[continued] After Pope Francis rejected Sarah’s call last year for priests to celebrate mass ad orientem, contempt for Sarah broke out in a shower of blows: “It is highly unusual for the Vatican to publicly slap down a Prince of the Church, yet not entirely surprising given how Cardinal Sarah has operated…” (Christopher Lamb, Tablet); “the Pope slapped down Cardinal Sarah quite strongly, with only a bit of face-saving spared him,” (Anthony Ruff, Pray Tell); “Pope slaps down Sarah” (Robert Mickens, on Twitter); “Pope Francis … slapped him down” (Mickens again, in Commonweal); “a further slap-down” (Mickens once more, a few months later in La Croix). Added up, it makes for quite a beating. Exchanging charges of insensitivity is probably not the best way to settle doctrinal disputes, but the rhetoric of Sarah’s critics reveals something important about Catholic life today: in disputes doctrinal, moral and liturgical, liberal Catholics have become ecclesial nationalists. Traditional Catholics tend to support consistent doctrinal standards and pastoral approaches regardless of national boundaries. If they do not actually prefer the Latin Mass, they want vernacular translations to track the Latin as closely as possible. They are not scandalised by the way Africans speak of homosexuality or Middle Eastern Christians of Islamism. Liberal Catholics, meanwhile, campaign for vernacular translation written in idiomatic style and approved by national bishops’ conferences, not by Rome. Local realities require truth to be trimmed whenever it crosses a border. Catholic doctrinal statements should be couched in pastorally sensitive language – sensitive, that is, to the sensibilities of the educated, wealthy West. One of the advantages of ecclesial nationalism is that it allows liberals to avoid arguing on direct doctrinal grounds, where traditional “rigorists” tend to have the upper hand. If truth must be mediated by local realities, no man in Rome or Abuja will have much say over the faith of Brussels and Stuttgart (this was the point behind Kasper’s dismissal of Africans). One sees this in writers like Commonweal’s Rita Ferrone, who says that rather than heeding Sarah, English speakers should be “trusting our own people and our own wisdom concerning prayer in our native tongue”. The “we” behind that “our” is not global and Catholic, but bourgeois and American. What if instead of being put back in his place, slapped down and locked up for violating Western speech codes, Sarah becomes pope? This is what his critics fear most. Mickens writes of the dark possibility of a “Pius XIII (also known as Robert Sarah)”. Lamb says that Sarah may turn out to be “the first black Pope”. (That would be a beautiful thing – Sarah’s parents, converts in the remote Guinean village of Ourous, assumed that only white men could become priests and laughed when their son said he wanted to go to seminary.) The same well-connected Vatican watcher who told me that Sarah’s stock fell during the synod now says his fortunes are improving. “People have noticed all the attacks, and his gracious refusal to respond in kind.” It is indeed remarkable that Sarah has suffered this hail of abuse with such grace. In his newly published book The Power of Silence, we hear his stifled cry of anguish: I painfully experienced assassination by gossip, slander and public humiliation, and I learned that when a person has decided to destroy you, he has no lack of words, spite and hypocrisy; falsehood has an immense capacity for constructing arguments, proofs and truths out of sand. When this is the behaviour of men of the Church, and in particular of bishops, the pain is still deeper. But … we must remain calm and silent, asking for the grace never to give in to rancour, hatred and feelings of worthlessness. Let us stand firm in our love for God and for his Church, in humility. Despite it all, Sarah is a man unbowed. His book reiterates his call for Mass ad orientem and the rest of the “reform of the reform”: “God willing, when he wills and as he wills, the reform of the reform will take place in the liturgy. Despite the gnashing of teeth, it will happen, for the future of the Church is at stake.” If Sarah has refused to make himself pleasing to those who run Rome, he is not about to serve any other party either. In this wonderfully individual book, he tells old Islamic folktales, dotes on the suffering and weak, and decries military intervention: “How can we not be scandalised and horrified by the action of American and Western governments in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria?” Sarah views these as idolatrous outpourings of blood “in the name of the goddess Democracy” and “in the name of Liberty, another Western goddess”. He opposes the effort to build “a religion without borders and a new global ethics”. If that seems hyperbolic, recall that six days after missiles hit Baghdad, Tony Blair sent George W Bush a memo saying, “Our ambition is big: to construct a global agenda around which we can unite the world … to spread our values of freedom, democracy, tolerance.” Sarah views this programme as something close to blasphemy. He has equally pungent views on the modern economy: “The Church would commit a fatal mistake if she exhausted herself in giving a sort of social face to the modern world that has been unleashed by free-market capitalism.” War, persecution, exploitation: all these forces are part of a “dictatorship of noise”, whose incessant slogans distract men and discredit the Church. In order to resist it, Sarah turns to the example of Brother Vincent, a recently deceased young man whom Sarah dearly loved. Only if we love and pray like Vincent can we hear la musica callada, the silent music the angels played for John of the Cross. Yes, this book shows that Sarah has a great deal to say: on the mystical life, the Church and world affairs. But for the most part he keeps silence – while the world talks about him. Matthew Schmitz is literary editor of First Things and a Robert Novak Journalism Fellow
I wouldn't say that they want to give Cardinal Sarah a sound thrashing. More likely they're praying for his early demise. Seeing Cardinal Marx at Cardinal Meisner's funeral, I did wonder whether he would be back later to dance on the saintly Cardinal's grave. Before I'm attacked for making unChristian remarks about a prince of the Church, I would remind you all of Cardinal McCarrick's glee at the prospect of older Cardinals and Bishops dying off and being replaced by Pope Francis. If it's not a sin for a friend of the Pope to adopt such an attitude, it can't be a sin for me to assume that all the Pope's friends share the attitude. Show me your company and I'll show you what you are.
Cardinal Sarah is not a stick in the mud old fashioned rigid conservative. Nor is Cardinal Muller, nor are Cardinals Burke, Caffarra, Meisner, Brandmuller, Schneider, or a whole host of other Cardinals who are now being demonized. They are not radicals, they are Catholic. It is not they who stepped away from what has always been taught, it is the left wing liberal Modernists who have stepped away from the truth. The fact that these Cardinals who never stood out for their views in past papacies are now being portrayed as the enemies of "progress" and their very loyalty to the Church is in question is a sign of the times. The hour is late. What is happening is nothing new. St. Joan was demonized too and called a schismatic and a heretic and eventually killed as were many other saints who held on to the truth of Christ's teachings. What is happening now however is something that is totally unprecedented in Church history. The very top echelons of the Church are stepping away from Catholicism. In the past when there has been apostasy, schism and heresy, they have always come from fringe groups or breakaway sects. Now the attack is coming from within the Church, indeed from the very center. The walls have been breached. When the Shepherd is struck the sheep scatter.
I agree with everything you have said, except the last sentence. In this case it is the Shepherd that is doing the striking and scattering the sheep. Like Pope Emeritus Benedict said, "God wins int he end" and I hope Pope Francis dwells on this wisdom.
As Father Hunwicke pointed out in his column just today, the demographics indicate that it is the most heretical generation who are the ones predominantly about to become acquainted with 'Beloved Sister Death' in the next decade or so. The good Father is quietly confident of the light appearing at the end of this dark tunnel. Of course, it may be a much smaller Church in the West, but perhaps not so small in Africa and Asia.
Found this by coincidence on the web. It's pretty amazing. It seems to be from a lutheran pastor but you would not believe it! It is very pertinent to the situation in the Church right now. For your discernment... 'Today we hear again and again that all contention in one's own church and between our churches must finally be ended. It is said that people are tired of contention; rather, we ought to bear with one another in mutual trust and love. On this topic we have heard from Luther in his comments on Galatians about the capacity of Christian love for gentleness, patience and the mutual bearing of one another's weaknesses. But we have also heard how love is misused if it is set in opposition to God's clear Word. Love which is concerned for the salvation of the sinner and his preservation in the grace of Christ cannot and will not shut its eyes to spiritual dangers. It is a devilish lie which announces, "Peace, peace....when there is no peace" (Jr 6:14). Jeremiah warns his people against false prophets, who speak contrary to what God says and in such a way lull people into a false security. In Jeremiah's time the message concerned an outward danger, or better, the punishment decreed by the Lord for Judah. His message was rejected by the false prophets as mad raving. Jeremiah contended with God's Word for the salvation of his people, but the people would no longer listen. The prophet with his divine message became an offense. Today, if we may venture the comparison, the situation is similar. What we are concerned with is not an outward danger but spiritual danger to souls. Christ would warn us against being misled by false teachers. He commands us to teach that every departure from his Word deceives souls. Yet we hear from representatives of the sister churches whom we could name, "Don't worry." But Paul writes to Timothy, "Fight the good fight of the faith." In Hebrews 12:1 it is written, "Let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us." And Paul again, to the Philippians: "Conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel, without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you" (Php 1:27,28). Many other Bible passages describe the battle of faith. Doing battle for the truth—and naturally, contention only in that sense—pertains not only to Christ's command as it concerns our own individual salvation. It is also for the sake of those who through Christ's mission command are to be brought to eternal life that we need to contend for the purity of the Word of God. They too must struggle against all the wiles of the devil. If it were not for him who is "a murderer from the beginning" (Jn 8:44) and who with deep guile and great might desires to pull people down to destruction, we would not need to use the Word of God as a weapon. Church history teaches that the church's peaceful ages have always been characterized by a sluggish faith. Such periods were thus also the times that favored false doctrine. Since the devil cannot tolerate the Word of God, even a single Word that God has given, he will not rest from his seducing and confusing. But also "he who watches over Israel will neither slumber nor sleep" (Ps 121:4). Our Lord Jesus Christ still speaks today just as he did then to his disciples, "Teach them to obey everything I have commanded you." Thereby he commits to us his powerful, saving means of grace, Word and sacraments. In them he grants to his church its only comfort in an evil world. In them he also provides our only means for recognizing spiritual danger. Only in the use of his means of grace, that is, through continuing in his Word and doing it, has he promised us that we will reach the goal. May God in his grace help us to that end! Amen.' http://www.wlsessays.net/bitstream/handle/123456789/3881/StoehrMatthew.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
As the faith declines in the West and increases in Africa and parts of Asia, will there be a corresponding change in the geographic spread of Bishops and Cardinals? Pope Francis just appointed a Cardinal from Sweden. I think he's a convert. Nobody could claim that the Church is growing in Sweden. Germany also has a lot of Cardinals in a country with only about 5% of Catholics practising the faith. It's about 3% in Austria yet the Germans and Austrians seem to be over-represented in the hierarchy. I suspect, also, that Holland and France have more Bishops and Cardinals than their numbers would justify. I'm thinking of how there were plenty of Bishops from the cradle of the Church in the Middle and Near East but as the numbers of faithful declined dioceses were amalgamated. Will that happen in, for example, Germany? If so, then perhaps the rush to decentralise the Church is a symptom of fear of African and Asian orthodoxy. Drafting in Ministers from the Reformed Churches won't outweigh the huge numbers of vocations in countries where Catholicism is growing. Protestant and Catholic birth rates in Europe being similar, they need mass conversions to survive never mind grow. Europe is already mission territory and we only have to look at Protestantism and lukewarm Catholicism to see that whatever you're having yourself types of Churches go into steady decline after a short spike.
These tolerant liberals in the church( I use tolerant advisedly) should be ashamed of their condescending attitude to Cardinal Sara. It borders on the worst kind of elitist "progressive" bigotry. God bless the Cardinal and keep him from harm.
He reminds me of Bonhoeffer's warning against "cheap grace". We are awash in cheap grace these days. Costly grace leads to the Cross. Bonhoeffer says: when Christ calls a man He bids him come and die. I have certainly learned the difference. Every day you must die to yourself and uphold others. Even in an ordinary mundane life as a Catholic/Christian you must do this in the small ways thT come your way. It is really St Therese's Little Way.
Funny how the staff of The Tablet didn't take their own advice and leave prior to the current papacy. Perhaps they had already left in spirit and hung around for the sake of the job.
I think many of our prelates and shepherds have been struck. The Bishops carry a crozier as a sign of their status as shepherds. The crozier originated from the shepherd's crook. The hook on the end could be used to guide sheep when they were wandering off course and the heavy end could also be used as a weapon against predators when they flock was attacked. Sadly many of the prelates today are not defending the flock from the wolves and are not correcting the flock when they wander from right teaching. Indeed some of them are wolves themselves though they may not even know it. The faithful are lost and wandering without guidance in many instances or having to look to some Bishop from a faraway diocese for solid Catholic teaching. "The secular Clergy will leave much to be desired because priests will become careless in their sacred duties. Lacking the divine compass, they will stray from the road traced by God for the priestly ministry, and they will become attached to wealth and riches, which they will unduly strive to obtain. How the Church will suffer during this dark night! Lacking a Prelate and Father to guide them with paternal love, gentleness, strength, wisdom and prudence, many priests will lose their spirit, placing their souls in great danger. This will mark the arrival of My hour." -Our Lady at Quito
I honestly think we have a while to go until the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart, but from my poor earthly assessment of the situation I think the truly calamitous events are just about to begin. It is clear that the pot is coming to a boil. God will put up with a lot and He is slow to anger. Now however His own Church is being unfaithful to Him. When the salt loses it's savor what is it good for? Of course I could be totally wrong. Who can know the mind of God?
I reprieve was given but it does not stop the spoke (wheel keeps moving). Even though I like to see the positive...evil is growing in the West. If there is no sacrifice...there is no Christianity. Winter is coming. Let the prayer warriors emerge. Let Gods Will be Done
Yes indeed Dolours! I know I'm replying to a post of a few months ago on this thread but I thought I should draw everyone's attention to the website www.biblefalseprophet.com which is unquestionably a site that promoted Maria Divine Mercy (MDM). In fact they still have archived pages doing just that and this page shows their beliefs in a rather more 'gentle' way: http://biblefalseprophet.com/2015/03/23/what-happened-to-maria-divine-mercy/ What has this got to do with anything? Well, I just found the site without realising its origins and was amazed at how it preached and linked to virtually all the same anti Francis articles that are now regularly and routinely posted on this forum with great acclaim by Dolours and others. Isn't all this rather strange?
It's all to impossible for us to know the timing of what God has in plan. The world we know know could disappear in a moment. We don't know if it is today, tomorrow or years from now. Prophecy is our best gauge. Scripture gave us many markers, as well as Fatima, Garabandal, Akita and others. We are in the storm and the winds are picking up tremendously at this point. Something is going to come quickly that collapses whatever is left of our infrastructure and cultures. What is obvious at this point is, the faith is taking hits from every side now. Few left now who hold to the true teachings and the true magisterium of the Church. Sure it will get much worse, but no one knows when and what it truly means in our own environments.
David, how dare you. Your abuse is getting out of hand. Only a couple of days ago when I linked to the official website of the Vatican to refute your claims that Jesus speaks through the voice of Vassula Ryden, you accused me of being an instrument of the devil. I have never, ever, promoted a single "prophet", "seer", "locutionist" or anyone else claiming to speak on behalf of God unless that person has official Church approval or unless the Church has deemed their visions or apparitions to be worthy of belief.. I have warned unsuspecting members against MDM and, very likely, have also warned them against people promoted by you who, if not already proven wrong will likely be proved so in the future. Unlike you, when I link to a website, I tell people what I know about it. Mostly, I link to reputable Catholic sources. If I don't know anything about the website, I usually say so and warn people to be careful. Now, David, you are stretching my Christian tolerance to its limits. You owe me an apology.
What is strange is someone trying to equate false prophesy and mere reference to articles of opinion. These are two entirely different things. There is nothing that necessarily conflicts logic about someone who either deliberately or accidently propagates errant prophesy and simultaneously exercises reasonable judgement regarding articles about the pope. Such reasonable judgement may be less likely in this situation, but certainly not impossible. It is no reflection whatever on the veracity of such referred articles whether or not they are referred to by satan himself. What matters is their intrinsic truth or otherwise. To think differently is simply smear tactics.
You are missing the point of my post completely, Dolours. I couldn't imagine you promoting a 'prophet', 'seer' or 'locutionist' under any circumstances! At the heart of what I was trying to point out is that the website in question is promoting articles almost identical to what this forum now presents. I don't think any of the active Francis critics on this forum would have a problem with a single article on that site.
