Posted on 09/06/2014 6:26:08 PM PDT by ebb tide
This is the stupid apostate world we live in.
The organizer of the St. Patrick's day parade who has include a gay identity group and is currently accepting applications from pro-abortion groups said this ridiculous thing. O’Reilly told CNA said the parade policy was changed due to Catholic teaching “about showing compassion and understanding to groups that don’t agree with all the Church’s teachings.”
“I think, in part, the tone is changing within the Church, and I think Pope Francis has spoken about this, and Cardinal Dolan did last night,” O’Reilly said. “There is a sense among many Catholic leaders [for] showing that compassion and that brotherly love, regardless of whether or not one agrees with Church teachings. It may be the best foot forward for the Church at this point. We hope people will see it in that light.”
If only you were right, and that “someday there will be a pope who understand the crisis we face with our bishops”. Unfortunately, I see things getting much worse and even more horrid than most faithful Catholics of today could ever imagine.
Remember, it is those modernist bishops who are the cardinals that will select the next pope. And as the days of this papacy go by, this modernist pope will continue to appoint more and more modernist bishops and cardinals. They will select an even worse pope than we have today.
We are not being told little of the truth as to what is actually going on in the Church today, as it is the modernist bishops (like Dolan, wherl, etc.), along with the secular press whom we depend upon for any of our Catholic “news”. It is mostly distortion if not outright lies.
Monsignor Robert Hugh Benson seems to have very accurately predicted this terrible moment of time in his futuristic novel of 100 years ago, Lord of the World. But while these bishops may well pay with their souls, their modernist teaching will result in the loss of many unwitting souls who choose to follow their false teachings.
Today’s 1st reading, EZ 33:7-9 says it all as to what will become of today’s bishops. Each one of them is the “appointed watchman” that the Holy Spirit has selected to shepherd His flock. But they have abandoned His sheep and they have been scattered.
Except for creationists.
Say, maybe creationists should try to get a float into the parade. Then when permission is denied the Church's hypocrisy about "tolerance" for people who disagree with church teaching would be even more manifest!
Maybe I should e-mail the Kolbe Center with this suggestion . . . !
My point was that Popes (and most old men) are incapable of understanding the world as it IS. They live thirty, forty, fifty years in the past. We won’t have a Pope who understands the situation in 2014 until about 2050.
Every apostate, homosexual-activist, Marxist bishop the Church is suffering with today was appointed by one of the saintly Popes of the past thirty years.
My comment (#17) wasn’t meant to be encouraging.
This Pope is totally unfit to be Pope. He is ignoring virtually everything that is crying out for his attention, and giving us baby talk.
“Every apostate, homosexual-activist, Marxist bishop the Church is suffering with today was appointed by one of the saintly Popes of the past thirty years”
Will wise counsel from over 2000 years ago suffice?
“Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”—Matt. 15:14
So your point, I believe, is that the problems we are facing today is the result of a lack of “youthfulness” in our Church leaders. Your implication is that a younger person (a younger pope, perhaps?) would be able to understand the problems of this world better than someone older. Such a person would therefore tend to offer solutions that are more “acceptable” to the community at large.
That view, I’m afraid, is the one being advanced by the secular media and the modernists within the Church today; but it is a view that is soundly rejected by faithful Catholics who believe that our only hope is for the popes and bishops to follow the immutable dogmatic truths of the Church to the letter. One makes a serious error if they believe that the issue is one of finding a pope that is capable of “understanding the world”, either as it is or as one would hope it might be, and then adopting the teaching of the Church to fit that mold. The role of the pope is only to teach the never-changing truth so as to lead all men to salvation.
I do agree that it was the modernist popes of the past 50 years (two of whom have been declared “saintly” by the modernists of the Church) that made every single one the disgraceful episcopal and cardinal appointments that we witness today. There error in making those appointments, I would contend, was totally unrelated less to their lack of youthfulness; but rather, to their lack of holiness.
Not exactly my point.
Mere youthfulness is no cure. My point is that men rarely learn anything after a certain age. JPII saw many good priests framed and smeared by the Communists in Poland. For the rest of his life, he rigidly rejected all bad reports about any priest or bishop. He was a complete dupe of the evil Maciel. He did nothing to neutralize the evil Bernardin and the network of Marxists that Bernardin created. He remained convinced that the Second Vatican Council was the beginning of a “springtime” for the Church.
All the recent Popes have been terrified of a formal schism. They have thought the way to avoid it was to let the bishops do pretty much anything. So we have material schism, and the “hidden schism” of tens of millions of people losing the faith and becoming “former Catholics”—now the largest “religious” designation in the U.S.
My point was not that we need modernist young bishops! My point was that there is a trap built into human nature: The men who attain positions of power are doomed to believe the “system” is working—because it has treated them well. And not merely “doomed.”
As M. Scott Peck said in __People_of_the_Lie__: People seek power in order to avoid spiritual growth. The men who are bishops have mostly been the type who have been seeking that position since they were in the seminary—even before.
The only Pope in the last half-century who attempted to get around the “old-boy network” in the U.S. was Benedict.
It is hard to imagine a more forceful endorsement of Dolan’s statements and actions than leaving him in his post as CARDINAL ARCHBISHOP of New York.
...it is entirely likely that the Pontiff holds exactly the same point of view as Dolan regarding those statements and actions...in removing the archbishop, he would be removing himself...
Anyone who thinks the answer to ISIS=ISIL=Al Qaeda is “dialogue” is capable of thinking anything.
Unfortunately, all I’m seeing is more excuses for a modernist hierarchy.
From whom?
Very good. I now see your point and it is well worth making. I’m not sure I agree entirely with your analysis of the motivations of these popes and bishops (JPII included), but I completely accept your premise that the popes and bishops who have accrued power believe that the system is working quite well––because after all, it was the system that selected them as a bishop.
And yes, those who have been appointed to the episcopacy have certainly been seeking that position since their ordination––if not much earlier. Consequently, as they progress through their priesthood they seek to emulate why they believe the “selectors” of bishops are looking for in a future bishop. The result is that we drift further and further away from the true teachings of the Catholic Church, and more and more into the heresy of modernism.
Perhaps I’m not as high on the “new” Benedict as you are, but in comparing him to Francis, et al, he truly does now appear to be more of a believer in the Catholic tradition than he was in the past. But I am still hard-pressed to forget the Ratzinger/Hans Kung team that gave us much of the modernist thinking that is in the Council documents. I recognize that even Pius XII had his marginal moments as he weakened to the modernists of his day, but the popes that followed him were beyond the pale. I will agree that it does appear to be a fact that as Benedict moved further away from modernism and more toward traditional teachings, he struggled with the cliques in Rome that still have a loud voice in running the show. There is little doubt that it was these forces that led to his “resignation”.
But my short view is simply this: if things in the Church and this world are going to change for the better, it will have to be because a single bishop opens his heart and soul to the voice of the Holy Spirit and begins teaching the truth regardless of the consequences. After that, other prelates will probably follow. Very unlikely, of course; and there is no doubt the consequences would be disastrous for such a bishop. Still, with God, all things are possible.
From you. The bottom line is that the hierarchy are full of modernists. They do what they do because they are modernists. The system served them well because it is a modernist system and modernists like modernism.
I mostly agree with your post.
Thank you, piusv...I guess? :)
Yes, of course. We tend to agree more than disagree. ;-)
If anything I said seems to you like “excuses” for modernism, then you have misunderstood me.
I was pointing out that the Popes have made no significant effort to appoint holy, orthodox men. After the disaster of 1968, that should have been the top priority of every Pope, and it has not been. The network that pushes corrupt Marxists to the top has continued unimpeded.
Benedict was deposing approximately one bishop every month! JPII deposed ONE, the auxiliary bishop in S. Africa who was caught as a member of “Sebastian’s Angels,” a homosexual chat room.
Francis should depose Dolan, Wuerl, Gomez, Chaput, and many more, for giving Communion to pro-abortion politicians. Actually, he would need to depose just ONE of them, and the rest would suddenly discover that giving Communion to pro-aborts is a source of scandal and a mortal sin.
In the last generation or so, there has been only one such bishop: Bruskewitz. And he became a “leper.” There were many who “agreed” with him, but were too “smart” to make it known.
But Modernism is a symptom of corruption, because Modernism is simply an elaborate rationalization for apostasy. What is the corruption? Who is corrupt? Who is pulling the levers of power to promote the corrupt?
At one time, the answer to that was easy: Bernardin, the homosexual Marxist.
Now, is it Dolan? Or is he just the public clown of the Modernists? Wuerl is obviously one of the lever-pullers. He's newly appointed to the Congregation for Bishops, where he can promote those who have had a "twirl with Wuerl."
O'Malley appears to be another. His talking points (e.g. characterization of those who oppose the democrat party's immigration policy as "xenophobes") are echoed by the Pope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.