Here's what one priest thinks: https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2017/07/27/a-new-and-encouraging-form-of-collegiality/ A New – and Encouraging – Form of Collegiality? Fr. Mark A. Pilon THURSDAY, JULY 27, 2017 A recent article in L’Osservatore Romano by an Italian priest who teaches biblical theology is yet another example of the way the present papacy seems to look at priests and bishops who do not join in lockstep with the pope. I’ve never heard of this priest, Giulio Cirignano, but, evidently, he has some standing with the present regime. The good father is clearly echoing an attitude that is prominent among the closest members of the papal entourage when he says: “The clergy is holding the people back, who instead should be accompanied in this extraordinary moment. . . .The main obstacle . . . is constituted . . . by the attitude of a good part of the clergy, at levels high and low . . . an attitude, at times, of closure if not hostility.” This has become a frequent refrain in the pope’s own comments, i.e., that many clergy are rigid, closed, and hostile when it comes to his innovative teaching and practice. In my lifetime, I’ve never witnessed this kind of hostility coming from the papal office toward those who are meant to be co-workers in the vineyard of the Lord. I try to imagine how such badgering of the clergy would have been looked at if it were a so-called “conservative” pope doing this. Suppose Pope John Paul II had been using this kind of language toward priests who were resisting his teaching. That great pope was anything but naïve, and he understood well that many clergy, including some bishops and cardinals, were resistant to the constant teaching of the church on matters like contraception, women priests, and divorce and remarriage. Yet never – to my knowledge – did he demean clergy who disagreed with him. Or I try to imagine what would have been the response of the world’s press, secular and Catholic, if it had become known, say, that John Paul II had refused an audience to a group of cardinals who rejected his teaching on communion for the divorced and remarried in Familiaris Consortio. Imagine how outraged the secular and liberal Catholic world would have been had that pope treated his own privileged counselors in such a manner. And yet Pope Francis seems to be the “Teflon” pope. No matter what he says or does in relation to his beloved clergy and cardinals, it doesn’t seem to affect his image as the compassionate, merciful, open pope. Maybe this is all we can expect in a world where truth matters little compared with images. But there is something interesting in this article that I haven’t seen commented on. This particular article confirmed for me, in a backhanded sort of way, some things about the reception of the more controversial aspects of Amoris Laetitia, and how it all related to the notion of collegiality laid down in Vatican II. This Italian priest and the editors of the pope’s own newspaper obviously felt it quite necessary, or at least opportune, to browbeat clergy and bishops once again for their failure to get in line with the pope. And why? Perhaps it seemed urgent because this resistance was in fact not minor, but it involved a “good part of the clergy, at levels high and low.” Evidently, the urgency had to do with the fact that this resistance was quite widespread, and someone, somewhere hoped that a clever analysis by a theologian might reverse that trend. The fact that this resistance is the real story struck me some time ago. Sure, you can count on the usual suspects like the German hierarchy, or the bishops from the pope’s own country, or from a tiny island diocese. But the fact remains that the vast, vast majority of local Church hierarchies around the world are remaining silent, and a good number of individual bishops are openly confirming their flock in the traditional practice of the Church regarding communion for the divorced and remarried. This silence is itself the big story. It bespeaks the urgency of the matter. The Pope Francis contingent in the Church universal expected that the national hierarchies would fall in line quite easily. Yet this expectation is itself somewhat surprising, given the open resistance at the two synods to any such innovative practices as Communion for the divorced and remarried who had not received annulments. Only the manipulations of the Synod and its results made it possible for these innovations to make their way into the pope’s exhortation. But the manipulators obviously thought that blind obedience would follow once the pope had spoken. It didn’t. And what this grand silence really bespeaks, therefore, is collegiality in the true sense of that term. It seems the bishops of the world have great respect for the papal office and are hesitant to make any public display of disagreement that might embarrass the pope and undermine his office. A friend told me it was sort of like the sons of Noah covering the nakedness of their drunken father so that he would not be embarrassed. Nonetheless, it’s simply a fact that the vast majority of bishops have not signed on to the interpretation of the Germans, the Argentineans, or the Maltese bishops. Nor have they given a rousing support to the “official” interpretation of Vienna’s Cardinal Schönborn. One of the ecclesiological purposes for calling Vatican II was to establish a certain re-balancing of the teaching on papal primacy in Vatican I. This balancing was, in fact, the teaching on collegiality, the close official relationship of all the bishops of the world to the pope, and the importance of collegiality in the exercise of the papal prerogatives. The way this collegiality is exercised is complex. For instance, synods are a certain exercise of collegiality, but they do not exhaust the ways in which collegiality can take place. We’ve now learned that one exercise of collegiality, perhaps not anticipated at that Council, may well occur through silence in the face of a possible case of papal overreach.
Yes, Denis , I suppose the bottom line is we will more and more have to turn to Our Lord and His Blessed Mother quite directly as the darkness deepens. But if we ask God will answer , we have His promise. The only difficulty is when we get an answer we don;t like we are inclined not to listen to it. But Christians throughout history have been through trials like this, so I suppose it is nothing new. we will just have to trust. In God we Trust, now where have I heard that before.
Sorry, Jarg, for omitting the article quoted in your post - leaving it in brought my post over the permitted text allowance: Here's an opinion from Dr. Jeff Mirus, co-founder of Christendom College: L’Osservatore Romano’s latest gambit: Preferring culture to truth? By Dr. Jeff Mirus Jul 24, 2017 http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=1484 To avoid choking, one can only smile at the latest essay in L’Osservatore Romano which claims that Pope Francis’s plan for renewal is accepted by the “people” but resisted by “priests and bishops”. Typical of Vatican periodicals during this pontificate, the article is long on cultural rhetoric and short on moral and doctrinal distinctions. Once again we see the Holy Spirit portrayed as the spirit of renewal at the expense of ceasing to be the spirit of truth. The reader can hardly be surprised that the most recent example, an article by the Florentine theologian Giulio Cirignano, fails to identify particular issues on which anyone has advanced either a right or a wrong position. Instead, his approach is all smoke and mirrors. Entitled “The Conversion Asked by Pope Francis: Habit is not Fidelity”, the article rests on two claims offered without the slightest evidence: “Most of the faithful have understood, despite everything, the favorable moment, the Kairos, which the Lord is giving to his community. For the most part, they’re celebrating.” “The clergy is holding the people back, who instead should be accompanied in this extraordinary moment…. The main obstacle…is constituted…by the attitude of a good part of the clergy, at levels high and low…an attitude, at times, of closure if not hostility.” In other words, Cirignano asserts that such pastors seek to hold the people back “behind an old horizon, the horizon of habitual practices, of language out of fashion, of repetitive thinking without vitality.” Why smile, then? Only because such statements will be affirmed only by partisans; they can never pass for clarity of thought. The author says absolutely nothing substantive. He praises and denounces entirely without evidence. We have listened to such drivel for years, always coming from those who desire status in a culture that has first abandoned the faith and then driven it away. Their sycophantic mantra amounts to nothing more than this: “Get with it! The future is now! The answer is blowing in the wind! It’s 2017! Oh, and by the way, resistance is futile.” In praise of confusion? Whenever people speak or write in this way it is because they wish to justify some position or course of action which is likely to meet greater resistance if it is clearly articulated. For Catholics, it is always at least potentially dangerous to say flatly: “The Church is wrong in teaching that behavior X is always immoral or that doctrine Y is always true.” Instead, Catholics who sell their souls to the dominant culture undermine Catholic beliefs by accusing those who wish to clarify them of “repetitive thinking without vitality.” The rule is simple: Never directly contradict what the Church teaches. Instead, insist on opennesswhile attacking the character of those who seek clarity. As a prime example, consider the Cardinals who asked to speak with Pope Francis about several serious questions which seemed to be blurred in the text of Amoris Laetitia. The Pope refused even to grant them an audience. Instead, in various interviews he denounced persons who raise such issues as “rigid”, as incapable of understanding the good he is trying to do—as being so stupid, apparently, that they have missed the whole point. Unsurprisingly, those who seek preferment, including the most prominent contributors to Vatican publications today, take exactly the same line. Note that such material is always published not as a rigorous argument but as a kind of celebration of the new order—a recognition, perhaps, of “the favorable moment…the Lord is giving to his community.” For this reason, the point of contention is never clearly identified with Church teaching. Instead, it is identified with the cramped and backward mentalities of those who, by defending the Faith, somehow prove that they do not want it to flourish. What, after all, is the first reason given for the sad failure of so many priests and bishops to appreciate the vision of Pope Francis? They have attained, wrote Cirignano, only a “modest cultural level”. Truly, we should not be smiling after all. We should be laughing out loud.
It's all quite crazy. This is one member of the Faithful who is not, 'Celebrating' , what is going on. This is work of the devil in that it is divisive, trying to set laypeople against clergy.
It is crazy. Thank God there are learned Catholics like Dr. Mirus capable of defending the faith and exposing some of the Vatican's hypocrites. He summed them up with these few sentences: "Whenever people speak or write in this way it is because they wish to justify some position or course of action which is likely to meet greater resistance if it is clearly articulated. For Catholics, it is always at least potentially dangerous to say flatly: “The Church is wrong in teaching that behavior X is always immoral or that doctrine Y is always true.” Instead, Catholics who sell their souls to the dominant culture undermine Catholic beliefs by accusing those who wish to clarify them of “repetitive thinking without vitality.” The rule is simple: Never directly contradict what the Church teaches. Instead, insist on openness while attacking the character of those who seek clarity." God help us.
The problem is that the vast majority of Catholics will miss the boat on this. Many will of course by aware in a kind of vague ill defined way that something is amiss. But for many, many Catholics their Faith is very, very far from the centre of their lives. They have no time to even try to understand issues of concern. For them the Pope and the Curia in Rome are flying the plane. The fact that the plane may be flown directly to hell with them aboard would never even occur to them This does not mean they are guiltless in this. If they had been paying more attention to God they would have been paying more attention to the fact that the plane they are on board has just been hi jacked. I think many souls at Judgement Day will say of these times , 'But Lord I never had the time to consider these things'. I also think many souls, Bishops and Cardinals will say, 'I thought it more prudent to keep quiet' and will get an equally cold reception from heaven. These really are very, very testing times. On the other hand it is quite delightful that the Church as a whole seems to have started very much sitting up and taking notice. The great sleeping giant is starting to awaken and look around him.
PART ONE THE PROFESSION OF FAITH SECTION TWO THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH CHAPTER TWO I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, THE ONLY SON OF GOD ARTICLE 7 "FROM THENCE HE WILL COME AGAIN TO JUDGE THE LIVING AND THE DEAD" I. HE WILL COME AGAIN IN GLORY The Church's ultimate trial 675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.576 676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,577 especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.578 677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.579 The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.580 God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.581
Wow, ludicrous. Here is another layperson who is not celebrating the new agenda. I can tell you, though, I know several liberal Catholics that think like this newspaper article speaks. they do not understand the pushback from people and clergy to the pope's wishes. But these are the people that like liturgical dancing up the aisles and a more Protestant-ized liturgy. It is mind boggling really. I have had several conversations with our choir mistress, a good soul, but quite unmovable in her liberal leanings. We had a slight run in once about my daughter taking communion. My daughter is in the choir and she had not gone to confession. My daughter said she needed to go to confession and she didn't want to take communion. We were unable to go on Saturday and so at Sunday Mass, I told the choir director my daughter was not going to communion. The choir director said " Oh she can go, she is a child and doesn't so anything that bad" To which I replied, that it was my daughters decision and she knows if she needs to go to confession or not. I don't pry about her sins but try and council her about venial vs grave sin. The director said, "But Father would want her to go so she can go." I knew at this late moment before Mass that I wasn't going to convince her so I took my daughter aside and told her to go up to communion as normal with the choir and then at the last minute, cross her arms so Father would give her a blessing. The choir director was not happy after Mass but too bad. This is the thinking of this false mercy bs that I see from a lot of Catholics. It's like there is no sin and the rules set down by Christ are no big deal and can be "fudged" depending on the circumstances. The false mercy is not mercy at all. It is cruel and unmerciful. We are going farther down the rabbit hole to hell, imo. I pray everyday for our pope and church leaders. At least the clergy seem to be pushing back, according to this article. I do know many lay people who do NOT like what the pope is doing so the author is a little out of touch in that regard.
'The false mercy is not mercy at all. It is cruel and unmerciful. We are going farther down the rabbit hole to hell, imo.' Beautifully put. There is one thing I have noticed travelling round the little country Churches in Ireland that I have never seem before, at least I do not remember it. That is very,very large banners with Pope Francis's portrait on it. I never ever recall seeing that for any previous Pontiff. Even a great Pope like Pope St John Paul 2. Oh yes sometimes pictures of Popes, small painting and pictures but not these huge banners with quotes and him smiling down. On at least two occasions I have heard him described from the pulpit as, 'The greatest Pope in history'. Again a first for me. On the other hand I don;t recall any priest or Bishop ever asking a question. Sometimes I get the feeling of veiled questions but am uncertain. Also I go to a traditional Latin Mass every Sunday so if someone was to question you would think it would be then, but no. In the Catholic Press here I think there was been a huge change in the wind to ask questions though. It has occurred very,very late but there is no doubt they are starting to freak out at what is going on. I think the difficulty with the Catholic Church in Ireland is that it very much a tight organisation thing. I think the options to ask questions would be few and far between. I would greatly pity a priest or nun who dared to ask questions , especially about Rome. As to lay people..well where can we ask questions really? How can we ask them? Is anyone listening? For Ireland, I think our great hope is what is going on in the Universal Church, the questions that are being asked elsewhere. What a pity, you might think the Irish would have been a little more, well feisty.
Have you seen poster for the World Meeting of Families standing beside the altar in some churches? The first time I saw it was in Knock basilica. I couldn't believe my eyes. It must be at least 4ft high and freestanding with a big picture of the Pope on it - a real distraction at Mass (see the bottom right on the pictures in attached link to the WMOF website http://www.worldmeeting2018.ie/WMOF/media/downloads/WMOF2018-June-Order-Form-Donwloadable.pdf). A church near me has one standing beside the altar on the same side of the church where I always sat when attending Mass there. I sit on the opposite side now. This stuff feeds into the personality cult surrounding Pope Francis promoting him as Jesus come in the flesh. And before anyone attacks me for making an outrageous comment, our focus at Mass is supposed to be on Jesus in the Eucharist and not on an advertising campaign. The picture of the Pope is huge and the print is so small it defeats the purpose of the ad - assuming the purpose is to promote the WMOF and not the man in the picture. It would be laughable if it weren't so serious.
Yes, it seems really weird to me. I have never seen anything like it before. I am so glad I am not the only one who noticed and is concerned. in either event they seems out of place, distracting
I also cannot stand these stand-up banners that seem obligatory on every altar now. Where are they coming from? They are not artistic, they are not beautiful, they are ugly and make me feel like I'm at a better homes exhibition instead of holy mass. One of the churches I attend still has the year of mercy banner standing. It's like they're just trying to fill space or something, like they think people need a constant visual distraction in addition to all the audio distractions we are constantly being bombarded with (don't get me started on piped music during mass...).
The one thing that is truly happening with all this nonsense. is a blessing really. As the Church hierarchy, supported by its failed newspaper, dives deeper and deeper into their true agenda, more laity and clergy are seeing the unmasking of anything but true Catholicism. The Catholicism of what we had from the late 70's through 2oo5 is nothing close to what is being being taught by Pope Francis and his minions. Clearly the lines are being drawn and this is a good thing.
This post led me to have a look at some euthanasia videos, and found one that says it all for those of us who believe we should respect what God has decided for our end of life date. Remember to kill oneself can lead to eternal loss. Ex nun, ex catholic, extinct !!! God have mercy on her soul.
Exactly, it is very much of the style of Saul Alinsky, 'you treat people not like people but like symbols, you polarize them, and you dress it all with moral garments,' that was Alinsky's pathway to bring about political change. The end justifies the means.
This is Fr Ray Blake response to the article in l'osservatore Romano: http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-reception-of-pope-francis.html I am not sure, like most Catholic clergy nowadays, that the Orthodox are not Catholic or part of the Catholic Church, as one might say the churches founded in the sixteenth century are not, or those without valid sacraments are not. Of course those who receive baptism are always in some sense part of the Catholic Church, even if after baptism they go into schism. With the 'two lung' theory one might suggest that the Catholic Church itself is deficient without a unity of East and West and the Orthodox would say the same, hence the reaching out of East and West. In practice one could even suggest that the Great Schism of 1054 only came into effect in 1870 with Vatican I. Until then there seemed to a fair degree of inter-communion, even the acceptance of mutual jurisdiction, Orthodox nuns sought out Jesuit confessors, even Orthodox declarations of marriage dissolution/divorce* were often accepted in most parts of Italy and most of parts of the Catholic world east of Italy. And although as in the Eucharist we might have expressed our theology very differently that these expressions were actually cultural rather than actually an expression of different beliefs, ultimately we could both say, "this is Jesus". Yesterday I was listening to Austin Ivereigh on the BBC, the self appointed Papal apologist, who was speaking about the 'reception or non-reception' of Amoris Laetitia and the Holy Father's teaching or even reign and in Saturday's L'Osservatore there was this fascinating article which speaks of the Italian clergy, high and low opposing Francis. The inference being the Pope was a goody the clergy baddies and ignorant too. Historically that is not how the Church works and this article will probably only serve to highlight the isolation of the Pope and encourage others to speak about it. I rarely agree with Ivereigh, I often wonder if the Pope does but I think that his reference to'reception' is important. In the West we have a very feudal and increasingly from the US a presidential attitude to authority, which sees it coming down from above and is imposed on those below. The Orthodox approach is I suspect a little more 'Catholic', certainly patristic, it is that Councils and Bishops teach but this is their teaching not the Church's belief until it is accepted by the whole Church (St Vincent of Lerrins, Catholic faith is that believed always, everywhere and by all). Thus 'The Faith' is the belief of the whole Church and certainly not a few of its hierarchy. Indeed a Pope or Bishop cannot identify themselves as the Church they are ultimately as significant or insignificant as anyone else. Newman interestingly wrote after Vatican I that what the non placet party did and what happened to them was of great importance, obviously he was interested in the long term reception of the teaching Vatican I, post Vatican II we might be thinking not of Old Catholics but of the East too. In the early days of this Pope's reign when he so often described himself not as Pope but as Bishop of Rome I thought that we might move to an understanding papacy acceptable to the lungs of both East and West, in line with Patristic teaching, and what I would say was in line with truly Catholic sentiment. A bishop has authority only because he acts in communion with his diocese and with the Church Catholic (the Church in Heaven and on Earth). The Bishop of Rome is no different, indeed than being President of the Church or even its monarch he is the servant of the servants, a title little used nowadays. I have been bashed by a notorious sedevacantist recently; no rational person would question the election of Francis, he is Pope, despite the manipulations of the St Gallen group. What is a much more a Catholic concern is the acceptance of Francis' teaching, ultimately how the Church will remember him, indeed if it will remember him at all or as little more than a brief historical throwback or curio. Remembering or not remembering is how the Western Church really deals teaching from above, from Councils, Popes and Bishops. If the L'Osservatore article is correct, and there is no reason to imagine that it is not, or that it is just reserved to Rome or Italy, it would seem that despite popular acclaim of journalists and those outside or the edge of the Church that the clergy as it says 'high and low' -and presumably the committed laity- will quickly forget Francis, most of them of course will still continue when Francis moulders silently in his tomb amongst his predecessors. 'In the end the Lord wins'. *On the Orthodox divorce practice, I had a discussion with an Orthodox priest who said, it was practice of Orthodoxy but not its belief because it was plainly contrary to scripture and contrary to Orthodox practice, generally, of lifelong loving Orthodox marriages and therefore it could not be deemed 'accepted or received Orthodox teaching'.
While it is a true statement in itself, the way in which this 'no one is excluded from God's mercy' seems to used is so deceitful. It really points to the Protestant understanding of mercy. Because God excludes no one from His mercy, then no one can be excluded from the Eucharist. Exclusion from the Eucharist is becoming seen as an old habit, a form of discrimination in this new madness. Specially those who proudly lead a sinful life of self realization should be able to conciliate such life with the full reception of the sacraments - of course no need to amend your life even if you happen to go to confession, that would mean being too harsh on youserlf and Jesus doesn't ask you to amend your life, that is tradiotional rigidity. Welcome to the church of 'I do not condemn you' 'go and be a peace with your sin', because 'no one can be excluded from God's mercy.' But if you are part of the mafia or you are an entrepreneur that exploits people, you are excluded from the mercy club, you are not forgivable.
I do believe it is the Truth to say "No one can be excluded from Mercy." But Truth requires us to seek or reach out for Mercy, and this means having the humility to ask. This IMHO can only be done once we acknowledge our sinfulness along with our desire to Repent and make amends, under the Sacrament of Confession in the first place. It has always intrigued me as to why Jesus only gave the authority to absolve sin after His Resurrection. And it was in a very formal definite way. "For those whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven. For those whose sins you retain, they are retained." During Jesus ministry, He gave the power to heal and cast out devils. And this seemed to indicate the forgiveness of sin as an inclusive gift from God. But after His Resurrection, Absolution (or pardon for sinners) was a very formal Heavenly Gift to the Priesthood. It truly astounds me. Praised be Jesus and Mary.
Padraig, Is what we are experiencing now the final trial of the church? I know that you have not directly stated that it is but I don't believe so. I don't believe that we could be right at the doorstep of the Bride coming down from heaven, roughly, the minimum amount of time until this happens would need to be approximately 7 years, of course it could be many more years away. I will attempt to explain why I think it is a minimum of 7 years away. It is a pretty wide held believe that the war discussed in Ezekiel 38/39 which is referred to the Gog/Magog war has not occurred yet. I think this is true because it appears to point to the conversion of the Jews amongst other thing which have not happened. Our Catechism does state that the Jews will convert before the Second Coming: 674 The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by "all Israel", for "a hardening has come upon part of Israel" in their "unbelief" toward Jesus.569 St. Peter says to the Jews of Jerusalem after Pentecost: "Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old."570 St. Paul echoes him: "For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?"571 The "full inclusion" of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles",572 will enable the People of God to achieve "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ", in which "God may be all in all".573 Some people believe that the Gog/Magog war is the same as Armageddon but if we believe that the final judgment directly follows Armageddon, as I believe our Catechism states, then the Gog/Magog could not be Armageddon, IMO. In Ezekiel 38/39, it states that Israel will be burning weapons for 7 years and I don't believe that there will be any need to burn weapons for seven years after the Bride comes down from heaven. Just to clarify what I my thoughts are, there must be a minimum of 7 years before the Second Coming after the Gog/Magog war. I am not certain when this war will occur but I am closely watching the situation in the Middle East. I also do not know how many years after it we will experience the glorious Messiah's coming but at least a minimum of 7 years. Again, this is only my opinion.
