Give Us Back Our Catholic Church!

There are a number of Catholic bloggers and sites that are ringing some very loud alarm bells these days. The question is being asked: What is happening in our Catholic Church that heresy is being tolerated, and (dare I say it?) even defended, whilst those Catholics who stand firmly by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church’s teachings are being bullied, silenced and scorned! That these things should happen coming from those outside the Catholic Church is only to be expected – we know the ‘Bride of Christ’ will always be “a sign of confrontation between the forces of good and evil” in the world – but here we are talking of certain members of the Catholic Church’s hierarchy itself, and baptised fellow Catholic laymen, who are not upholding the Church’s doctrinal teachings.

Take a look at this Remnant video that uncovers clearly just some of the troubles. It is placing a lot of the blame on the Supreme Pontiff, Pope Francis, who appears to be doing nothing to confront any of these issues, sorry to say.

Three days ago the Catholic Herald reported that almost 500 priests of England and Wales are petitioning the Holy Father and the next Synod on the Family that doctrine and practice must ‘remain firmly and inseparably in harmony’ . This has been discussed in further detail by Catholic bloggers here, here and here… among others I might add, including the great canonist, Ed Peters. These are good and faithful priests, but why should it even be necessary for them to have to voice such an appeal? And why are some of them not receiving loyal back-up from their bishops or cardinals?

John Henry Westen, Co-Founder & Editor-in-Chief of LifeSiteNews.com is a strong defender of Life, the Family, and Catholic orthodoxy; he has this to say:

“Right now, confusion is spreading among Catholics “in an alarming way.”

Those are the startling words of Cardinal Raymond Burke, from LifeSite’s in-depth exclusive interview with him published yesterday.

The Cardinal’s statement may seem stark, but unfortunately, I think he’s right.

Like the Cardinal, every day I read and hear of more and more people who are claiming that the Catholic Church has somehow changed Her perennial teachings on issues like marriage, homosexuality, contraception, abortion, and divorce.

Of course, we know that’s not true, and that those teachings will never change. But that doesn’t change the fact that this widespread confusion is seriously damaging the Church’s efforts to build a Culture of Life, and to save souls!

Just take a look at a handful of the unbelievable stories we’ve had to report on in just the past few days:
* A New Jersey bishop supports a Catholic school that fired a teacher because she defended traditional marriage on her personal Facebook page, even citing Pope Francis as a reason for the firing!
* San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone faces outright mutiny from his Catholic teachers, simply because he clarified that they must follow Catholic teachings.
* The general secretary of the Ontario bishops assembly openly supports the province’s new sex-ed curriculum, which promotes gay unions and “gender identity” from the earliest grades.
* For the first time in the New York St. Patrick’s Day parade’s history, a group of homosexual activists marches under their own banner, which Cardinal Dolan, the grand marshall of the parade, called a “wise decision.”

And these are just the tip of the iceberg!

At LifeSiteNews, we have been doing everything in our power to cut through this confusion, and to defend the Truth! That’s why we have been significantly stepping up our coverage of Catholic issues over the past year.”

[N.B. I do not know if my Team-mates agree or not to the views I have expressed in the introduction to this article, or to the article’s content and links, or to the Remnant video I post here. Any disagreement should be directed towards me and not towards them.]

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to Give Us Back Our Catholic Church!

  1. bozoboy87 says:

    Well, the catholic church claims to never change. There goes one claim out the window.

  2. kathleen says:

    @ bozoboy

    Er, I think you are confusing Catholic Church’s Doctrines (the unchangeable teachings on Faith and Morals) with Catholics. The first will never change – we have Our Lord Jesus Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit will defend Her always from “the gates of Hell” – but the latter is made up of a billion people, clergy and laymen, who are all tainted with Original Sin. Goes to follow that some of them will be listening more to the Devil’s promptings than those of their Guardian Angels’.🙂

  3. johnhenrycn says:

    Cardinal Nichols wrings his hands because hundreds of priests sign a letter published in a newspaper? Matters of doctrine shouldn’t be mentioned by them in the media he says? Where does that leave just about every famous Catholic pundit – clergy or otherwise – in the past hundred years: Chesterton, Belloc, Sheen, Neuhaus, Mother Angelica, Weigel, Mel Gibson (joke) to name but a few? Has His Eminence ever complained about priests who publish their unorthodox, sometimes transgressive, ideas in, say, The Tablet or in the National Catholic Reporter, although to be fair, the latter paper is outside his bailiwick?

  4. johnhenrycn says:

    …but take heart, in backwoods Pennsylvania, a Catholic school fights the good fight:
    http://www.today.com/parents/school-requires-preapproved-prom-dresses-sparks-angry-reaction-parents-2D80566277
    A small battle, a small victory, to be sure, but as G.K. Chesterton once said:

    “I have always believed that if you need to take your clothes off to get your man, you’ve begun to lose the battle. If you pull it off right, you can do it in a very classy way… Being sexy is about suggestion; it’s about the tease. It’s not about being obvious and forcing yourself out in the open. That takes all the fun out of being a woman.”

  5. liturgy guy says:

    Very good post Kathleen.

  6. M. Violet GG says:

    Having been in religious life and fortunate enough to still have a wonderful spiritual director I worry about laity in the pews. I constantly hear from other Catholics that they are so confused by statements coming from the Vatican and the Pope in particular. We have senior clergy arguing with each other and Rome in the media; we have priests supporting gay marriage, etc. No wonder people are confused.
    I also know that our Pope has a special interest in the marginalized and cutting through hierarchical red tape however he really needs to stay focused on the actual Church teachings and how all of us can live these in a compassionate, selfless manner in the world.

  7. toadspittle says:

    “If you pull it off right,…”
    ….If you pull what off right?

  8. toadspittle says:

    …Gratifying to see all Toad’s ceaseless labour on behalf of Mel Gibson and GKC, (not forgetting “Jack the Prod,” Lewis) has not gone entirely unnoticed.

  9. Tom Fisher says:

    What is happening in our Catholic Church that heresy is being tolerated, and (dare I say it?) even defended, whilst those Catholics who stand firmly by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church’s teachings are being bullied, silenced and scorned!

    Keep this in perspective. During the 1980s the Church survived what were effectively exercises in syncretism at Assisi, encouraged by JPII. Prior to that was the VII era, which was far more volatile than today. Pope Francis has affirmed every doctrine the Church teaches, and shown no inclination to attempt any ‘doctrinal changes’ (a meaningless concept). Orthodox believers have more platforms than ever before to share Church teaching from, traditional orders are growing as liberal ones die away, vocations are increasingly drawn from young traditionalists, and the TLM is enjoying somewhat of a renaissance.

    widespread confusion is seriously damaging the Church’s efforts to build a Culture of Life, and to save souls!

    Kathleen’s not confused. I’m not confused. No Catholic I know is confused. It’s unclear what these putative ‘confused Catholics’ are confused about.

    I honestly think that it would be much healthier if the good people at the Remnant came out and simply said: Pope Francis is the Pope, and we are in communion with him, and loyal to him, but we just don’t like him, he’s not our sort of guy. We can’t shake the suspicion that he doesn’t see things like we do. That’s all, it’s just how we feel, he’s the Pope, but he’s not our cup of tea – If they just said that, instead of intimating a crisis, it would save us all some time and energy.

  10. geoffkiernan says:

    Tom: Again you and your double speak…. You need to get out a lot more. To say “No Catholic is confused”, boggles the Mind.
    Are you living on this planet? Most Catholic are not confused because they couldn’t give a rats anus about what is happening to the Church. Those of us that give a rats tinkle know of the Crisis in the Church today, and are indeed confused. The keep their sanity by the realization that Her (The Mother of Christ) Immaculate Heart will prevail in the end.
    I for one would like to know where the Holy Father stands in this sad debacle called the Synod of the Family. He calls Kasper the Best theologian in the world today. Bone up on some of Kaspers utterances and bone up on what the German Catholic Church is doing and then try and dispel the natural law of association.
    I am stunned Tom. You give all the signals of being an intelligent man and then you come out with such things. You have no perception of what is going on in the Church. No sense of History. No sense of the traditions of the Church. No sense of the diabolical disorientation of the church.
    The Remnant know that Our Holy Father Pope Francis is the Pope. They know that to remain in communion with the Bride of Christ they must be in communion with Peter. They are Loyal to the Chair of Peter and the teaching authority vested in it. The are Loyal to the Church that existed and thrived for 1965 odd years. Suddenly Her Liturgy has become trivialized and Protestantised and because they see the smoke of satan in the Church today, THEY somehow are the Villains. What sort of distorted logic is that?

    How stupid of you to suggest that they simply don’t like him, or that he is just not ‘their sort of guy’.
    “(They) just cant shake the suspicion that he doesn’t see things like we do” There is that devastating lack of a sense of History and Tradition again. Remember that all revelation come to us through the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. The Remnant came into being when that portion of Revelation was being discarded.
    And then you infer that the Remnants support of all forms of the Revealed truth is the cause of any confusion that may exist in the Church.
    To suggest the Church has survived those exercises in syncretism is equally mind blowing. The Church is still reeling from the consequences of that exercise and is being perpetuate By Our Holy Father’ with his bowing before the God of the Muslim, a patently false and diabolical caricature of the One True God.
    God Please Help us…
    To the Moderator: If reference to a Rats anatomy and bodily functions offend I am Happy to withdraw, but please replace them with words that convey my original feelings with equal force.

  11. I know I’ll sound very adolescent for saying this, but I almost fell off my chair watching this video. These commentators expressed exactly the sort of ideas that I and a few friends have had for some time now. I never dreamed that these ideas are so widely shared.

    Despite what anyone may say, it is TRUE that the Pope and others in the hierarchy have been mocking faithful Catholics with terms like “Doctors of the Church,” while welcoming individuals who hold viewpoints that are heretical or schismatic.

    The Pope is infallible only when he speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. This Pope is not speaking ex cathedra, and he is clearly confused, confusing, and in error on many issues – or rather, he WOULD be in error if he ever stopped expressing himself with hints, suggestions, sarcasm, ridicule, and bizarre statements and stories.

    Many, many thanks to Kathleen for sharing this video with all of us.

  12. toadspittle says:

    Tom deserves several thousand “thumbs up” for the above – although, of course, a recommendation from Toad is The Kiss Of Death. And rightly so, of course.
    So Tom won’t get very many.
    To explain a bit, I’ve come to the – possibly temporary – conclusion that things are vastly less awful these days in The Catholic Church, than in my time – donkey’s years ago.
    More forgiving, less judgemental, less damnational. More humane, in a word. …Thanks to Francis, amongst several other things.
    And that seems like A Very Good Thing to me. This world is rotten enough anyway, and chock full of mad people, without the rest of us making it even more crazy than it need be – by killing one another over “differences of opinion.”
    Very likely, I’m utterly wrong. And misery, guilt, self-condemnation, self-flagellation and angst are the correct order of the day.
    …OK.
    But not for me.
    (Pompous old pillock, Toad.)

  13. johnhenrycn says:

    I submit that lay Catholics, assuming they are well versed in the Catechism and in the rubrics of the Mass, which must be their starting point, have a moral right and duty to object, respectfully but vigorously, to doctrinal, pastoral and, yes, even liturgical innovations which they see as heretical or harmful. Some changes are not heretical, just plain dumb. Others are so close to the boundary as to be near occasions of heresy.

    Tom says that “Pope Francis has affirmed every doctrine the Church teaches, and shown no inclination to attempt any ‘doctrinal changes’ (a meaningless concept)”, but what is happening is that doctrinal changes are being insinuated into our thought patterns via the concept of ‘pastoral care’ for gays, the divorced and other ‘marginalized’ groups’. As has been said by Cardinal Burke and others, pastoral care in conflict with doctrine is no care at all, but more like pastoral harm.

    The gobsmaking antics of Pope Francis’s favourites at last October’s synod were so obviously performed with his tacit approval that he is rightly to be questioned about his plans for us and the Church. As for the 500 priests who signed the petition warning against a clash between doctrine and practice at the next synod, I say thanks be to God for people like them willing to subordinate their chances of preferment for our good and the good of all His Holy Church.

  14. Kudos, johnhenrycn! Great, eloquent comment. (“Gobsmacking antics,” indeed!) And you are absolutely right, in every respect. Maybe I should have understood this a long time ago, but I find it encouraging and astonishing that there appear to be so many of us who think the same way.

    People like Pope Francis and his “co-worker,” Cardinal Kasper, cannot destroy the Church, but they can inflict great harm. We can only hope and pray and try to minimize the damage.

  15. kathleen says:

    Well, this post has sparked off some truly brilliant and extremely insightful comments! And to think that I was waiting for a bombardment of angry commenters berating me for such a criticism of high-ranking members of the hierarchy!
    See how mistaken (or confused) one can be, Tom?😉

    But it is, as Robert says, “encouraging and astonishing” to discover so many like-minded Catholics out there who love Our Holy Church and are willing to stick their necks out to defend it against those, who, though having vowed to preach and defend the unadulterated Word of God through His Church, commit the evil travesty of doing the very opposite. These are ‘wolves-in-sheep’s-clothing’, who should know better, and in need of much prayer that they may wake up from their path of betrayal to Catholic Teaching. There are of course some remarkable exceptions among the hierarchy, holy, faithful and heroic bishops and cardinals (and many priests) who are suffering greatly under this current papacy as they fight to uphold the Truth. It is of fundamental importance that they know they have their congregations’ staunch support in thought, word and deed.
    The overwhelming support David Domet (Vox Cantoris) received from Catholic bloggers worldwide (both clergy and laity) when he was threatened with a lawsuit by Vatican spokesman Fr. Rosica, for doing no more than point out Rosica’s heresies and reaffirm Catholic teachings, was a heartening eye-opener for one and all.

    JH very perceptively says: “As has been said by Cardinal Burke and others, pastoral care in conflict with doctrine is no care at all, but more like pastoral harm.”

    This is where I think so many in the Church are spreading confusion; they cannot (or will not) distinguish between Sin and the Sinner. There have been plenty of recent examples of Catholics who think that co-habitation, remarriage (without a previous annulment), sodomy, etc. are no longer considered sinful… and even that ‘mortal sin’ is a verboten term these days. Where do they get this misinformation from? I think we all know the answer to that!
    The Church has always [Toad, please note] taught forgiveness for the contrite, but those who insist on flaunting the clear teaching of Our Blessed Lord through His Church are attempting to justify flagrant mortal sin and rename it Mercy! Then when loyal Catholics point this out, they are “Pharisees”, “Restorationists”, “Idealogues”… or any of the long list of insults thrown at us these last two years.

    No, we must speak out and defend the Truth! It is our moral duty to do so. We must fight to restore Our Holy Catholic Church to all her radiant beauty and splendour.

  16. Again, Kathleen, the Remnant video is brilliant. Thank you for sharing it with us. I had no idea that these Remnant videos even existed.

    I have to say also that it makes me want to weep when I think – after many, many months of trying not to see it – that the Pope himself appears to be included in this group: “those who insist on flaunting the clear teaching of Our Blessed Lord through His Church are attempting to justify flagrant mortal sin and rename it Mercy!”

    One of the speakers in another Remnant video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X275oBsuwvc) points out that that those who qualify to be called “Pharisees”, “Restorationists”, “Idealogues” include, among others, the Pope’s two most recent predecessors.

  17. JabbaPapa says:

    I think, honestly, that many people underestimate the Pope’s very Italian sense of humour — similar, oddly enough, to the way that people underestimate Silvio Berlusconi’s own very Italian sense of humour.

    The two men are extremely frequently taken at face value for their — hmmm — let’s say “less formal” comments, that any sensible Italian would just laugh or frown at, but then basically ignore, even though this sort of humour can of course lead only to confusion and misunderstanding among those who don’t “get it”.

    But hmmmm — yeah OK – so the Holy Father is a passive-aggressive.

    It’s hardly a quality ; but then nor is it a quality to try and take his more off-the-cuff homilies as the parish priest he continues to be as if they provided some sort of futurological insight into tomorrow.

    Even so — his “doctor of the law” comment needs to be a little bit carefully appraised ; it’s not “doctors of theology” that he aimed his sally at, is it ?

    Don’t people realise that there’s a wryly self-deprecatory element in that speech of his ? Who is the current supreme doctor of the canon law if not the Pope, who enjoys the supreme legal Authority over the entirety of the Church ?

    Something else people don’t realise (because Italian intellectuality is often difficult to get one’s head around) is that the Pope was deliberately setting up a dichotomy — the Law on the one hand, Mercy on the other.

    The relationship between the two is : Justice.

    It’s not the written law of the doctors that is the heart of the Catholic Law — but it’s the Word of God Incarnate, the Christ, through Justice and the transcendental Law of Divine Love and Mercy that teaches us the heart of our Christian Faith.

    It is, by the way, a protestantism to cleave to the written word as if it had an authority in and of itself. Not so. The Catholic faith in the Law of God is found in Love, and in our obedience to our Sovereign and our High Priest, the Christ Jesus.

    If it’s any help, from the strictly doctrinal point of view, what the Pope was suggesting is that to cleave to legalism is to kill the properly spiritual relationship of the Christian with God.

  18. JabbaPapa says:

    And honestly, I’ve no idea WHY these “Remnant” people are automatically assuming that the Pope’s comments were aimed at traditionalism. Talk about a hermeneutic of rupture !!! (AKA to always assume the worst)

    Don’t they see that they’re perfectly applicable to liberal modernists who hide behind legalistic interpretations as a “justification” of their abuses ? viz. “Bishop of Bling” passim ?

  19. JabbaPapa says:

    Don’t they see that the “gay agenda” and the whole divorced-remarried-communicant thing is exactly motivated by the very legalism that the pope was denouncing ?

    Just read : http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/10/13/pope_at_santa_marta_holy_law_is_not_an_end_in_itself/1108446

  20. JabbaPapa says:

    Pope Francis : “We should ask ourselves these questions today and ask the Lord for a heart that loves the law – because the law belongs to God

  21. johnhenrycn says:

    JP (15:55): Can you explain to me how an Argentine whose journeyman Italian language skills are such that he mixes up “caso” and “cazzo” to much mirth in Italy has a “very Italian sense of humour — similar, oddly enough, to the way that people underestimate Silvio Berlusconi’s own very Italian sense of humour.”?

    And in what way are Berlusconi’s “bunga, bunga” references evocative of an Italian sense of humour? My internet research tells me that “bunga, bunga” was a racist joke invented by Virginia Woolf and some Anglo friends of hers.

  22. JabbaPapa says:

    Can you explain to me how an Argentine whose journeyman Italian language skills are such that he mixes up “caso” and “cazzo” to much mirth in Italy has a “very Italian sense of humour

    Yes I could.

    It would be extremely boring though.

    Would you like me to randomly challenge one of your own declarations in return ?

  23. johnhenrycn says:

    No🙂

  24. toadspittle says:

    I don’t recall anyone suggesting Pius Xll had a very Italian sense of humour.
    Maybe Francis has a very Argentinian sense of humour.

  25. kathleen says:

    Dear Jabba, I really do admire your well-meaning defense of Pope Francis, although you do not attempt to explain most of the serious issues brought up through the links, video and opinions mentioned in the article and above comments. They all point directly towards outright heresies being condoned by high-ranking members of the hierarchy, silence from the Holy Father in the face of these, and a wide-spreading general confusion among many of the faithful that no one can deny. And as quoted in the article: “these are just the tip of the iceberg!

    I have Argentinian friends; it is true they are prone to making effusive exaggerations sometimes, which can be very amusing… but when we are talking about the Vicar of Christ of the universal Catholic Church, nationalistic traits (whatever these may be) should not prevent a speech everyone can understand in making pronouncements aimed at all the faithful. Italian intellectuality may well be “often difficult to get one’s head around“, but nearly all our Popes have been Italians or fluent in Italian (as is Pope Francis, who is not Italian by birth) and as far as we know, the understanding of this type of “intellectuality” has never been an issue before. (Good one from Toad on this point, re Pope Pius XII.)

    “And honestly, I’ve no idea WHY these “Remnant” people are automatically assuming that the Pope’s comments were aimed at traditionalism.”

    Jabba, are you wearing blinkers? Are you really saying that Pope Francis cares about traditional Catholics? Not even the real liberals would agree with you there. I don’t need to give you the very long list of concerns orthodox (for that is what being ‘traditional’ means) Catholics have voiced since Francis became Pope. And no, not just the sadness we feel to see so much of the good work of Pope Benedict being as good as assigned to the archives (especially the clear side-lining of his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum), but the daily tales of abuses against traditional Catholics that the Holy Father does nothing to correct, while going out of his way to be ‘inclusive’ to outsiders.
    Yes, the Pope has the right – the duty in fact – to point out error in our midst. Yet do you never get the feeling he is sometimes barking up the wrong tree?
    It is all this troublesome mess that “these “Remnant” people”, as you derogatorily call them, are asking WHY is he not saying or doing anything about, while nagging on seemingly unstoppably about the phantom “Pharisees” in our midst.

  26. Then when loyal Catholics point this out, they are “Pharisees”, “Restorationists”, “Idealogues”… or any of the long list of insults thrown at us these last two years.
    Well Kathleen, I’ve seen a few “Pharisees” and “Idealouges” on this blog, but who around here (*looking to my left and right*) is a “Restorationist”?🙂

  27. kathleen says:

    @ THR

    Nothing wrong with being a “Pharisee” (if your name is Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea) or an “Idealogue” (if your name is St. Padre Pio or St. Jean Vianney) or a “Restorationalist” (if your name is The Hapsburg Restorationaist!)🙂
    It all depends on the tone and context used.😉

  28. JabbaPapa says:

    Jabba, are you wearing blinkers?

    No — I think that’s the eyegear of preference of a certain highly vocal sub-section of “the Traddies” (and by that term I do not mean orthodox, traditional Catholics just to be ultra-crystal clear).

    Of the by now hundreds of pieces of Francis-bashing I’ve seen by now, whenever I’ve actually done the fact-checking of what the Pope actually said, except for one or two particular exceptions, I’ve almost systematically seen that the allegations made against the Holy Father were inaccurate, exaggerated, or even sometimes directly mendacious.

    I’m sorry kathleen — but you simply cannot expect me to have any respect for a calumnious narrative that is based on the systematic presentation of direct falsehoods.

    I’m as unhappy as the next person when there are other Prelates or Princes who do indeed spread about the sort of confused and uncatholic teachings that have motivated various brave acts of resistance against these things ; and as outraged as any other by the antics of ACTA and other such modernist wreckers.

    I mean : http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/03/ask-father-mass-with-no-collect-readings-etc-but-lots-of-made-up-stuff/

    But the defence of the Orthodoxy is NOT well-served by hysterical claims that “soon” the Church will be teaching divorce, homosexuality, abortion, and all manner of things uncatholic when the very scapegoat they have designated as the so-called source of these gross heresies has in fact very strongly preached against every single one of them.

    These people are like Chicken Little, running around telling everyone the sky is falling.

  29. toadspittle says:

    “Give Us Back Our Catholic Church.”
    We don’t care about other peoples’ Catholic Church.
    We alone know what the Church ought to be, and say, and do.

    “Our” Catholic Church? Is JH’s identical to Rogebert’s?
    Is Habsburg Reupholstering Movement’s the same church as Raven’s?
    Doesn’t each of us have our own church?

    Give Us Back Our Legal System.
    The one that imprisoned homosexuals, and denied women the vote.
    Give Toad back his motor car.
    The one that had a man with a red flag walking in front of it.

  30. In connection with what Jabba Pappa wrote, I’d like to say to Kathleen that in a few months we’ll have the October synod, and folllowing that the “Year of Mercy,” and then we’ll find out just how many of us are “like Chicken Little, running around telling everyone the sky is falling.”

    It won’t be long now, and I will be one of the happiest men in the world if it turns out that all our fears were indeed simply the product of mindless hysteria.

    Until that happens, though, I reserve my right to be afraid, to be very much afraid that the sky really is about to come down on our heads – and down on what is left of the Church.

  31. johnhenrycn says:

    Toad (17:48): ” ‘Our’ Catholic Church? Is JH’s identical to Rogebert’s?”

    What a Toadily silly question! [Thank you, thank you, everyone…] The gentleman to who (or is it to whom?) you refer says that he’s Catholic, “lock, stock and barrel”, but with the “technical loophole” that he does not believe in God.
    http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/how-i-am-a-roman-catholic

    So, in answer to your absurd interrogatory, no: Roger Ebert cannot logically now be a member of any branch or part of the Catholic Church. It’s not that he’s a sinner. Surely I don’t have to address that point? There are people claiming to be Canadians who can’t find Canada on a map. You can be stupid as a cow (present company excepted) and still be a Canadian, but that does not hold true for fully functioning adults who claim to be Catholics but who do not believe in God.

    I take the introductory reference on this thread to “our” Catholic Church to mean that no one with a functioning adult brain who rejects the perfectly clear doctrines of the Faith (and they are all perfectly clear although sometimes difficult for poorly educated or low IQ Catholics to understand, and ofttimes very difficult for serious Catholics to follow) should have the appalling cheek to refer to our Church until he admits the errors of his ways. Point out to me one Catholic doctrine now under serious discussion that’s ambiguous to the better catechised amongst us, not including me.

  32. kathleen says:

    Well dear Jabba, I’ve given you a ‘thumbs up’ vote for your honest reply to me at 17:28, although I do not see the situation in the Church, or this papacy, in the same way as you. For the majority of those supposed “Francis-bashers” are not IMO bashing Francis at all really, but at the errors he allows to run amok within the Church.

    For starters I am not sure who all these “highly vocal sub-section of “the Traddies”” are supposed to be. If you are referring to sedevacantists I might be inclined to agree with you – some of them may go too far on occasions – but I don’t think you are referring just to them.

    Michael Matt of the Remnant is in fact a delightful guy (fellow walker of ours on the annual Chartres pilgrimage by the way) who passionately loves the Catholic Church, and whose only concern is the protection of Our Glorious Faith which he sees as being undermined by traitors in her midst. Matt and Chris Ferrara say on the video that “they do not enjoy criticising Pope Francis”; they are not out to get him because they don’t like him; they recognise him as the true Pope and Christ’s Vicar on Earth. But they, and many many traditional Catholics like them are voicing their deep concerns: e.g. Fr. Z, Cardinal Burke, (and other faithful Cardinals and priests), numerous Catholic bloggers, etc. because these traditional Catholics do not see the very grave problems the Church is facing these days, especially those dealing with members of the hierarchy who are not standing up for Truth (and in some cases are even teaching heresy) are being dealt with satisfactorily by the Holy Father… or even being recognised as problems in some cases! It is truly scandalous.

    Look at just one example of this reigning confusion in the Church Card. Burke mentions.
    As I said in the article: why is it even necessary for almost 500 priests in the UK to feel it necessary to petition the Holy Father to stand firm on Catholic Doctrine at the next Synod of the Family? If they had the same confidence as you appear to have that Pope Francis would not allow the rebel Cardinals (that Francis is also surprisingly pally with, I must add) to undermine the Church’s timeless teachings, there would have been no need for such a letter in the first place.

    There is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – the Bride Who reflects Her Bridegroom’s Majesty – but plenty of those within Her ranks who would like to paint Her in their own fallen image and likeness.

  33. geoffkiernan says:

    JH, I take exception to you calling cows stupid… What about the occasional Bull ( of the Papal variety). Believe me they can be just as stupid. Especially those that masquerade as something they are not.

  34. Brother Burrito says:

    It used to be a commonplace expression in the UK to refer to a woman who had not excelled in feminine ingenuity as “a silly ruminant”.

    Not any more!

  35. toadspittle says:

    “…some of them may go too far on occasions…” says K.
    Toad has long felt “too far,” was the only place worth visiting.

    (Does JH really think I’m on about Roger Ebert? Well, I suppose it’s mildly funny, in a way.)

    “Point out to me one Catholic doctrine now under serious discussion that’s ambiguous to the better catechised amongst us, not including me.”
    Yes, JH, but in order to meet your challenge, we’d have to know who the “better catechised among us,” are. And by whose standards.
    Any clue? I have a faint suspicion you’re shooting yourself in the foot, here.
    (Because I also note priests, the real pros – wisely steer well clear of CP&S; at least, as far as I can tell.)

  36. toadspittle says:

    “Point out to me one Catholic doctrine now under serious discussion that’s ambiguous to the better catechised amongst us, not including me.”

    “20: Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation.”

    Re: JH’s challenge – I looked up Catholic Dogmas (see link.)
    http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm
    Above is No. 20 of “The Catholic Church” Section. Unambiguous to be sure. Under serious discussion? Matter of opinion.
    Maybe what we are asserting here is, “Yes, it may be nonsense, (or, of course, it may not) – but it’s unambiguous nonsense.”

  37. kathleen says:

    “(Because I also note priests, the real pros – wisely steer well clear of CP&S; at least, as far as I can tell.)”

    Actually that is not true Toad. We are on the sidebar, i.e. ‘recommended’, on various priests’ blogs. I know two priests personally who regularly read our articles.
    Priests are busy people with many responsibilities, and don’t have the time to get involved in discussion threads (especially when ‘toads’ abound there😉 )… not even on their own blogs sometimes as Fr. Tim Finnigan eventually decided when he closed his comment section, so it is not surprising they seldom comment here.

    A blessed Holy Week to one and all.

  38. Tom Fisher says:

    I’ve always assumed The Raven is a priest and academic? Not sure why really

  39. JabbaPapa says:

    For starters I am not sure who all these “highly vocal sub-section of “the Traddies”” are supposed to be. If you are referring to sedevacantists I might be inclined to agree with you – some of them may go too far on occasions – but I don’t think you are referring just to them.

    I could not be more specific than that, except by committing the very error of personal calumnies that I’m denouncing !!

    But even so — I could not truthfully say this or that specific group, as I know full well that many in the membership of these existing groups do not commit such errors.

    But I believe that there is a small number of pied pipers who are leading far too large a crowd of traditional Catholics into some perilous sidetracks, away from the straight and narrow.

  40. toadspittle says:

    Surely Toad doesn’t “abound,” Kathleen?
    Like yourself, I am unique.
    (Extremely unique, if not almost unique. Very unique, anyway… Though not totally and utterly perfect.)

    “Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation.”
    No Church – No salvation – No doubt about it. As far as I can see.
    Shame Father Tim is so busy trying to save all men, or he might try explaining how, and why, God permits such a clearly unfair, exclusive, lop-sided, and unsatisfactory, state of affairs – considering current members of The Catholic Church (even including probably several hundred thousand lousy ones, like Toad) comprise – at very best – no more than one in six of the planet’s population.

    http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm
    Great deal of stimulating topics for discussion here.

  41. GC says:

    kathleen: “(Because I also note priests, the real pros – wisely steer well clear of CP&S; at least, as far as I can tell.)”

    Actually that is not true Toad.

    kathleen, if you’re up and about, like Mr Fisher and I am, while all you UK types are still a big bunch of sleepy-heads, you do notice on the feedjit thingy that we sometimes have visitors from the Vatican, no less! That is HQ or Mission Control, I suppose. I have even occasionally noticed North Korea too keeping an eye on things. What ever next? A CP&S desk at MI5?

  42. johnhenrycn says:

    Toadstool:
    “Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation.”

    Haven’t got time this morning for a full response, but will say that I think your quote is a misquote by the website you pulled it from and would like you tell me more ‘about’ that website since it doesn’t seem to have an “About This Blog” link like most reputable sites do.

  43. toadspittle says:

    All I can tell you, JH – is that I typed in ‘Catholic Church Dogma’ (or something similar) and that’s what I got.
    But I can tell you – and Gertrude will happily confirm this – that’s exactly what I was taught as a child, some 60 years ago. Of course, things change, don’t they?
    But let’s certainly get the totally kosher Catholic Dogma site, by all means.

  44. toadspittle says:

    While we gloomily brood, on the website’s “cred” – how about this…

    “God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future.”
    ..and…
    “By the knowledge of vision, God also foresees the future free acts of rational creatures with infallible certainty.”
    But then…
    “Through sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God.”
    I suppose I’d better spell it out – though surely it’s not necessary:
    Why get angry and indignant about something that you already know will happen, and that you, personally, could easily have prevented happening – if you had simply chosen to?
    What would we think of a human being that behaved so irrationally?

    Maybe JH is right to be suspicious – and this website is a load of rubbish. In which case, forget it all. Though it sounds unpleasantly familiar to me.

  45. Frere Rabit says:

    Oh dear, the usual.

  46. No, not the usual. Read the latest pronouncements of the German Bishops’ conference. Or watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGiymGaZp2w

  47. toadspittle says:

    How would I know who’s reading CP&S, GC?
    All I’m saying is very few priests seem to bother to comment. Probably can’t blame them.
    It’s not much fun.

  48. johnhenrycn says:

    Toad (07:38 and 08:04) –

    1. I don’t know any “Rogebert” and even Google doesn’t know any “Rogebert”, so it was reasonable for me to assume you were referring to Roger Ebert, who says he’s a Catholic who doesn’t beieve in God, which sounds a lot like something you would say or approve of.

    2. That website you clicked on attributes the quote you offer (“Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation.”) to Ludwig Ott, but they misquote what Ott actually wrote in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, which is: “Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation.” I have the hard copy of that book in front of me, and his thoughts on this particular point are set forth at pages 312-313. Now, my copy of his book is the 4th edition (1960), not the 1st edition (1955) which your website refers to, but I won’t concede that the 1st edition reads differently until I actually see it, especially since in the 4th edition Dr Ott is quite clear on the point that the necessity of membership in the Church is:

    “…not an absolute necessity, but a hypothetical one [and] in special circumstances, namely, in the case of invincible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership of the Church can be replaced by the desire (votum) for the same. This need not be expressly (explicite) present, but can also be included in the moral readiness faithfully to fulfill the will of God (votum implicitum). In this manner also those who are in fact outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation.”

    .
    This commentary by Ott is in line with all the various catechisms I have at my disposal (at least half a dozen), including the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, and also including children’s catechisms such as the Baltimore Catechism (2nd edition, 1962), which on this point says at page 80:

    “Those who remain outside the Catholic Church through no grave fault of their own and do not know it is the true Church can be saved by making use of the graces which God gives them.”

    3. I accept that your childhood pastor may have told you that all non-Catholics are doomed, full stop, but he was not giving you the whole nine yards, either because he was not fully conversant with Catholic doctrine or because he was following the K.I.S.S. principle, which is quite reasonable when dealing with children who are just getting their feet wet when it comes to dogma.

    4. I have not shot myself “in the foot”. I profess no expert knowledge of Catholic dogma, although I think I know quite a bit about it, but even if I was an expert, that would not mean that I could not be wrong, which is why we have a Magisterium to steer us back onto the straight and narrow path when dodgy websites mislead us. Also to be kept in mind is that even official Catechisms concede that they cannot answer, or fully answer, every theological issue, but when unconditional statements are made, there is no option but to accept them whilst also trying to understand them. Which comes first – acceptance or understanding?

  49. johnhenrycn says:

    Toad (19:47) says: “…very few priests seem to bother to comment [on CP&S]…”
    How do you know that? Just because they don’t identify themselves? If I was a priest, deacon, seminarian, etc. I probably wouldn’t announce it on a Catholic blog (if it was not my blog) for a number of reasons, including not wanting to come across as a big “I AM”.

  50. johnhenrycn says:

    RJB (17:57) – That was a sad video presentation, but as Michael Voris emphasizes near the end, we must not throw in the towel or become despondent. There’s no place left to go:

    “After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

    Jn 6:66-69

  51. louiseyvette says:

    This was a good quote, but it’s not Chesterton!

    “I have always believed that if you need to take your clothes off to get your man, you’ve begun to lose the battle. If you pull it off right, you can do it in a very classy way… Being sexy is about suggestion; it’s about the tease. It’s not about being obvious and forcing yourself out in the open. That takes all the fun out of being a woman.”

  52. johnhenrycn says:

    Ha, ha, Louiseyvette! You’re quite right: my ‘quote’ (00:43 on 28 March) was not actually a Chestertonian one, but there’s a running gag on this blog about how Gilbert is deployed in the service of whatever point one is trying to make. Glad your good eye caught it. Stick around😉

  53. kathleen says:

    Jabba @ 10:42

    I wasn’t expecting you to name those “highly vocal sub-section of the Traddies” that you were referring to (yes, better not to mention names) but just saying I was uncertain who they were. I myself have been called a “Traddie” on more than one occasion… you won’t be surprised to hear! It was supposed to be an insult I suppose, but to be a traditional Catholic (Traddie) means to be one who holds to all the Church’s traditions and refuses to compromise the Faith… and so, instead, it becomes an unintended compliment!😉

    Jabba, if you look at the very revealing video clip Robert links to at 17:57, you will see exactly what I was trying to get at. Michael Voris gives a list of 12 Cardinals – there may well be double that number, or more – who are supporting and preaching grave error, many by their acceptance and support of the evil of sodomy.
    Anything from Pope Francis on calling them up on it?
    Nope – not as far as we can see!
    Why?
    These are ‘papable’ members of the hierarchy from whom could come the next Pope. And they are supportive of one of the four sins “that cries to God for vengeance”!! Can’t you see the travesty in what is happening?
    That is not intended to infer the Pope condones sodomy of course – in fact I am sure he doesn’t – but why does he allow them to continue with their blatant betrayal of Catholic Teaching?

    JH does well to remind us – as Michael Voris does in the video – that we must not become despondent; that is just what the Devil would like. Yet we have no excuse for not raising our voices in protest. Souls are being lost thanks to the false prophets in our midst.

  54. kathleen says:

    GC @ 13:32

    Yes, I’ve noticed the yellow and white Vatican flag fluttering on our feedjit “live traffic feed” on some occasions and wondered who it was, and what they were looking at. Fascinating!😉

    And from North Korea you say? That’s news to me. No, don’t think it’s a militant KGB equivalent “keeping an eye on things” – they’re too insular for that. Instead I have visions of some poor closet Christian in an underground cell with a hidden laptop, terrified of being found out by the atheistic secret police, but risking punishment in his desperate need for some spiritual nourishment.
    God Bless and protect all Christians living in such horrendous situations… for they really do exist, as we well know. Look at Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many others.

  55. Tom Fisher says:

    I don’t know any “Rogebert” and even Google doesn’t know any “Rogebert”,

    He means CP&S commenter Roger, you know, has interesting things to say but writes in the style of Finnegan’s Wake

  56. toadspittle says:

    Sorry JH – re “Rogebert” – another dreadful Toad joke. (Roger, for a while, started signing himself Robert. God knows why. I think he forgot himself.)

    – And thanks for the diligent work regarding Ott. Your reward will not be on this earth.
    – And I’m relieved and delighted your foot remains unshot.
    – And, now I come to think of it – thanks to Louisyvette (lovely name! Cajun?) – that was indeed a hugely highly unlikely Big Gil quote.
    “Sexy” is not a Chesterbellocian word. (But then, neither is Chesterbellocian.)
    – And I was careful to write that no, or very few, priests appear ever to comment on CP&S. For all I know, everyone else on here is in Holy Orders except you and I.
    Though Kathleen is an unlikely candidate.
    – And the thought of thousands of “Princes of the Church” anxiously daily scanning Toad’s ravings is delectable.
    …Though somewhat fanciful.

  57. JabbaPapa says:

    People who fail to realise how many Catholics rejected the teachings of Trent when they were first published. And I don’t mean anything by that, except that things are not so cut and dried as some people present them.

    A pluralism of opinion in the Church is both Catholic and healthy — but this does not mean that opinion is doctrine, and most certainly any false opinion is not.

  58. toadspittle says:

    The situation involving sinners, of various sexual stripe, currently being made less unwelcome than usual in The Church by some of the Princes, as depicted by The Vortex Man* – puts me in mind of the vulgar but perceptive remark by LBJ: “Better have ’em inside the tent, p*ss*ng out – than outside, p*ss*ng in.”

    *It’s all beginning to tell on poor old Michael isn’t it? His wig’s gone all shapeless, and his face all “doughy.” It’s the strain.
    Still, I read that, in 2011, he was inducted into “The Knighthood of the Royal Order of St. Michael of the Wing, Royal House of Portugal.” which comes with a free ‘bachelor crash pad’ in the Algarve, and a year’s supply of Mateus Rose.
    So eat your heart out, Habsburg Repatriationalist!

  59. Tom Fisher says:

    It’s all beginning to tell on poor old Michael isn’t it? His wig’s gone all shapeless, and his face all “doughy.” It’s the strain.

    I noticed that, it feels like yesterday when I first encountered him 6 years ago. To be fair his hair is exactly the same, but his face has certainly not been spared the ravages of time and worry. Lovely man.

  60. Tom Fisher says:

    More seriously: I know John Dew well enough to know that his views are grossly distorted in that video. I can’t speak for the rest of those Michael attacks, but I have good reason to suspect that it distorts the views of the other Cardinals too.

  61. Tom Fisher says:

    I have good reason to suspect that it distorts the views of the other Cardinals too.

    No, my comment above was too strong. — I’ll just say that I know that John Dew is not fairly represented by the video, I think it is possible that others aren’t either

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s