But these days I am astonished to see self-proclaimed “Faithful Conservative Catholics”, in amazing numbers, react to the news that Pope Francis inspires trust in unbelievers, not with the cry, “Great news! Let’s use this opportunity to tell the world about Jesus!” but with “This shows how “humble” Pope Francis is all about trying to be a celebrity and ingratiate himself with the world. The fact that gays and ex-Catholics and the media adore him just goes to show you that he is a heretic compromising the Faith and is a danger to the Church! He must be stopped before he destroys it!”
Folly. Such people don’t want the gospel. They want a little system of order that keeps them safe from the radical demands of love Christ lays upon us. They want to keep people out of the Church and it does not even occur to them to see such a cultural moment as an opportunity. It is entirely a threat to them.
There is no other word to say to such people than “Repent!” It is entirely possible that the millions of hitherto disaffected people warming to the Faith because a little flame of trust is being kindled in their hearts by their affection for Francis will enter the kingdom ahead of you if you don’t. Our task is not to keep out the riff raff and repel boarders. It is to go out into the highways and byways and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame so that the wedding feast will be full.
FEEDJIT
-
Recent Posts
Blog Stats
- 530,908 hits
-
Join 2,354 other followers
Anglicanusenews.blogspot.com
Archives
- June 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- December 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- March 2016
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
Categories
Top Clicks
Meta
Foolishness to the world 
They’re not gonna come back. They found their god in their “friends” or their hobbies. That’s why they treat religion like just another hobby. (Or social club) They’re excited when the Church finally “sees it their way” and have no shortage of venom for anyone who says “No, it is NOT okay.” unless it agrees with their world view which, unless it is in accord with God, is not true.
Salvation depends directly upon the will. We are saved or damned according to what we love. If we love God, we shall ultimately get God: we are saved. If we love self in preference to God, then we shall get self apart from God: we shall be damned. But though in our relation to God the intellect does not matter as much as the will, the intellect DOES matter and these sentimental Catholic theologians who talk about “being welcoming” and “being charitable” do much to neglect the intellect to the great misfortune of the willpower of those people who need the maximum love for God but only have a minimum knowledge of Him. See, this is why when God is portrayed, He is this pleasant fellow played by Morgan Freeman, or some harmless grandfatherly figure who you can conveniently forget when you want to do what you want to do.
For the soul’s full functioning, we need a Catholic intellect as well as a Catholic will. We have a Catholic will when we love God and obey God, love the Church and obey the Church. We have a Catholic intellect when we live consciously in the presence of the realities that God through His Church has revealed. A good working test of a Catholic will is that we should do what the Church says. But for a Catholic intellect, we must also see what the Church sees. This means that when we look out upon the Universe, we see the same Universe that the Church sees; and the enormous advantage of this is that the Universe the Church sees is the real Universe, because she is the Church of God. Seeing what she sees means seeing what is there. And just as loving what is good is sanctity or the health of the will, so seeing what is there is sanity, or the healthy of the intellect.
But in thinking about what I’ve read from Mark Shea, it seems like what the Church sees is no different from shapeless clouds being called whatever we want, or that the self-image of the Church herself is insisted by certain members of which Mark Shea is a part, is one where only the destitute and impoverished and rejected are members, rather than the inclusion of inconvenient saints who, alive in Heaven, have no real reason to approve what Mark Shea and the like want to be approved by the Church. For example, Saint Jerome and Saint Nicholas would not be as “diplomatic” and would say out loud that unless homosexuals and other deviants, including adulterers and fornicators, conform to the commandments of God, then any declaration of charity, compassion, and love are nothing more than hot air from hell.
John,
You wrote: They’re not gonna come back. They found their god in their “friends” or their hobbies. That’s why they treat religion like just another hobby. (Or social club) They’re excited when the Church finally “sees it their way” and have no shortage of venom for anyone who says “No, it is NOT okay.” unless it agrees with their world view which, unless it is in accord with God, is not true.
Well, they are not going to come back until they come to an awareness of their error — but this does seem to be a good summary of the attitude and disposition of hard-core Traditionalists, including the leadership of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and the preponderance of its adherents. They are, however, in a position that is doctrinally inconsistent: they purport to be Catholic even though one cannot be Catholic without being in communion with the pope, with whom they have severed communion.
But in any case, the door remains open to their return to full communion whenever they do come to recognize the truth.
You wrote: For the soul’s full functioning, we need a Catholic intellect as well as a Catholic will. We have a Catholic will when we love God and obey God, love the Church and obey the Church. We have a Catholic intellect when we live consciously in the presence of the realities that God through His Church has revealed. A good working test of a Catholic will is that we should do what the Church says. But for a Catholic intellect, we must also see what the Church sees. This means that when we look out upon the Universe, we see the same Universe that the Church sees; and the enormous advantage of this is that the Universe the Church sees is the real Universe, because she is the Church of God. Seeing what she sees means seeing what is there. And just as loving what is good is sanctity or the health of the will, so seeing what is there is sanity, or the healthy of the intellect.
This paragraph is extraordinarily well stated. In fact, it bears repeating!
You wrote: … the self-image of the Church herself is insisted by certain members of which Mark Shea is a part, is one where only the destitute and impoverished and rejected are members, rather than the inclusion of inconvenient saints who, alive in Heaven, have no real reason to approve what Mark Shea and the like want to be approved by the Church.
An image of the church consisting only of “the destitute and impoverished and rejected” also is theologically wrong. There are a significant number of saints who were royalty or nobility.
Of course, the lives of those saints was marked by their kindness and charity!
Norm.
I don’t know why you even include the SSPX, since any lifting of excommunications by a certain Pope Emeritus don’t matter apparently- in what way do they even matter in Pope Francis’ Pontificate, seeing that they matter as much as the Amish? In fact, the only people who even bother with those people in any sense of the word “bother” are ideologues who pose as guardians of the Magisterium. Make no mistake, ideologues are the ones who support purges in institutes that are inconvenient to whatever they’re pushing in the Catholic Church. Meanwhile, heaps of praises for evangelical protestants, actual schismatics like the Old Catholics, and God knows who else.
What I do object to right now is the current controversy surrounding a bishop’s proclamation of excommunication to those who attend SSPX chapels. Way to go! Maybe they don’t want to be a part of the Church, if that’s how they’re treated now, that is, no shortage of venom especially for the Traditional Mass and their followers. All that charity and mercy and pastoral concern were all used up for the homosexuals and the divorced/remarried. But miraculously, they still acknowledge Francis as Pope. They’d rather not have some sort of Apostolic Visitor to tell them how the Pope wants it.
I do apologize if I started ranting; when a bishop who allegedly opposed the former archbishop of Buenos Aires suddenly pronounces the de facto excommunication of -anyone- who attends SSPX chapels, I don’t know what to think other than things being a mess. It’s a mess outside the Church, it’s a mess inside the Church.
I don’t believe confusion and lack of order, even an order born of rupture from tradition, is anything that conforms to the teachings of the Church, if they can still be interpreted coherently and clearly; if not to Church teaching, then to good sense.
John,
You wrote: I don’t know why you even include the SSPX, since any lifting of excommunications by a certain Pope Emeritus don’t matter apparently- in what way do they even matter in Pope Francis’ Pontificate, seeing that they matter as much as the Amish?
I mention the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) precisely because many Traditionalists who claim to be still within the Catholic Church articulate the same heresies as the SSPX. The status of these Traditionalists is not exactly clear: those who knowingly “adhere to” schismatics (that is, the SSPX) have incurred the canonical penalty of excommunication thereby, but assisting in a mass of the SSPX when one does not have access to a Catholic mass does not, by itself, constitute “adhering to” that group. But in any case, heresy is heresy even if not derived from the same source.
Here, it’s important to note the difference between the SSPX and the Fraternal Society of St. Peter (FSSP) formed by former members of the SSPX who wished to remain in full communion of the Catholic Church, while continuing to celebrate the liturgy according to the Tridentine Use, in the wake of the schism of the SSPX in 1988. The FSSP is fully orthodox in its doctrine, and is in good standing even today.
You continued: In fact, the only people who even bother with those people in any sense of the word “bother” are ideologues who pose as guardians of the Magisterium. Make no mistake, ideologues are the ones who support purges in institutes that are inconvenient to whatever they’re pushing in the Catholic Church. Meanwhile, heaps of praises for evangelical protestants, actual schismatics like the Old Catholics, and God knows who else.
I agree completely with your characterization of ideologues.
That said, I see ideologues at both extremes. Those who think themselves to be “progressive” and those who think themselves to be “defenders of tradition” are equally guilty. The only difference is the specific groups that they disparage.
Here, the magisterium of the church has proven to be wise, recognizing that (1) the character of baptism requires recognition of all who are baptized as brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of the denomination in which they received the sacrament, (2) that those who are raised or evangelized and baptized in other denominations are not personally guilty of the sin of schism, and (3) which is worthy in our separated brethren of all denominations even though, in varying degrees, they lack essential elements of the fullness of Christian faith. We all have a duty to work toward healing of the schisms, without compromising that which is true.
You wrote: What I do object to right now is the current controversy surrounding a bishop’s proclamation of excommunication to those who attend SSPX chapels. Way to go!
In fact, the good bishop did not excommunicate them. Rather, he merely stated that which is fait accompli by operation of the applicable canons of the Codex Juris Canonici (Code of Canon Law). Unfortunately, many Traditionalists who adhere to the SSPX are in abject denial of this reality.
You wrote: All that charity and mercy and pastoral concern were all used up for the homosexuals and the divorced/remarried.
That seems to be a major misconception on your part. The offer of an ecclesial structure specifically for the SSPX, offered that the pope emeritus, remains on the table, and the sole condition of that offer — which is that the SSPX abandon its heresies — has not changed.
You wrote: I don’t believe confusion and lack of order, even an order born of rupture from tradition, is anything that conforms to the teachings of the Church…
It is certainly true that confusion and lack of order do not conform to the teachings of the church.
That said, the notion that the present order of the Roman Rite is somehow a rupture from tradition is exceedingly problematic at best. Pope Paul VI addressed this subject specifically in the “General Instructions” of the missal that he promulgated in 1969, and retained in the most recent edition thereof. Here is the relevant excerpt.
So this is an issue to which the magisterium has spoken definitively.
It’s certainly true that many people perceive a rupture because they fail to appreciate the distinction between doctrine and discipline (practice). There clearly was a fairly abrupt change in practice with the introduction of the present missal, for example, even though there was no change whatsoever in doctrine. And in reality, major deficiencies in catechesis may also be a contributor to this.
Norm.
Deborah,
Also from the linked article:
The words of that one reader are in fact heretical. As the author of the article points out, evangelism is the mission of the church.
Here, I should mention that the “New Evangelism” envisioned by Pope Benedict, which seems to have been neutered somewhere along the way, was intended to bring the gospel to the baptized non-believers within the church, and even within the ranks of the clergy.
Also from the linked article:
Yes, the classic problem of putting the cart before the horse. The Christian life begins with submission of one’s life to the lordship of Jesus. All else flows therefrom.
Evangelical Protestants might have only half a loaf theologically and spiritually (they have scripture but no valid sacraments other than baptism and marriage and their worship falls short of Christian liturgy), but they have pastoral methods that are quite effective even in the current day. As members of the Catholic Church, we would do well to put away our arrogance and have the humility to learn from them.
Norm.
It does seem that that gays and ex-Catholics and the media adore Francis. But *WHY*. The answer to that question is the all-important one. If Francis’s new approach intrigues them and causes them to explore Christ’s words and hence Christ’s Church, and ultimately to come to or return to the practice of the Faith, then great–no complaints. But if Francis’s approach merely “affirms them in their okayness” (to use Mark Shea’s own expression), then they will NOT be coming back to Christ–they see no need for it, being apparently sufficiently okay already. And that would be a tragedy.
Kathleen,
You wrote: If Francis’s new approach intrigues them and causes them to explore Christ’s words and hence Christ’s Church, and ultimately to come to or return to the practice of the Faith, then great–no complaints. But if Francis’s approach merely “affirms them in their okayness” (to use Mark Shea’s own expression), then they will NOT be coming back to Christ–they see no need for it, being apparently sufficiently okay already. And that would be a tragedy.
Some years ago, I was on a spiritual renewal weekend in which one of the leaders made the comment: “Where you are today is okay for today because it’s where God has brought you, or at least allowed you to be, but it is not okay for tomorrow because God is calling you to grow spiritually.” I have never forgotten that comment. In order to come to faith, the unchurched must start where they are in their spiritual lives. If you are in Seattle and you want to go to Orlando, a plane ticket from Chicago to Orlando won’t do you much good because you must start where you are instead of where you wish you were — and the same is true of our spiritual lives.
But an outreach that says, “You’re okay where you are, and you don’t need to change,” is NOT Christian ministry. Rather, Christian ministry must lead people to a firm commitment of faith that submits their whole lives to the lordship, the reign, of Jesus. Once that happens, our Lord will lead them away from sin, once they submit their lives to his kingship.
Norm.
Hi Rev22:17,
You write: “But an outreach that says, ‘You’re okay where you are, and you don’t need to change,’ is NOT Christian ministry.”
That is exactly what I am afraid of with Francis’s approach. Sure, there is currently a lot of interest in *Francis himself* amongst the unchurched, but I have yet to see any interest in *Christ* or waves of conversions.