Womenpriests! Intercommunion! Pastoral Discernment! Whoopee!!
SOURCE
NOTE: TCK does not hold Francis as the true Pope
But we can certainly look behind the headlines to a little bit of recent Catholic history and discover that most of the daily list of horrors coming out of the Vatican and upper levels of the episcopate are nothing new at all. They are, at most, natural developments of what has been going on for 50 years. One might say, the logical results of them
~
Do as we say shall be the whole of the law
For our bulging “Papal Positivism will give us EVERYTHING!” file:
Bishop of Malta doubles down: says its “most traditional idea” to just do whatever this pope says even if it contradicts… well… everything else.
During the meeting, Abp Scicluna
repeatedly stressed that there there is only one interpretation of AL –
the interpretation given by the Pope himself to the bishops of
Argentina. The Abp also said that if this is the interpretation offered
by the Pope himself, who are we to say otherwise…
The mantra is this: We have
one Pope, the present pope – Francis and reminded his parish priest[s]
that this principle is is the most traditional of principles: we follow
whatever the Pope says. He went on to say that if the next Pope
says something else, we will then follow what he says. We have one
choice fundamentally; we are either Catholics with the Pope or we are
not. The Archbishop quoted Saint George Preca, the Maltese saint, who
said: Ego sum cum Papa semper.
… except of course, it’s completely the opposite of the Tradition of the Church, the dogmatically defined teaching on Papal Infallibility. And of Scripture. In other words, it’s what we call in the biz, “a lie”.But as always, we can count on the “good” “conservative” priests to take it lying down:
Many parish priests were disgusted at
how Scicluna, while brandishing a copy of the newspaper, openly mocked
the parish priest for speaking to the journalists about his concerns.
Many said after that if this is how he deals with dissent, then they will not speak to him, and prefer to follow their own conscience in the matter.
And that, ladies and gents, is EXACTLY how we got into this
situation; by “good” priests keeping their mouths firmly shut and their
heads well down. Don’t want to rock that boat/jeopardize our
sinecures/our meal tickets, wot?And of course, while they’re keeping silent, the heretics are leading the faithful over the cliff:
In the meantime, one of Abp
Scicluna’s attack dogs, Father Joe Inguanez, who is one of a group of
liberal clerics who have plagued the local Church for decades, has written an article in the local press stating that Mueller’s comments in no way correct the Maltese Criteria.
~Womenpriests! Because, pastoral discernment!
Next we have Magister on the latest from (Jesuit-run) Civilta Catholica saying that womenpriests is only a matter of time.
Recently “conservative” Catholics gasped in horror when the pope ordered a “commission” to “discuss” the possibility of women being ordained to the diaconate.
Now here’s the pope’s confreres/minions bringing that to its obvious next step (remembering that Civilta Cattholica is an official organ of the Vatican, its articles vetted by the Secretariat of State):
… a doctrine proposed by the Church needs to be understood by the believing intelligence. The dispute over women priests could be set in parallel with other moments of Church history;
in any case, today in the question of female priesthood the
“auctoritates,” or official positions of the magisterium, are clear, but
many Catholics have a hard time understanding the “rationes” of decisions that, more than expressions of authority, appear to signify authoritarianism.
“One cannot always resort to
the past, as if only in the past are there indications of the Spirit.
Today as well the Spirit is guiding the Church and suggesting the
courageous assumption of new perspectives.”
Wahwahwah … concrete circumstances … wah-wah … profound social
changes of the 20th century … wahwahwah… pastoral development…
wahwahwah-wah… courageous assumption of new developments…Etc.
Once you get past all the Jesuitspeak, what it boils down to is, if we can just ignore “Saint” John Paul II on marriage and Holy Communion, why not on everything else? I mean, we’re already ignoring the black and white words of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as recorded in Holy Scripture, right? What’s a pope after that, amirite? If you say its opposed to Papal Infallibility, we’ll just redefine it or ignore it until it goes away. The end.
And at the risk of making everyone tired of hearing “I told you so” I’ll just say, I told you so. Papal Positivism says that the Faith is whatever this pope says it is today. It is merely the thug-version of the general trend since Vaticantwo, in which whatever anyone believes is Catholic teaching is Catholic teaching. Make your own reality! Everything’s true! There are no contradictions!
And if the pope is dithering, self-contradictory or just plain incomprehensible, it becomes the job of the Pythian Priesthood to interpret his gibbering for us plebs.
Either way, Truth isn’t an immutable, objective thing. Catholicism isn’t about Reality. God is not “the same yesterday, today and forever,” but a fickle follower of cultural fashion and political expedience, very much in line with the gods of the ancient world. Indeed, the changeable god is very popular; Islam’s got one, as do the Mormons.
In short, once you’ve got the positivistic principle in place, we’re just talking about power; we’re just trying to decide who gets to decide. And nothing, no sacraments, no devotional life, no institutions, no religious order, not one bit of the ancient patrimony of the Church is going to be safe.
~
Moving on…
Cardinal Kasper: “Communion for Protestants a natural development of Francisdoctrine.”
“Meanwhile, Cardinal Walter Kasper, a close confidant of the Holy Father, has said he believes allowing intercommunion with Protestants in cases such as a mixed marriage is “the position of the current Pope.”
In comments made to Italian
television, the cardinal said of Holy Communion: “In certain cases, I
think yes, if they share the same faith in the Eucharist, this is
presupposed, and if they are interiorly disposed, they can refer to
their conscience to go to Communion, and this, I think, is also the position of the current Pope.”
If there is a “couple or a family, you cannot divide them in front of the altar,” Cardinal Kasper said. “
Well, Kasper hardly needs any introduction. Indeed, he’s been singing the same song for 40 years or more.Actually, it’s a natural development of JPTwoism or simply of Vaticantwoism as it has been promoted abroad by the popes since Paul VI (who was a big fan of Anglicanism, btw). While the secular media was busying itself denouncing John Paul II as an “archconservative” because he wouldn’t say it’s OK to kill babies, the reality was something rather different.
John Paul II’s religious indifferentism was manifest throughout his pontificate.
Here, even though he is at the stage in his life where he could barely speak, John Paul is still one for the Big Gesture, in this case, kissing the ring/hand of the Archlayman of Canterbury, a man from an “ecclesial communion” known for having hanged, drawn and quartered Catholic saints and stolen the entirety of the Catholic patrimony of England. A man, moreover, whose pretensions to the sacrament of Holy Orders were completely denied by John Paul’s much more illustrious predecessor, Leo <cough>absolutely null and utterly void<cough> XIII. On their previous meetings, I think I remember that a more robust John Paul had given Williams a pectoral cross to wear with his dress-up.
I’m not really out to bash John Paul here. I’m just saying that if you think Francis is going the wrong way, it’s time to take a closer look at the path laid down for him since 1965.
Certainly John Paul didn’t start the trend.
This is Paul VI giving then-archlayman of Canterbury, Michael Ramsay, an episcopal ring.What is important to understand is that these guys, Marx and Kasper and Francis, aren’t just pulling this stuff out of their hats.
In fact, the groundwork for Kasper’s assertion above was laid quite specifically in John Paul II’s 1983 revision of the Code of Canon Law, prior to which it was forbidden to allow members of non-Catholic churches to receive the Body and Blood of Christ.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church held to the original teaching in one line…
1400 Ecclesial communities derived
from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not
preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness,
especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.” It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible.
However these ecclesial communities, “when they commemorate the Lord’s
death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it
signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.”
…but as with most NuChurchian artifacts, immedately walked it back. Citing Can. 844:
1401 When, in the Ordinary’s
judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the
sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other
Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for
them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the
Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required
dispositions.
~All of this – and it’s just a small selection from the Daily Disasters – clearly indicates that whatever outrage, whatever heresy, blasphemy or denial of the Holy Catholic Faith we see coming from today’s Vatican, none of it is anything new.
It is all in perfect continuity with everything that has been going on in the Church since the close of Vatican II.
I’ll say it until I die: Francis isn’t the problem. He’s the symptom.
And in many ways, he’s going to be the solution too.