feeney: Read the books “The Loyolas and the Cabots”, “Gate of Heaven” and the “Boston Heresy Case” and you will get the truth about how Father Feeney was railroaded.

                    • Bono95

                      Amen

                    • Bono95

                      I have yet to attend Mass in an empty Church.

                    • jacobhalo

                      The attendance rate at mass is about 25%. It was 90% pre-Vatican II. Keep making excuses for the disastrous Vatican II as you watch the church decline.

              • uncle max

                so they changed forms and moved to the enthralling fun of making silly remarks from the anonymity of cyberspace about subjects of which they knew little or nothing

          • Guest

            The last two Popes tried to correct the silly 1970s relativism and shallow nonsense.

      • Art Deco

        Nestorian makes assertions, and false ones, not arguments. And Msgr. Bugnini and his camarilla were an infection.

    • Adam__Baum

      Orthodoxy is not an option. It has other problems, including it’s fractiousness.

  • poetcomic1

    The Pope’s most recent statements have been explicitly ‘More Big Government’ than anytime before.

    • hombre111

      More specifically, the Pope has condemned the greedy creed of Capitalism and the era of big bonuses in a world with growing financial inequality.

      • Adam__Baum

        What makes you think your earnings are anyless scandalous and unmerited than “big bonuses”. You are a peddler of things of dubious value a good bit of the time.

        You ought not be swinging that ax in the house.

        • hombre111

          Reminds me of the guy who created a recipe for mouse and elephant soup: Equal portions–One mouse, one elephant. “

          • Adam__Baum

            Answer the question.

      • thebigdog

        And the Pope is contemplating replacing the Catechism of the Catholic Church with Hombre’s autobiography.

        • Adam__Baum

          Hombre has an autobiography?

          Is that the book that played on title of Obama’s biography, “Nightmares of my Bishop”?

    • Adam__Baum

      Actually, he has NOT promoted big government. The left would like to imagine he is-but there’s too much imprecise language and no remedial prescriptions.

      Of course if his complaints about “unfettered capitalism” were intended for the likes of Soros, OPEC and the cronyism that afflicts us as much as Argentina, my answer would be how can I assist you in using more precise tevchnical language in the future and what can we address other manifest economic evils like the spendthift was of legislatures and the currency manipulations and debasements of central banks.
      I really could help him expand his list.

      • poetcomic1

        Adam_Baum and the folks who argue with you. All you end up doing is making clear that that Papal logorrhea can mean whatever you want it to mean. When I seek clarity about the precise condition of the Catholic church in the post-Bendict era… I just watch this clip again:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aXbbiuY8e0

        • Adam__Baum

          The Church that survived the Borgia Popes can survive that.

          I would like tio see more carpenters and fishermen in the Curia and fewer philosphers.

          • Deacon Ed Peitler

            They’re probably a real hit at weddings when they give a call for the ‘hokey-pokey.’ YIKES!

            • Adam__Baum

              They dance like I sing. (fingernails on the blackboard)

          • jacobhalo

            Adam, I agree with that wholeheartedly. Were the Apostles philosophers” No. The first theologian was St. Paul and he was much easier to understand that the theologians of today. I don’t Jesus would understand them.

  • jacobhalo

    The pope is not teaching Catholic doctrine. e.g. The pope said that the Old Covenant has not been revoked. St. Paul says that the New Covenant “has made the Old Covenant obsolete.” (Heb. 8:13) The Jews have rejected Jesus as the Messiah, and the Pope celebrates Hannkah with them. Jesus said to the Jews, “If you do not believe that I am He [the Messiah] you will die in your sins. (John 8:24) He should be trying to covert them. Nostra Aetate was the document that caused the fundamental shift in modern Churcmen’s attitude toward present-day Jews. The Pope said that even atheist can be saved. Jesus said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved. He who does not believe is already condemned.” (Mark 16:6) Again, the pope should be held accountable for his words, which are not a part of Catholic doctrine.

    • hombre111

      “The pope is not teaching Catholic doctrine, e.g. The pope said that the Old Covenant has not been revoked.” ?? This is a specific teaching of the Catholic Catechism, which tells us that non-Christians still live under the Covenant of Noah, and the Jews still live under the Covenant with Abraham and Moses, and so they can share in the Kingdom of God. Also, see the Constitution of the Church.

      • jacobhalo

        Yes, they are, but the pope should not recognize it because the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah and the New Covenant. Doesn’t Heb.8:13 mean anything?

        • hombre111

          Read the Constitution on the Church, II,13-16

          • Adam__Baum

            Kind of interesting watching the discourse between one guy that is sure the Church is wrong and another guy that is certain the
            Church is wrong.

            Fascinating.

            -Mr. Spock

          • jacobhalo

            Please tell me where to find it.

            • hombre111

              My copy of the Documents of Vatican II has the “Dogmatic Constitution of the Church” on page 15. The reference is to chapter II, #13-16.

        • Marcelus

          Man you are solid enough to start your own church you know. Infallible Taliban like

          • jacobhalo

            I have the quotes from Jesus and St. Paul. You have nothing.

      • jacobhalo

        The infallible dogma, no salvation outside the church is still in force. Today’s church never mentions it.

        • hombre111

          Read the Constitution on the Church, about who is saved. Theologians describe this as a new teaching by an Ecumenical Council. Read Chapter II, 13-16

          • jacobhalo

            You can’t change an infallible doctrine, which the Church did with, no salvation outside the church.

          • jacobhalo

            I don’t see any new teaching. It just says that the Old Covenant prepared us for the New.

            • hombre111

              It also says the Jews can reach the Kingdom of God. IE, the Jews are saved.

              • jacobhalo

                The Jews cannot be saved unless they embrace Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus told the Jews, “If you do not believe that I am He [the Messiah], you will die in your own sins.”(john8:24) That seems pretty clear to me. When I attended Catholic school before Vatican II, Jews could not be saved because of that quote. Why do you think that the Pius X Society won’t accept Vatican II? It is not just because of the mass. You won’t find the infallible doctrine ” no salvation outside the church” in the Vatican II documents. They can’t says it has been revoked, because it is infallible. Vatican II just doesn’t mention it.

                • hombre111

                  Good riddance to the Pius X Society.

                  • jacobhalo

                    You can’t debate me because you have not come up with one biblical quote to defend Vatican II, whereas, I have given many to defend my position.

                    • Bono95

                      You sound dangerously like a Fundamentalist. Remember, not all dogmas and Truths of the Faith are found in Scripture.

          • jacobhalo

            Apparently, you don’t believe in the words of Jesus.

    • Marcelus

      You know I still cant see how you dare say the Pope is not teaching catholic doctrine?? Who are you to say such thing? I believe maybe Benedict could make such a statemen don’t you??Are you really that solid on that ground as to state that?

      • jacobhalo

        Can an atheist get into heaven? not according to Jesus. Can a Jew get into heaven? not according to Jesus unless he accepts Jesus as the Messiah. I am on very solid ground because I have the quotations from Jesus. Don’t you believe in those quotes that I quoted?

  • jacobhalo

    This pope makes me sick.

    • hombre111

      heh, heh, heh.

    • Marcelus

      Hey c’mon, there’s plenty of other churches. don’t be mad.

  • cestusdei

    NCR is going to be disappointed. Francis is not some closet heretic.

    • Maggie Sullivan

      He is not a heretic…..but he does not care when doctrine is misunderstood or not fully lived as long as people feel all warm and fuzzy.

      • jacobhalo

        The pope is a typical Jesuit.

        • Art Deco

          Typical Jesuits have a devotion to single-malt scotch and sodomy. No evidence of that yet.

          • smokes

            Crap, A.D. Below even your standards.

            • Art Deco

              Actually, the observation is a paraphrase of remarks of Paul Shaugnessy, SJ.

              • smokes

                Who cares? The Society of Jesus deserves better than the back of your hand.

                • Adam__Baum

                  Having attended a Jesuit university, I would suggest the foment contempt through their pseudo-gnostic eccentricities. Among other things, this instution had the usual array of CINO speakers, plus Abbie Hoffman before he took the eternal dirt nap and erected a mosque on campus.

                  It’s interest that many years ago, the aforementioned Father Shaughnessy penned this column, with a title that is asked rather frequently.

                  http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/paul-shaughnessy#

                • Art Deco

                  No they do not.

                  If they want better, they can identify and expel their own miscreants. Which they will not do. Because the miscreants run the show.

          • Marcelus

            really so now sodomy is to be expected??. My friend … the things one has to read…. please.

        • Bono95

          If only more Jesuits were equally typical, then we might be able to put a few Jesuit Colleges back on the Newman List (or on it for the first time), and we’d have more great missionaries and possibly martyrs.

          • jacobhalo

            Bono, you are really misinformed. Most of the Jesuit colleges are not on the Newman List because they are typical Jesuits. I had a friend who attended a Jesuit college and his college professor told him that the resurrection never happened.

            • Marcelus

              I wonder what are “your” Jesuits like in the USA

              • jacobhalo

                Left wingers.

                • Marcelus

                  Its hard to ask you to look outside the USA but , its not like that elsewhere,
                  In termss of right and left, would you believe me if I told youthat in Argentina, Crdl bergolgio was branded a “representative” of the right and conservatism, basede on his harsh position on abortion and gay marriage and so? well it depends on the glass you look thru

                  • jacobhalo

                    His “harsh position on abortion and gay marriage is in keeping with the teachings of the church. They are not his teachings, but the churches teachings.

                    • Bono95

                      Such were and are exactly Pop Francis’s positions too (as well as Church teachings), and the Argentinian government wasn’t too happy with him for that while he was a cardinal there for those reasons.

                    • Marcelus

                      14 times he requested am appointment with the president. 14 times she refused to see him. Then…. he got elected. President Cristina Kirchner was on the next flight out to Rome
                      And he received her. It happened

                    • Marcelus

                      Soooo… what you like to hear fro. Him?

                    • jacobhalo

                      I would like to hear the pope proclaim that you can’t be a Catholic and be pro-choice. It used to be, and I think that it still is that not believing in one of the teachings of the church is heresy. I want to hear the pope declare the infallible teaching, no salvation outside the church. I want him to tell the Jews that in order to be saved they to embrace Jesus as the Messiah. Just like Jesus told the Jews if they don’t believe that He is the Messiah, they will die in their own sins. I know that God is Love, but the church needs to tell the people what they have to do to earn God’s love.

            • Bono95

              I know, I’m saying that if more Jesuits were like St.s Ignatius of Loyola, Francis Xavier, Edmund Campion, Isaac Jogues, and Robert Southwell, and holy contemporary Jesuits like our Holy Father and Fr. James V. Schall, those colleges would all be in good order and on the Newman List, and no such audaciously false claims as the denial of the Resurrection would occur there.

  • Guest

    A Jesuit masquerading as a Franciscan!

  • smokes

    Communists, Trotskyites and their ilk will always attack the Roman Catholic Church. It’s their only obstacle to the enslavement of every individual on Earth. Their representatives here are all Democrats, led by excommunicated Catholics like ms Sebelius.. It’s an ageless war that extends into infinity and will outlive all of us. Pax Domine vs. Pox Obama!

  • uncle max

    The secular press of our times is always on the lookout for some Catholic news to report and take out of context. That is a constant, and the NCR is their ‘catholic’ (small c) counterpart.

    Obama in his wisdom is smart enough to highlight people like Sebelius, Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, the Cuomo family & the Kennedy family et. al to show us – his subjects, aka ‘folks’ – how wise and all-encompassing and all that rot he is. He recognized early on the necessity to pick people like them in order to furnish ‘cover’ to other liberal catholics (small c). A good example is his highlighting Joe Biden’s being a catholic when he made his VP choice in 2008, and it worked.

    He is working to neutralize Catholic opposition to his programs, specifically the opposition to his HHS Mandate, and this is just another step.

    The Pope’s being named ‘Person of the Year’ by Time? Just as important as you want it to be. I prefer to ignore it – after all, how important is Time?

    Our weapons – as always – the big three – prayer, fasting and almsgiving.

    It drives them NUTS.

    • Adam__Baum

      Minor correction. Use discretion in almsgiving. There are “charities” that are little more than PACs with a sideline in the corporal works of mercy.

    • jacobhalo

      Yes, Obama highlighted those pro-abortions Catholics and the Pope is mum. No guts.

  • cestusdei

    I am not worried. The pundits will turn on him soon enough.

    • Guest

      I doubt that.

      • Adam__Baum

        They always turn.

        • Guest

          I disagree. The Pope can say female ordination is bad and abortion is bad , but his perception as a liberal is his in.

          • Marcelus

            what would you like to hear him say then in that line of reasoning since those 2 arguments will not suffice i your view??? Obviously he doesnt stand a chance with your line of catholicism,…..

            • Guest

              You are a tad confused. I was pointing out that the libs will not dismiss him even though he cannot change Church doctrine. They see in him a type of idol and they will use it for their own purposes. This is not a criticism of our holy Pope. It is my argument that the media will not turn on him.

              I do not have a “line” of Catholicism. I bind myself to the barque, not to lefties who pin their ideology on his at times imprecise words.

  • NR

    A few points:

    1). Francis is not a liberal goon; he is in complete accordance with Church teaching. Furthermore, he is doing an outstanding job at reaching out to Catholics who haven’t been frequenting the sacraments. I can testify from personal experience of having fallen away from the Church that it is Catholics like Francis who bring people back. Kindness and love are the way of our faith. Fraternal correction can only take place after we talk about Jesus, and only after we live in a kind and merciful manner, imitating the love of Christ. That’s how Francis lives, and it follows quite clearly in the manner of Jesus. If you have a problem with it, read the Gospel.

    2). Vatican II is legitimate Church teaching made by the legitimate successors to the apostles. Church doctrine is very clear on this: to despise the bishops (who convened and carried out this council with the help and inspiration of God) is to despise Christ and God the Father (CCC 862). If you do not accept this teaching, it is no different than not accepting any other teaching of the faith. SSPX rejected the teaching, and they are not in communion with the Catholic Church. They are a heretical society.

    3). If we love traditions more than we love Christ, we are implicitly denying Christ’s divinity. The Church, the Sacraments, prayer, the Eucharist…all of these exist only because Christ willed them to exist, and he could take them away in an instant if he so desired. I remember living with a Dominican community for several days, and just being in love with the beautiful elements of the Dominican liturgy: the habit, the choral office, the Dominican Rite Mass, etc. It’s beautiful and wonderful in every way. I mentioned how much I enjoyed these things to an older Dominican priest who had spent many years in the missions (and was very nearly martyred for proclaiming the Word). He smiled, and his response was something like this, “Yes, all of those things are beautiful, but they are all shadows. There will be days when you won’t be able to recite the choral office in community because you’re doing the work of God. There are times when you may have to quietly celebrate Mass in a basement to avoid detection. There are times when you can’t wear your habit because it would mean certain death – and you’re the only priest for miles around. In the end, all we have in every time and place is Jesus. Enjoy the ornamentation while it’s here, and thank God for it, because it is beautiful. But the only thing that ultimately matters is Jesus.”

    We can’t let our love of traditions – whether that be receiving communion on our tongue, facing God with the priest, having the Mass in Latin, or whatever else – obscure our love for Jesus. If we read the Gospels, we find Christ saying that there are two ways that we love him: by keeping his commands, and by serving our neighbor.

    And guess what? A poor Church that serves the poor, and that reaches out to all who do not believe, who treats every person with the dignity that they deserve, and that is holy. This is Francis’ (along with Benedict, JPII, John XXIII, Paul VI) view for the Church. He hasn’t contributed theologically the same way previous popes have, but he is communicating the same theology, he is communicating Christ. And if we deny that, I fear we are denying Christ in favor of an idol of (small t) traditions.

    • Guest

      I do not think the problem is doctrine but tone. Vagueness. Mixed signals. A seemingly harsh view of folks who like tradition.

      In America we have relativism and no sense of sin. The people you mentioned are few in number. Few care about tradition in this country.

      If you publicly speak against grave evils like homosexual ideology you are called a hater. Abortion is almost a sacrament.

      As one Bishop said here not long ago ” I do not think I am obsessed with abortion”. Of course he is not. The tone and implication is that talking about these serious public moral issues is in some way contrary to mercy or is acting contrary to Scripture.

      Then we have a huge Left wing that graft their ideology onto the Pope’s imprecise words and call it Catholic teaching.

      So my friend, you cannot simply castigate these people as if they are a majority or the real problem in society.

      The last two Pope’s spent decades turning around the zany 1970s kooky left leaning Church in America. We had no catechesis. We had tolerance of serious error. We had happy clappy masses. All were welcome including our sins.

      Now it seems the villain is not relativism, laxism, poor faith formation, but a small minority of traditionalists who have never been in power anyway. I do not get it?

      BTW, Cardinal Burke was “demoted” and Cardinal Wurl was “promoted”.

      • NR

        I don’t disagree with anything you wrote. I am simply calling some attitudes that I see in these comments (calling Vatican II an infection, calling Pope Francis naive and so on). The reality is that if we accept the Catholic faith, we must accept the changes made during Vatican II, or else we are implicitly denying legitimate Apostolic Succession. If we think Pope Francis is too harsh with his condemnation of greed, we ought to pick up the Gospel, or some of the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

        It is obviously very frustrating when people misquote the pope or use his words to justify something that is clearly wrong. BUT, the problem is not that the pope is “vague.” Far from it! The problem is that people take portions of his responses out of context. This was difficult to do with JPII and Benedict because their responses were constructed in such a way that soundbites wouldn’t make sense unless you heard the entire response. In essence, they spoke as academics and Francis speaks as a normal person. But he is not vague, on the contrary, he is very specific, and anybody who actually reads all of what he writes/says should have no issue understanding the meaning of what he is saying.

        If we must cast a “villain,” the only villain is sin. Whether that’s SSPX, moral relativism, contraception, abortion, etc, sin is sin. Obviously, there are more relativists than there are radical traditionalists, but in this comment section, I am struck more by the radical traditionalists than the moral relativists.

        Yes, we need better faith formation, but it is (from what I see anyway) getting better. It’s a work in progress. But we also need to reach OUT to the secular world. Francis is the best pope that we’ve had for doing that in a long time (though JPII was certainly quite talented in that regard). It’s nothing against Benedict, who is my favorite theologian, but the fact that people are talking about Francis and the Catholic Church is step #1. The fact that fallen-away Catholics are actually returning to Mass and confession is huge!! It opens the door for dialogue and catechesis.

        Place yourself outside the Church for a moment. Religion doesn’t mean much to you. Is Francis not the type of figure that might make you curious? That might set the wheels turning for your conversion?

        I’m not trying to criticize people who love tradition…I do as well. I love to chant the office, I love the Latin Mass, I think all of it is great. But, we all have to remember that our faith is in Jesus, not small rituals. And we have to remember that Jesus gave us Pope Francis for a reason. We should be aware of the immense good he is doing for us and be grateful.

        • Guest

          I think it is wrong to think the traditionalists are only about chant and that type of thing. They seem to want clarity. They should want that. It should not be either appeal to secularists or insult and marginalized traditionalists.

          I strongly disagree about vagueness. The nonstop clarifications and unending blogging that attempt to explain away the awkwardness has become intellectually dishonest.

          I do not see large amounts if people returning to Church. I see people saying hey finally a Pope that is not conservative. God loved me and I can disregard all that sex and old fashioned stuff. That is not a receipt for evangelization and that is why so called traditionalists are very worried.

          • NR

            Then I suppose we live in very different worlds.

            Read Francis’ own words. They are extremely clear. The nonstop clarifications pull soundbites the same way that the heretical interpreters do. Francis’ own words, in full, are extremely clear. The transcripts of his interviews are extremely clear.

            Lastly, on my note about traditionalists: there isn’t really such a thing. There are only Catholics. If you adhere to the faith in its entirety, you are Catholic. Beyond that, it’s preferences, rituals, and shadows. This is why I get upset when I read things about Vatican II being wrong, or a mistake, or something of the like. If we believe in Jesus, we believe in the Church. When the Church is infallible, she is infallible. Period, end of discussion. Beyond that, it’s personal preference, and there is no “right” preference. There’s only Catholic or not Catholic.

            Lastly, even if people get a wrong view of the pope and believe that they can disregard “all that old fashioned stuff” (I have yet to meet a person who believes that…and I live in a VERY secular area), at least they’re showing up to Mass. At least they’re more curious about the faith then they were before.

            Again, this comes down to trusting the Holy Spirit. If we believe what we say we believe, we believe that Francis was given to us by God with good in mind.

      • Marcelus
        • Guest

          My point is not solely about the Latin mass, but a lack of precision in words that require constant refinement and explanation.

          • Marcelus

            you know, no offense, but I was thinking how things look and are interpreted depending on the way you look at it.

            I happen to live i a continent where more than 50% of the world”s catholics live, S America, and I recall, the same thing happened with Pope Benedict, He needed to be explained in simple terms to other catholics not as learnt or not as sharp on THeology as the ones you meet here, And , thought loved and obeyed as he was, he was never fully undesrtood by the simple man, catholic too, just like you and me, His brilliant theology unfortunately did no reach out effectively. He is seen a as Libraryt Pope by much of the world unfortunately , Not me saying it, but even recall italian priests saying excactly that in the RAE, upon the election of Francis.

            they are different but not that much ,I think-

            Francis said they call each other and he consults with Benedict so I take it He is not totally foreing to the course of the Church today.

            • Guest

              How dies that address my point? There are endless interpretations of the Pope’s words. That was not true of Benedict or JPII. I cannot see how you can deny the obvious.

              • Marcelus

                The obvious?

              • Marcelus

                Do not take it wrong but either the Majority of the Church and the Catholic world and the cardinals. Who chose Francis are right or these minoritarian Taliban/Lefevrist lke groups are.

    • jacobhalo

      The pope is NOT teaching church doctrine. He says that atheists can get into heaven. No they cannot. Jesus said that those who are believe and are baptized are saved. Those who don’t believe are already condemned.(mark 16:16. Can Jews get into heaven. They can he they believe the Jesus is the Messiah. If they don’t. Jesus told the Jews, “If don’t believe that I am He [the Messiah], you will die in your own sins.” John 8:24. These are two of the reasons that the SSPX has rejected Vatican II. The church is not adhering to these teachings. Have you ever heard a pope since Vatican II utter these quotes?

      • Marcelus

        do you follow this” SSPX “?

        • jacobhalo

          I am not a member, but I agree with them.

  • jacobhalo

    This is the worst pope that I’ve seen in my 67 years on earth. Now, he is getting rid of some of the conservative cardinals. Don’t the Catholics see what liberalism (modernism) has done to the church since Vatican II? As Bishop Fellay said, Pope Francis’s election has made things 10,000 times worse.

    • Bono95

      If you’re referring to that news story from earlier today, they (of course) got it ALL WRONG. Cardinal Burke has NOT been removed from the High Pontifical Court, but from a much smaller position he had in Wisconsin.

    • Marcelus

      Maybe its time for you to look for another church? Peter not up to your high standard.?

      • jacobhalo

        You know, you might be right. My Standards? no Jesus’s standards.

        • Marcelus

          Sorry the rest of the Catholic world Is bellow you. Still good luck with the Fellay people .

      • Guest

        Your assertion is hardly Catholic. To suggest someone leave the Barque of Peter is not what the pope would want or ever do.

        • Marcelus

          You know all I read here in CM, not all but mostly, is: Pope’s a communist, a solcialist , a demagogue, this man quoting Fellay!!! and so and even worse, THen I get the usual response::; Not me Im Catholic , I love Peter. well maybe the rest of Catholics are wrong

          • Guest

            Telling someone to leave the Church is not right.

            • Marcelus

              I loved and obeyed Benedict and love and Obey Francis.

    • Marcelus

      Isn’t Fellay a Lefevrist?

      • jacobhalo

        Yes, and the they rejected Vatican II because it didn’t adhere to the doctrines of the church. Pius X had rejected modernism in many of his encyclicals. But the modernists got in with the election of Pope John.

MENU