VATICAN TO TAKE 'ATTENTIVE NOTE' OF 'INSPIRING' HERESIES

To comment, please open your gmail account, use my email address, Facebook, Messenger or Twitter. Scroll down for comments.

"Every baptised person can administer the sacraments. He is to be ordained only for the sake of external order."


"There is now agreement in regard to the theological meaning of the Eucharist/Last Supper."

"It is important ... to accept that the fullness of what Jesus instituted is not to be found only "in one single form".

Pick the most outrageous of those three heresies. 

Outrageous, because the document in which they are published is a creature of the "German (wouldn't you know it) Ecumenical Working Group of Protestant and Catholic Theologians". 

It's described by the head of the German section of the official Vatican news service, Vatican News, as "inspiring. The Vatican will take attentive note of it." You bet.

Stephan von Kempis has the grace (or the cheek) to admit that the last of those three statements "is a sentence at which a Catholic first has to gulp". Or vomit, perhaps? To put it another way, the Vatican is saying that the Catholic Mass is not the only liturgy in which the fullness of Christ is experienced. A Protestant service will do nicely.

"When offered in the self-giving spirit of Christ the High Priest, the Mass is our most intimate union with God and with one another. And the reason for this is clear: whatever conduces to prayer focused entirely on the divine Majesty and his angels and saints brings about by its very nature the fullest union of one Christian with another in their common goal of knowing, loving, and serving God" (Dr Peter Kwasniewski, www.catholicculture.org › culture › library › view )

So in what form other than the Catholic Mass can the "fullness of what Jesus instituted" be found?  
.
If you like, you can read 57 pages of this spurious nonsense - https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/vatican-cardinal-objects-to-intercommunion-argument-that-protestant-last-supper-is-identical-to-catholic-mass
from the German Ecumenical Working Group of Protestant and Catholic Theologians (It takes even longer to say that in German).

Let's take those three heresies - endorsed by Vatican News as 'inspiring' - one by one.

As a well-catechised contributor to this blog (would that there were more of them) comments, "Every baptised person cannot administer all  the sacraments. They cannot effect: 

• the Sacrament of Reconciliation
• the Sacrament of the Eucharist
• the Sacrament of Holy Orders
• Confirmation 
• Anointing of the sick
• The Sacrament of Marriage is conferred by the spouses, on each other. A priest is usually present to witness that the consent by the couple is in canonical form.
• Baptism may be conferred by a baptised Christian,but only in an emergency situation providing the right procedure is followed."

Moving right along, let's take a look at The Eucharist/Last Supper.

The Eucharist is the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary made present once more. It is the source and summit of the Christian life.

The Last Supper is "the inexhaustible mystery: the final meal of the Master with His disciples, the communion of the divine Lover with His beloved friends, the anticipation of His supreme act of love on the Cross, the institution of that unbloody sacrifice which will never cease to resound in churches until the end of time" *Peter Kwasniewski, https://onepeterfive.com/meditation-maundy-thursday/

Catholic Tradition teaches that the Eucharist is the Sacrifice of  Calvary re-enacted and that the Last Supper was the Institution of that Sacrifice. 

A Protestant service of the Last Supper is in essence merely a meal among friends in which Christ is remembered.

Spot the difference?

Thank God, Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, has spotted it. He managed that much, at least. He says the document, published in September last year, which asserts that "the differences of opinion that stem from the 16th century have been sufficiently discussed (well, yes) and clarified and that there is now 'agreement' ", is based on an "assumption" which Cardinal Koch cannot share, "namely: that the Catholic Eucharistic celebration and the Protestant Last Supper are identical."

The cardinal was asked also to comment on Protestant theologian Professor Volker Leppin's statement  that "he who wishes to argue against intercommunion is in need of very strong arguments." 

Although the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has advanced these arguments ever since the Reformation, it would seem that the cardinal has forgotten them. He doesn't mention them. As to the heresies listed above, he says, “I believe we still have to discuss these open questions.” 

Heresies are not 'open questions'. This is creeping Protestanism.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of Kazakhstan, has stated that: "The confusion spread by incorrect interreligious events and discussions is one of the deepest crises in the Church today. In some ways it is a betrayal of Christ ... 

"The uniqueness of Christ and of His Church is the core of the entire Gospel. Truly, we must return to the Catholic missionary zeal of all times." (Christus Vincit).

Elsewhere, +Schneider has stated: "The Church must be “very clear with the Protestants, not hiding anything.

“We read in the Second Vatican Council document that real ecumenism is not irenicism, but sincere dialogue in which we hide nothing of our identity.” He added that any gesture which is “not clear, not sincere, and ambiguous will never help true ecumenism”.

He said “pastors and shepherds” have to be “very careful” in their pronouncements not to “create ambiguity and confusion among the people,” leading them to believe that “Catholic and Protestant doctrine are basically the same, with only minor differences.”https://aleteia.org/2015/11/30/cardinal-sarah-and-bishop-schneider-respond-to-pope-francis-comments-on-intercommunion/

In 2015, Pope Francis appeared to “suggest,” in the words of National Catholic Register Rome correspondent Edward Pentin, “that a Lutheran wife of a Catholic husband could receive Holy Communion based on the fact that she is baptized and in accordance with her conscience.”

However on the subject of intercommunion, Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the  Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, has this to say:  “Intercommunion is not permitted between Catholics and non-Catholics. You must confess the Catholic Faith. A non-Catholic cannot receive Communion. That is very, very clear. It’s not a matter of following your conscience.

"Many priests have told me: “I give Communion to everybody.” It’s nonsense."

Cardinal Sarah believes that intercommunion without unity in faith and doctrine "would promote profanation."

"It’s not that I have to talk to the Lord in order to know if I should go to Communion. No, I have to know if I’m in accord with the rule of the Church. ... My conscience must be enlightened by the rule of the Church, which says that in order to communicate, I need to be in the state of grace, without sin, and have the faith of the Catholic Church. … 

"It’s not a personal desire or a personal dialogue with Jesus that determines if I can receive Communion in the Catholic Church. ... Sometimes, an Anglican who is very far away from his church for a very long period of time and who desires to receive Communion, can participate in Mass and receive Communion in the Catholic Church, where there is no sin, and he is properly married. 

"But it is rare and would happen under very exceptional circumstances. This is something extraordinary and not ordinary.

https://aleteia.org/2015/11/30/cardinal-sarah-and-bishop-schneider-respond-to-pope-francis-comments-on-intercommunion/

New Zealand's Bishops, then, are way ahead of Rome. They allow intercommunion in so many churches and parishes here. To take just one example: although not strictly speaking under the authority of NZ's bishops, Our Lady of the Southern Star Cistercian Abbey in Hawke's Bay, or 'Kopua' as it's called now, offers Holy Communion to Protestants every day of the week. There have been no new vocations to that monastery for many years.

And wouldn’t you know it, one of the two academic leaders of the ‘German Ecumenical Working Group of Protestant and Catholic Theologians’ (takes even longer to say it in German) calling for intercommunion is a woman. Prof Dorothea Sattler has been appointed as head of the ‘Synodal Path’s’ discussion forum on women’s access to Church ministries as organized by the German Bishops’ Conference. 

Are you, like me, getting a whiff here of women priests, another heresy? 

Perhaps it needs to be said, and said again, that the primary duty of the Pope is the teaching of Catholicism in its fullness and the anathematizing of erroneous doctrines.

*For a beautiful description of this most beautiful work by Tintoretto, go to:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/a-stunning-depiction-of-the-last-supper

FREE SPEECH ON TRIAL IN THE CHURCH

To comment, please open your gmail account, use my email address, Facebook, Messenger or Twitter. Scroll down for other comments.


Take a gander at this, people. It's the cover of the book on priestly celibacy which the Vatican did its utmost to suppress. Note who gets top billing: Benedict XVI. 

 

This is surely an issue of free speech. It applies to the entire Church, from the Vatican right down to the Diocese of Palmerston North New Zealand where, for example, an anonymous document served up to parishioners at St Mary's last Sunday tried to muzzle "those who pushed by pride fight on in an ever more civil war (sic) in which no one is the winner". 

No prizes for guessing who those proud people are - traditional Catholics who like Cardinal Sarah and Pope Emeritus Benedict 'fight on' to preserve the Truth, the Tradition and Magisterium of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, those people who are denigrated by Pope Francis, as catalogued in 'Pope Francis' Little Book of Insults'
 https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/tag/pope-francis-little-book-of-insults/

We've been told by Pope Francis' Head of Household, Archbishop Ganswein (aka Gorgeous George), that the Pope Emeritus Benedict had requested the removal of his name from the cover of this book, which defends the age-old tradition of priestly celibacy in the Catholic Church. Benedict, said Ganswein, did not approve a project for a co-authored book and he had not seen or authorized the cover.”

We've been told by Pope Francis' old chum, self-proclaimed atheist and journalist Eugenio Scalfari, that Benedict had "shown solidarity" with Francis by denying co-authorship of this book, and that "the issue with Ratzinger" (i.e. Pope Emeritus Benedict) "is closed".

"Benedict", Scalfari wrote, "had provided a text and on the basis of this Sarah sent to press a co-authored book with very polemical content. Almost all the major Italian newspapers prominently highlighted this news which, if it had been true, would have produced a considerable crisis by gathering, under the banners of a cardinal and Pope who had resigned but was still fully active, a number of bishops more or less discontent with the current pontificate, and thus putting Pope Francis in considerable difficulty.

"Ratzinger (sic) had made it known that he had not sided with Sarah at all nor had  ever authorized a co-authored book with him.”

Well. One wouldn't expect a 95 year-old atheist to realise that there's nothing 'polemical' about the book's 'content'. 

Consequently, there is no 'gathering' of bishops and no schism - not yet. Wait a couple of weeks, till Francis gets down to announcing a relaxation of the law of clerical celibacy, as he is widely expected to do. If Pope Francis is in 'considerable difficulty'- which he certainly should be - it's not because of the book's content, but its timing. It's the timing that makes it 'very polemical'. 

Will we ever believe another word Scalfari writes? The poor old chap's credibility is in shreds. Thank God for that, because his 'interviews' with Francis have 'reported' one heresy after another, all consumed in a feeding frenzy by the  media and spat out at a gullible public.

Can we turn then, to the Jesuits' America Magazine for the facts of the matter? 

America tells us that a 'Vatican source' is denying that Pope Benedict ever knew he would be listed as co-author of the book. 

But in the next breath, America says it's perfectly clear that Benedict gave Sarah permission to use the text he'd written in any way he wished. Including, one would reasonably think, giving credit to Benedict for his work, on the cover.

Oh, but, says America, quoting a source 'close to Benedict',“It is evident that there is an editorial and mediatic operation from which Benedict XVI separates himself, and to which he is totally extraneous.” 

Would we call that statement pharasaical, do you think? Or merely Jesuitical? 

Liberal Vaticanistas fell over one another in their attempts to deny Benedict's co-authorship of The Book which upset their married clergy applecart. The papalotrous commentator Austen Ivereigh tweeted, hand on heart, that GG "has expressly & repeatedly asked for Benedict not to be billed as co-author and insists Benedict did not co-write intro and conclusion."

The uproar, the 'polemics' which ensued induced the cardinal to back down, humbly stating that the book's author in future publications would be listed as himself, "with the contribution of Benedict XVI." 

But quite clearly, the book was already in the hands of its English-language publisher, the Catholic Ignatius Press which has always been Benedict's publisher. We can imagine how Ignatius would have (politely) waved its contract around, and refused to kowtow to pressure to change the cover and signing arrangements already agreed upon by Benedict and Sarah.    

America also tells us it was after Cardinal Robert Sarah had explicitly stated that Benedict had given approval for the book and its cover that Archbishop Not-So-Gorgeous George flatly contradicted him, claiming that, "Benedict XVI did not co-author the book From the Depths of Our Hearts with Cardinal Robert Sarah, and this morning asked to have his name removed as co-author." 

'Tweet this' adds America. The Jesuits are not into making Cardinal Sarah look good. They hung him out to dry.

But then, in reporting an airborne interview with reporters on the papal plane a year ago, America doesn't make Francis look good, either, at least not in his role as Head of the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church and all that entails in maintaining the Magisterium. (Ironically, the title 'Defender of the Faith', which should logically be the Pope's, was conferred by Pope Leo X on Henry VIII for his defence of the Sacraments and the Mass against Martin Luther - and is still retained by his successor Elizabeth II.)

America says that "Pope Francis drew a distinction between his own personal beliefs regarding celibacy and what might be required for the church to provide proper pastoral care. 

“Personally", said Pope Francis, "I believe that celibacy is a gift to the church. Secondly, I’m not in agreement with allowing optional celibacy. No!” However, he continued, "there could only be a possibility in these far, faraway places—I think about the islands in the Pacific. It’s something to think about when there’s a pastoral need; there the shepherd has to think about the faithful.”

But wait, there's more: the Church's Chief of Religious Life (his proper title would occupy a paragraph or two), Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviv, has stated it was Pope Francis himself who directed the Amazon Synod to discuss ordaining married men to the priesthood to work in under-served areas such as the Amazon. According to the cardinal, it was all Francis's idea.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-religious-life-chief-pope-wants-priestly-celibacy-questioned-at-amazon-synod

And expect Francis' next move to be the ordination of female deacons. What next, you ask? Well of course, you know.

"But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil" (Mt 5, 37). The Pope is dissimulating. He is running with the hares and hunting with the hounds.

If there's one thing we've learned from Vatican II, it's that constant drops of disobedience wear away the stone of Magisterium. This is demolition of the Rock of Ages, drip by drip. 

In this sorry saga of The Book we see the truth manipulated and massaged by forces ranged against it. NZ's bishops, priests and laypeople need to prep themselves for a showdown.

Cardinal Sarah writes of “the polemic that has sought to smear me by insinuating that Benedict XVI was not informed of the publication of the book From the Depths of Our Hearts ... I sincerely forgive all those who slander me or who want to oppose me to Pope Francis. My attachment to Benedict XVI remains intact and my filial obeisance to Pope Francis remains absolute.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-favored-interviewer-casts-cdl-sarah-as-leading-opposition-campaign

Wouldn't we rather stand with a man such as this, than with those opposed to him and his adherence to the Truth which cannot be modernised, because it is immutable?

"Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. For there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed: nor hidden that shall not be known. For whatsoever things you have spoken in darkness shall be published in the light: and that which you have spoken in the ear in the chambers shall be preached on the housetops" (Mt 16:6).

Last Sunday - 3rd in Ordinary Time - the congregation at St Mary's Palmerston North were invited to read in their newsletter this anonymous polemic (emphases mine):

"It strikes me as significant that St Paul ... elected to deal with division in the church as his first issues to be addressed. Division, schism and apostasy are toxic to ecclesiastical life. People ... will sooner walk away than put up with all of the conflict. Often the only ones left are those who pushed by pride fight on in an ever more civil war in which no one is the winner. ... 

"I encourage all parishioners to be mindful of their obligation to treat church authorities with respect (especially Pope Francis)" - okay, that's fair enough, but an example of respect for church authorities must be set by the Pope himself -
https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/tag/pope-francis-little-book-of-insults/

The author - unknown to at least one of St Mary's two parish priests, Fr Manoj Mathew, which seems odd - concludes with one of Pope Francis' slogans: "Find NEW WAYS to spread the word of God to every corner of the world."  

As a St Mary's parishioner rightly comments:

"Yes, but the word of God (Sacred Scripture) must always be interpreted in the light of unchanging Tradition and the Magisterium. These three are inter-compenetrated. All must agree.

Pope Francis has departed from this teaching and dismissed immutable Truth."

Bob Gill says:

I believe Cardinal Sarah will be 75 years old later this year and will be obliged to offer his resignation. I pray that Pope Francis will not accept it and will permit the Church to continue having the services of this valued leader of the faithful.

·     I say:

b   I believe you're right, that +Sarah will have to offer his resignation this year and you're right to pray Pope Francis will not accept it, because his track record shows he very promptly files away all such faithful and able prelates. The 'Resign at 75 Rule' is I believe a wicked tool for reshaping the Church into his modernist, global image.

Philippa O'Neill says:

I have no doubt he will accept it.

Bob Gill says:
Sometimes the Pope's own words and actions lead to him being criticised. Such criticism doesn't mean lack of respect for Church authorities.

I say:
It certainly doesn't necessarily imply lack of respect for Church authority (the Magisterium).

GORGEOUS GEORGE, GESTAPO AND GATEKEEPER TO BENEDICT

To comment, please open your gmail account, use my email address, Facebook, Messenger or Twitter. Scroll down for other comments.


"Has His Gorgeousness turned?" is the cryptic question asked by a correspondent in response to my post, 'Two Popes Lock Horns and a PN Lay Person gets Uppity'.

"Cryptic", I say, only because of my limited acquaintance with the Catholic chattering classes and so, my ignorance of the Vaticanistas' nickname for Pope Benedict's personal secretary (and the secretary to the Papal Household, i.e. that of Pope Francis). It was - perhaps unintentionally - a very significant question: it goes right to the heart of the battle in the Vatican between conservative and liberal, orthodox and modernist. Many would say, between truth and prevarication, between good and evil.

Archbishop Georg Ganswein is the oh-so-cool German around whose suave person so much gossip has swirled since the furore surrounding publication of Des Profondeurs de Nos Coeurs (From the Depths of our Hearts), co-authored by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and Cardinal Robert Sarah. To those in the know, Archbishop Ganswein is Gorgeous George.

He it was, according to Italian journalist Antonio Socci, who was pointed out very early in Benedict's papacy, by his predecessor as Prefect to the Papal Household, to none other than whistle-blower Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, as "Gestapo! Gestapo!" 

To have acquired two such mutually-opposed epithets as 'Gorgeous' and 'Gestapo' in the course of his career as Benedict's secretary and more recently as Prefect of Francis' Pontifical Household would seem quite an achievement. Perhaps they reflect on his respective employers and his role in regard to them ...

On his promotion to prefect of the papal household - an appointment which entailed promotion from monsignor to archbishop - Italians hailed him as 'Bel Giorgo', which Time  translated as 'Gorgeous George', and the nickname has stuck. 

Such is his "elegance and austerity", according to fashion celeb Donatella Versace, that way back in 2007 he inspired her spring collection. He has adorned the cover of the Italian edition of Vanity Fair. Scurrilous reports loaded with vile connotations - to which I will not provide a link - label him as "The Pope's Live-In Partner".

But in his 'Gestapo' persona, Ganswein is said by Vigano to have "exercised abusive and systematic control towards the Supreme Pontiff ever since the beginning of his pontificate". 

Vigano supplies convincing evidence to support his claim, including an allegation that Ganswein the Gatekeeper (there, I've just awarded him a third epithet) denied him an audience with Pope Benedict in 2012, with the words, "Monsignor Vigano is the last person who can approach Pope Benedict!"

Why should any of this matter? Is it all just a storm in a chalice? Should our NZ Bishops, for instance, take any notice of Gorgeous George? They would at least be well advised to  reflect on the ramifications of 'Bookgate'.

I suppose it was Ganswein's denial of the now-proven fact that Des Profondeurs de nos Coeurs, written in defence of the age-old Catholic Tradition of priestly celibacy, was co-authored by his boss, Benedict, and the orthodox Cardinal Robert Sarah, which provoked my correspondent's question, "Has His Gorgeousness turned"? and which properly absorbs our attention. 

Ganswein the Gatekeeper has been glued to Pope Benedict's side since his election to the papacy, pictured adjusting his cope, putting on his hat, helping him robe, holding up babies for bestowal of the papal kiss. GG's so photogenic, that should you wish you could browse more than 2000 photos:
https://www.gettyimages.co.nz/photos/georg-gaenswein?family=editorial&sort=mostpopular&phrase=georg%20gaenswein

To all intents and purposes, Ganswein has looked Benedict's ever-faithful retainer:

• In 2016 he announced the two popes as a single 'expanded' papal office (which didn't go down well with Francis); 
• in 2017 he read a letter of Benedict's at the requiem of orthodox Cardinal Joachim Meisner which described the deceased as not losing faith, "even if the boat (of Peter) has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing" (which wouldn't have gone down well with Francis); 
• in 2018 he helped launch Rod Dreher's The Benedict Option with a speech which haloed Benedict as the saviour of Christendom;
• in 2019, in a speech to high-ranking members of the German legal system, he proclaimed that the Church "seems often to have lost herself in a strife within the Church from which even many bishops do not anymore find a way out" and instead act "as if they were but politicians from different political parties who aim at winning the next election."
  Such bishops, he said, do not act like "shepherds of the flock which Christ Himself has entrusted to them". 
• He concluded with, "The Omega and goal of the dignity of man however, is the sanctification of  man - and his being with God in eternity. This is the final horizon, in front of which alone our life can succeed."

All good, vintage Benedictine.  But, significantly, just about as many pix in the Ganswein Gallery show him with Francis as with Benedict. He's described by the Spectator as "a kind of jailer, shuttling back and forth between Benedict and Pope Francis. He is said to spend half the day with Benedict and the other half with Francis."

Ganswein's declaration,  in 2018, that Benedict's 'confirmation' of Vigano's testimony calling for Pope Francis' resignation over the McCarrick scandal was 'fake news' gave a hint of a change in nature of his role, from gatekeeper to caregiver.

Because Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register had reported that the Register had "independently confirmed that the allegations against McCarrick were certainly known to Benedict, and the pope emeritus remembers instructing Cardinal (Tarcisio) Bertone to impose measures but cannot recall their exact nature". 

And now, in his 'Intervention' last week on the matter of Bookgate', Archbishop Vigano (who seems to have thrown all caution to the winds, and if only many more prelates would follow suit) states that Ganswein's statement was "in contradiction of what Pope Benedict himself wrote in the exchange of letters made with Cardinal Sarah. It is a sensational as well as slanderous insinuation towards the most eminent Cardinal Robert Sarah, promptly denied by same".

Ganswein was reported at first to have been ordered by a "furious" Pope Francis to repudiate Benedict's authorship. Two days later, Ganswein was in denial, saying that at no time during the week preceding the furore did Francis even mention The Book. 

But, hello: in the American Spectator George Neumayr is saying Pope Francis did order Ganswein to pressure Pope Benedict - whom Neumayr describes as "a prisoner of the Vatican'  - into denying his authorship of The Book. 

Ganswein "freaked out", says Neumayr, because the media had gone all-out against the book as a polemic designed to embarrass Pope Francis. "He bullied Pope Benedict into taking his name off (The Book's cover)", says Neumayr. "Ganswein has been on the side of the bad guys from the beginning. 
 https://spectator.org/the-prisoner-of-the-vatican/

"Not long after assuming power, Jorge Bergoglio took a veiled swipe at his predecessor (Benedict). He told an interviewer that Vat II had encouraged openness to "modern culture" but that "very little was done in that direction," a shortcoming he promised to correct: "I have the humility and ambition to want to do something".

" Hah!" say I. 

Contrast that comment with one of Pope Benedict XVI's not long before, in one of his last speeches before abdicating the papacy, lamenting the liberalism that snuck into the Church after Vatican II. To this liberalism, he traced “so many problems, so much misery, in reality: seminaries closed, convents closed, the liturgy was trivialized.” We see the two popes here in stark opposition.

It's been said that Pope Benedict has broken his promise to play shtum. (In this context of Teutonic warfare, Sergeant Schultz's rule of thumb seems particularly appropriate.) But truth be told, Pope Francis himself had urged his predecessor to continue to contribute to Church affairs. Pope Francis told Italy’s Corriere della Sera – in 2013 – that he’d spoken with Benedict about the matter of his “retirement”, and decided with him that he ought to be involved in Church life.

“We have spoken about it,” the Corriere quoted Francis as saying, “and we decided together that it would be better that he see people, get out, and participate in the life of the Church.”

Perhaps the events of the past week give us a glimpse of a chameleon-like change in Ganswein's political coloration, which bearing in mind Francis' 2018 verbal dismissal of Archbishop Charles J Chaput - "(Bishops) must not be right-wing, like the Archbishop of Philadelphia", which he implemented this week in his ready acceptance of the orthodox, right to life champion Chaput's  resignation (forced, because he's turned 75) - is something which until now Ganswein might have been keeping under his elegant archbishopric's wraps.

We - and NZ's Bishops - could dwell on these words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: "No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other, You cannot serve God and mammon" (Mt 6, 24). 

'Mammon' is not to be taken as meaning simply material wealth and possessions, but also worldly interests and advantage (Douay Rheims.) Pope Benedict, defender of the celibate priesthood, is 93, and flagging. Say no more.

Meanwhile, Pope Francis is playing a waiting game. With the juggernaut of the German Church at the front line, liberals like Francis, who's not always good at hiding furiousness (think of the Asian lady who obviously had not only a hand, but an urgent message, to get across the barricades) have done their best to scupper Benedict and Sarah's book in favour of celibacy, but have only succeeded in promoting it. 

Last week, in his waiting game Francis produced his Eugenio Scalfari card. He might have overplayed his hand. The atheistic journalist Scalfari, founder and editor of the left-wing magazine La Repubblica and friends forever with Francis, stated that:

"The Holy Father believes he has the task of bringing together everyone under God: not only Catholics and Protestants, but monotheists and polytheists."

There you are. There is his "humility - and ambition" for a World Church, headed by Himself.

Oh but, you say, Pope Francis is all for priestly celibacy. Yes, so he seems to say.

"Pope Francis has taken a strong position in favour of the current discipline", reports the Catholic Herald.

"He even made Paul VI’s line on the subject his own: “For the Latin rite,” he offered in January of last year, “I am reminded of a phrase of St. Paul VI: ‘I prefer to give my life before changing the law of celibacy.’ 

This came to me and I want to say it because it is a courageous phrase,” he told journalists in response to a direct question asked in solicitation of his personal thoughts on the matter.

"While the rest of Pope Francis’s answer left the possibility for some relaxation of the discipline open," (you can say that again) "he concluded his remarks by saying, “I do not say that it should be done — because I have not reflected, I have not prayed sufficiently on this — But the theology should be studied.”

https://catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2020/01/13/benedict-and-sarah-back-franciss-position-on-priestly-celibacy-media-storm-ensues/

Oh, the clerical casuistry, the Jesuitical Jezebelicity (okay, I'm getting carried away here). 

The pope quotes Paul VI because "it is a courageous phrase". He doesn't say he agrees with it. He "leaves the possibility for some relaxation of the discipline open" - like in the Amazon, wouldn't you say, to be taken up a bit later in Germany, perhaps?

"But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil" (Mt 5, 37). 

I was privileged, last Sunday, to travel home from the monthly Latin Mass in Napier with Fr Francois Laisney SSPX. His sermon, as always, was "yes, yes: no, no" and so was his conversation in the car. 

For more of the same, Father Laisney referred his hearers to The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundations, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler, an Austrian who died in 2007.

https://catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2019/10/29/a-vital-document-in-defence-of-clerical-celibacy/

The UK Catholic Herald says Stickler's short book  (now in its second edition) "is a vital document for those who want to argue the case that such celibacy is of apostolic origin and has been the constant ruling of the Church, in Councils, canon law and magisterial documents ever since.     

“This demanding commitment which involves a life of constant sacrifice, can only be lived out if it is nourished by a living faith…It is only through a faith that is constantly and consciously sustained that the supernatural reasons underlying the commitment can be truly understood.”

"This word “sacrifice” matters", says the Herald's Chad Pecknold. "I recall our late parish priest once commenting, “People think celibate priests are different from other men. Not a bit of it. It is a sign of the supernatural” – that is, the sacrifice can only be fruitfully sustained by divine grace; a serious and continually prayerful response to the initial invitation from Jesus.

"In his book, Cardinal Stickler reminds us that movements which broke away from the Church always – as with Protestantism – attacked the requirement for priestly celibacy. 

Indeed, he links the demand for married clergy with “a loss of the sense of faith”. 

THE OLD CODGER, THE CARDINAL AND CLOSING CHURCHES

To comment, please open your gmail account, use my email address, Facebook, Messenger or Twitter. Scroll down for other comments.


"When rural parishes close, by and large people stop going to Church."

In a guest post, Matthew Walton of Palmerston North brings to our notice a recent Dutch study on the effects of the closure of country parishes.

"As village churches close, Dutch Catholics leave faith rather than worship elsewhere" reads the headline in Crux.

https://cruxnow.com/church-in-europe/2020/01/as-village-churches-close-dutch-catholics-leave-faith-rather-than-worship-elsewhere/

"The willingness of people to attend Mass in another church nearby is shockingly low," reports Crux. "Church closure is not only the result of people leaving the Church, but as a result of a church closing more people decide to leave the Church."

"People come to  see the functions of a parish as superseded by other community activities" Walton reports in his summary. 

"So, when the parish closes, the Church gradually comes to be seen as no longer useful. Of course people will still go many miles for a "worthwhile" service. The sense of community that a parish fosters, however, has, by then, gone. So, effectively, the Faith dies or goes into hibernation. 

"I have read others' comments on the Faith dying in rural areas of New Zealand. My wife Teresa and I remember an Ormondville parishioner telling us that when the Norsewood church closed, people stopped going to Mass. 

"For professional people like bishops, priests and lay educators - who are supposed to understand what makes communities tick - one would think this would be a recognised phenomenon.  It occurs also in the economy - when industry is taken away and nothing replaces it, rural communities decline.
              
All we seem to have had from our ecclesial authorities, however, is the lame reasoning that, "Er, well, not enough people are going to church now.

"How have we come to this?"

I add:

This is brought home to me every time I drive past the empty site of St Vincent's Takapau, on my way to Mass at Our Lady of the Southern Star Abbey, just 10 minutes away at Kopua, which offered an attractive alternative to parishioners in that you could walk in the door for Mass and out again at the end, without being lumbered with proclaiming the word, 'Eucharistic Ministry', arranging the flowers, mowing the lawns - or paying for the re-roofing. 

Arguably, the abbey was the trigger for the closure of St Vincent's, which is now an events venue at the local Stately Home, Orua Wharo. Significantly, the Sunday congregation at the abbey itself is now a fraction what it was.

But NZ's Bishops - and priests and laypeople - should not accept this. We should not be sitting back, folding our hands and saying oh dear, how sad, never mind.

It's uphill work though, persuading our bishops that everything in the garden is not rosy. My nice old codger - he's a pertinacious old codger - has just made it through today to Cardinal John Dew with his objections to the celebration of Sacred Heart Napier's End-of-Year Mass in the Anglican Cathedral. 

"What's wrong with that?" asked the Cardinal. "I've used the Anglican Cathedral in Wellington myself. The Mass gets celebrated in all sorts of places. In war, for example."

"That's a matter of necessity," said the old codger to the Cardinal. Then somehow they got started on Pope Francis, which wasn't what the old codger wanted to talk about. He wanted to get on to abortion and the Amazon Synod. 

"Pope Francis is the best leader I've ever known," said the Cardinal. "He's leading us beautifully."

"I don't think he is," said the old codger. "Since Vatican II we've lost 98% of our congregations." 

(I think he was getting a bit carried away, but it's a fact that only 13 per cent of British Catholics, for instance, now attend Mass weekly. Just as startlingly, 37 per cent of baptised Catholics answered “None” when asked whether they had a religion.)

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2019/11-october/books-arts/book-reviews/mass-exodus-catholic-disaffiliation-in-britain-and-america-since-vatican-ii-stephen-bullivant

"We'll have to agree to disagree," said the Cardinal to the old codger.

"He didn't want to know," said the old codger to me. "He closed me down. As soon as I disagreed with him he shut up shop." 

Their conversation lasted "a minute or so".

Anyhow, back to Crux,which reports:

"Rik Torfs, a professor of church law at the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium believes it’s important that the Church continues to approach people “with a fresh outlook” and doesn’t get too caught up in organizational matters.

“Despite the clumsy way in which churches tend to spread their message, I think that the content of the message is so strong that at some point it will receive more attention,” said Torfs. 

“We just have to believe in it ourselves. Because who will want to become a member of a club that only talks about reorganization and downsizing? That’s not attractive.

“One of my students is a pastor and decided to start house-to-house visits in his parish, which were completely out of fashion there. He visited people who said they didn’t need him, but with whom he subsequently had a three-hour conversation.” 

Bruce Tichbon says:

"Pope Francis is the best leader I've ever known," said the Cardinal. "He's leading us beautifully."

Surely that is a political answer, perhaps because the Cardinal agrees with the seemingly liberal,‘spirit of the age’, agenda of Pope Francis.

Take the sex abuse scandal.  The Pope blames it on priestly clericalism, some newly hatched concept that priests are inherently arrogant and selfish.  

The real cause of the sex abuse scandal is failed leadership in the Church. By not taking responsibility, and dumping blame on his (mostly) loyal priests Pope Francis showed he is no leader of men.  Are we surprised so few men want to be priests now?

Take Amoris Laetitia, where a vague comment in a footnote becomes a major doctrinal shift for the Church.  Senior theologians write desperate letters to the Pope begging him to resolve the glaring doctrinal conflicts, but he ignores them.

I could spend all day writing more but I will stop there.

Is willfully creating confusion leadership, or governance vandalism?

Please pray for the Pope and our Cardinal.

Bruce Tichbon

MEETINGS IN MUNICH SENDING SHIVERS UP OUR BISHOPS' SPINES

To comment please open your gmail account, use my email address, Facebook,  Twitter or Messenger.



New Zealand's Catholic Bishops must be biting their nails: with the publication of Emeritus Pope Benedict's book defending the age-old Church Tradition of priestly celibacy, in collaboration with Cardinal Robert Sarah, all hell you might well say, has broken loose.

It's the timing of the book, Des Profondeurs de nos Coeurs (From the Depths of our Hearts) as much as its contents, that makes it a cat in what should be the dovecote of the Vatican, as the Catholic world holds its collective breath, awaiting the post-synodal pronouncement of Pope Francis on this very subject. 

(It's said that actually the Pachamama uproar made a convenient smokescreen for the real biz at the 'Shamazon' Synod, i.e. the proposition that in certain parts of the world priests should be allowed to marry.)

NZ's liberal prelates, who you'd expect to be lining up behind Pope Francis with his expected confirmation of 'limited' exceptions to priestly celibacy, may be somewhat unnerved to find no less than a Pope Emeritus and a Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation and the Sacraments taking decided exception to the idea. 

Not to mention other highly-placed prelates emerging from the woodwork, like the former Primate of Belgium, Archbishop André Léonard - and Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, who was forced into hiding after blowing the whistle on Pope Francis for sheltering the disgraced Cardinal McCarrick, and who emerged only yesterday in Munich, the episcopal seat of Cardinal Reinhard Marx, to stand alongside 100 lay people from around the world. Among them were luminaries Michael Matt of The Remnant Newspaper, scholar and historian Professor Roberto de Mattei and John Henry Westen of Lifesitenews, and Alexander Tschugguel (the guy who threw the Pachamamas into the Tiber).

These one hundred (the Acies Ordinata) stood together before the Theatinerkirche in the centre of Munich to call the angels to their aid, and to sing a moving - and surprisingly melodious - rendition of the Catholic Credo before stating that the consequence of the 'synodal path' can only be the constitution of a church separate from Rome'. 

The Acies Ordinata maintain that the German bishops, if they follow the 'synodal way' to its logical end will have to take responsibility for a formal schism, a schism which they say already exists. Amen to that.

https://onepeterfive.com/acies-ordinata-munich-edition-an-interview-with-roberto-de-mattei/

Der Synodaler Weg ('the Synodal Way'), a creature of Cardinal Marx and his bishops - except for only two dissenters, Archbishop Rudolf Voderholzer and Cardinal Rainer Woelki - will burst into full flower on January 30, demanding a change of Church teaching on sexual morality, admission of women to eccelesiastical ministries, marriage for priests and the blessing of homosexual couples, 

FSSPX News says that "The People of God in Germany are now embarking on risky venture ...without a legitimate convening, but with the tacit approval of Francis. The clergy and the laity are meeting outside of any canonical rule to discuss subjects that go far beyond the competence of their council. They bring in their boxes of texts—the working documents of the forums—which are capable of reducing to nothing the divine constitution of the Church and the morals of Jesus Christ."

Cardinal Ludwig Muller has stated that “the ‘German Church’ is claiming hegemony over the Universal Church and proudly and arrogantly boasting of being the one who decides the direction that a Christianity at peace with modernity ought to take.”

Catholics in Germany (like all Germans who register as Protestants and Jews - such Teutonic thoroughness, imagine New Zild imposing a tax on religious affiliation) are taxed to support their Church, which goes a long way towards explaining why the Amazon Synod garnered such support and headlines: German euros, darling. It was mostly German money and German theology which got the Amazon Synod to where it is today. 

And this very day, Roberto de Mattei appealed to German Catholics to refuse to pay the Kirchensteuer (tax). But the snag is, to be exempted from the tax you must officially apostatize - it's called Kirchenaustritt - which means you are officially excommunicated. Not that the German Bishops' Conference actually pronounces that nasty word, but any Catholic in Germany who won't stump up to support their liberal shenanigans is denied the Sacraments and a Catholic funeral. (Reminds me of "We have vays of making you (talk) pay!")

According to der Synodaler Weg ('the Synodal Way'), divorced and remarried Catholics in Germany who pay the Kirchensteuer may receive the Sacraments, but practising Catholics who refuse to pay the tax (what if they can't afford it?) are, says de Mattei, "rigorously excluded from the sacramental life of the Church. 

("We have vays of making you pay!") 

"Heretics and notorious schismatics, including priests and bishops, are not sanctioned, while the punishment of excommunication is applied to an act that, even in the worst cases, qualifies merely as an act of lay disobedience, against which can law provides no punishment."
https://gloria.tv/post/CVUvffK1FiSK41BqrNrPskwD8

I don't subscribe to the views of NovusOrdoWatch, but I can't quarrel with this statement today:

"Where is the German Bishops’ Conference going? What will the consequences be in the life of the Church of the “synodal path”  initiated by Cardinal Reinhard Marx in the Munich Cathedral on December 1, 2019? 

"Considering the ideological convictions and public declarations of many German bishops, we have no doubt about the answer: the end result of the synodal path can only be the constitution of a church separate from Rome."
https://novusordowatch.org/2020/01/international-protest-munich-announced/

Do our NZ Bishops, in their mild Clark Kentish way, really want to align themselves with the German revolutionaries, and come out as the Superbishops of the South Pacific? Do they really?

Or are they pinning their hopes on Pope Francis' famous Fabian* tactics? The Pope Incumbent has spoken against marriage for the priesthood, but good Jesuit that he is, he knows he has time on his side (barring accidents and assassinations) and our bishops could reasonably hope for exceptions to be made, for priests in the Amazon of course, with their German backing - or the Pacific. 

Watch out.  On Sunday, after his holiday in Taupo, my PP couldn't wait even till homily time to tell us how at Mass in Taupo their Monsignor Trevor Murray had taken a back seat while a woman delivered her 'Reflections' (on the day's readings, were they, or on something more esoteric, like preserving hydrangea blooms - or her next-door neighbour's latest abortion, perhaps?) 

It's all because, you know, that we're so short of priests. Monsignor Murray's just practising for the day he's not there any more, getting his congregation used to lay men and women in the pulpit - married men and women probably - so that eventually, the emergence of a priest who happens to be married will seem a natural progression. Or an act of God.

Pope Francis is a Jesuit. He's never going to be caught out with an outright denial of Church doctrine so long-established as clerical celibacy. No, but he could just wait a bit, while the Germans forge ahead with their schism and allow priests to marry. Just like the Dutch forged ahead with Communion in the hand 50 years ago, and then the Canadians got it into their pretty heads to do likewise. 

We should turn to today's St Fabian*, a layman and a farmer who around the year 200 AD went into Rome one day just as the clergy and lay were electing their next pope. 

According to the Church historian Eusebius, a dove flying by settled on the head of the farmer Fabian, a sign uniting votes of priests and people who elected Fabian unanimously. He governed the Church for 14 years until his martyrdom under the Emperor Decius. St Cyprian wrote to his successor describing Fabian as an 'incomparable' man whose glory in death matched the holiness and purity of his life.

In the catacombs of St Callistus the stone which ornamented his grave can still be seen, broken into four pieces and bearing the Greek words,

"Fabian, Bishop, Martyr."

Please pray for the Church.

Bob Gill says: The German synodal path must surely lead to a suicidal path for the Church as a whole. May Our Lady, Mother of the Church,  pray for us!

Peter Brockhill says:

Very well put, Julia. It's as though Church teaching is being marched off to the arena to be torn apart by the wild beasts for the amusement and gratification of the crowd. This does not augur well for those who follow those teachings. 
I think that, like the early Christians, songs of praise and thanks to God can rise in our hearts because we know the immeasurable love of Jesus Christ Our Lord and are honoured and happy to go where He has gone before. God bless.

Sharon Crooks says:
That's very well put, too!