[Maximilian]

Tom Drolesky has always been forthright, but if he was ever pulling any punches, he is certainly not doing so anymore. The gloves have come off.

Our problem, I believe, is that we are dealing with men who have clearly rejected the patrimony of the true Church, men in the hierarchy from the Holy Father on down who believe that the traditional, unambiguous language of the Church is counterproductive and harmful in our "civilization of love," men who do not believe that it is of the Church's very mission to convert everyone alive to become her members, men who promote sin under the aegis of "sex instruction" and "diversity" and other slogans, men who look the other way and who refuse to discipline brother bishops and priests who engage in and who persist in unrepentant sinful activity, whether natural or unnatural, men who do not accept and who do not want to listen to those who insist that all of the problems of the world are caused by Original Sin and our own actual sins and that is it is only the teaching and the sacraments the God-Man entrusted to the Catholic Church that can save souls and thus restore and maintain as much order as is possible in a fallen world. Much of the Church's hierarchy is engaged in material heresy.

[Unam Sanctam]

Nothing in the paragraph you have quoted remotely describes the Holy Father. And note how the author speaks with venomous hatred by using words like "Vatican lapdogs" for the Zenit news service, and as always accentuates the negative by criticizing rather than praising Cardinal Arinze for his forthright and laudable remarks, both pointing out the requirements and pointing out that implemenation is the role of the local episcopacy, which at least in the case of Cardinal McCarrick is dropping the ball and shirking its duties big time.

[Judith Anne]

Thank you for the ping to this remarkable article.

[neocon]

Max, please remove me from your ping list. I rarely bother with FR at all since you told me to "get lost" a while back, and doing so really has improved my outlook. But on those occasions when I do look in, I would not like to have my attention called to threads like this one. Thanks.

[St.Chuck]

Tom Drolesky has always been forthright....

Mr. Drolesky is a divider. He foments disunion with the church. His rants should be avoided like the plague as should be the rags that publish them, especially Catholic Family News and The Remnant. Both sow disunity and are therefore quite unChristian.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

There is no such thing as baptism of fire. There is no such thing as an act of formal adherence. The Sacrament of Baptism is a sacramental act by which the very inner life of the Blessed Trinity is flooded into a soul by means of sanctifying grace as Original Sin is flooded out of that soul. To speak in such terms is to deny, almost heretically, the significance of the Sacrament of Baptism.

The major actual heresy here is Drolesky's open denial of "Baptismus flaminis sive Spiritus Sancti" - "Baptism in the flame of the Holy Spirit", commonly known as "Baptism of Desire". Many theological manuals list this doctrine as "Sententiae fidei proxima", the denial of which is "proximate to error", resulting in a "mortal sin indirectly against faith". Others, such as those written by St. Alphonsus de Liguori (to which I would give more weight), list it as "De Fide Catholica", the denial of which is formal heresy, resulting in a "mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited."

St. Thomas mentions this doctrine many times in the Summa (was he a heretic too Mr. Drolesky?). "Videtur quod inconvenienter describantur tria Baptismata, scilicet aquae, sanguinis et flaminis, scilicet spiritus sancti." (Pt. III, Q. 66, Art. 11) And: "Nam passio Christi operatur quidem in Baptismo aquae per quandam figuralem repraesentationem; in Baptismo autem flaminis vel poenitentiae per quandam affectionem; sed in Baptismo sanguinis per imitationem operis." (Pt. III, Q. 66, Art. 12) And: "Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, effectus sacramenti potest ab aliquo percipi, si sacramentum habeatur in voto, quamvis non habeatur in re. Et ideo, sicut aliqui baptizantur Baptismo flaminis, propter desiderium Baptismi, antequam baptizentur Baptismo aquae; ita etiam aliqui manducant spiritualiter hoc sacramentum antequam sacramentaliter sumant. Sed hoc contingit dupliciter. Uno modo, propter desiderium sumendi ipsum sacramentum, et hoc modo dicuntur baptizari et manducare spiritualiter et non sacramentaliter, illi qui desiderant sumere haec sacramenta iam instituta. Alio modo, propter figuram, sicut dicit apostolus, I Cor. X, quod antiqui patres baptizati sunt in nube et in mari, et quod spiritualem escam manducaverunt et spiritualem potum biberunt. Nec tamen frustra adhibetur sacramentalis manducatio, quia plenius inducit sacramenti effectum ipsa sacramenti susceptio quam solum desiderium, sicut supra circa Baptismum dictum est." (Pt. III, Q. 80, Art. 1)

I trust all you "traditionalists" can actually read Latin.

Beams and splinters in the eye, Mr. Drolesky. Remove the beam in your own first before crusading against others.

Can we assume that the raucous backslapping of Drolesky by the SSPX crowd here means they agree with his heresy???

[Desdemona]

Teaching and educating is one thing. No one can make the people listen. The problem here, IMO, isn't necessarily the pope. THe people - including the hierarchy - don't want to listen. It's part of the human condition.

The other big problem, that the author touches on but needs to be explored more fully naming names, is the loss of faith in the hierarchy. If they believed it, they'd teach it. That is also at the base of the demise of Eucharistic Adoration. It's not the pope who has decided that individual parishes won't have it. It's the pastors who aren't corrected by their bishops. Some bishops, like Rigali, stress the importance and make it required in each parish.

I also thing that this author is reading too much into "delegation". After watching the pope on his trip here a few years back, he was NOT happy with his handlers. There are a number of people in the hierarchy who seem to be like some office workers I know - into everything but their own business. Again, the human condition rears its head.

I doubt seriously that the problem here is the pope, or even a majority of the hierarchy. A few well placed individuals are making the whole thing look bad. I'm not going to condemn them or anyone else, but I will say that Satan must be sitting back and truly enjoy watching the divisions created when anger overtakes reason and the compassion we are supposed to feel. Rather than formulating reasoned arguments, we have clawing cat-fights about who is more reverent and holy.

Nothing is going to stop people from making stupid statements or trial things going awry. The author is correct on one point - all we can do is our own duty (or duties) and pray.

[chatham]

An extremely Powerful article and one which exposes the feckless bishops to the light of truth.
I believe both Gregory and McCarrick are a couple of lost souls who are in their own way, Deconstructing the Catholic Church, and therefor leading the Faithful to perdition.
Great post thanks,I will have to read it again since there is a lot to it.

On McCarrick, " Smiling optimism in the face of adversity is the sign of a weakening Mentality", Anon.