The question is, how did all this come about? The more recent coverups I think were likely a result of probably decades of blackmail and threats used to control select Cardinals and Bishops with this information. Remember, back in 2003 it was being said in print that select media outlets had info regarding a Cardinal in the US practicing sodomy. Then it never came to light. McCarrick's name was mentioned back then. We are then told that the proof just never panned out. A convenient way to end the threat but easily bring it back to bare at any time. The media was being used like the tool that it is to repeatedly publicly threaten and pressure the Church by publishing innuendo and threats of releasing this information when something didn't go the way their handlers wanted it to or the Church didn't move fast enough down the road of secular humanism. Apparently though it was enough to kick the Church hierarchy in Rome and the US into high gear to get with the program since the threats became like a vapor and mysteriously vanished. I think that this ultimately led to Pope Benedict's resignation regardless of the stories we are told. I think that the Wikileaks info as well as the Weiner laptop information fell into the hands of the "other side" so to speak and was when all this took on a new dynamic involving the government and others. I also think that Pope Francis's election was at least partly a result of this (if not directly) as well because of McCarrick's documented role in influencing others to vote for him. How did he "influence" these men? Now we have a nation wide federal investigation into the coverup with every diocese. It could quite literally destroy the existing structure of the Church in the US as we know it (obviously never the Church Herself thank you Jesus!) and I think Rome as well who obviously were aware of what was happening to continue to promote men such as McCarrick into positions of power to accomplish the goals of it's handlers. It could also potentially expose the agents behind this as well as many in the Church who we love and who love the Church but were caught up in it without taking an active role in its cause. Now, the Church is between a rock and a hard place. It has secular government on one side as well as private parties on the other who have great influence over her leaders. I think about this and all I can do is pray for the Church.
I noticed that Praetorian posted about this on another thread in which he posted a link to Prof. Roberto de Mattei's talk. Diane Montagna also wrote about his talk: Fri Nov 30, 2018 Catholic historian explains the right way for Catholics to resist Pope Francis’ ‘paradigm shift’ Msgr. Bux also spoke at this same conference. Msgr. Nicola Bux addressing the Nov. 29 conference in Rome. (Edward Pentin photo) Pope Francis’ ‘Paradigm Shift’: What it Means and How to Respond to It “The evolution in the Church's understanding of the Gospel over the centuries is not a question of a paradigm shift, but of the development of doctrine, organic and in continuity with the faith.” Edward Pentin | Nov. 30, 2018 | http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edwa...-shift-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond-to-it To contend with the current crisis in the Church, it is necessary to proclaim the truth and resist any “paradigm shift” that distorts the truths of the faith. This was the advice given by Msgr. Nicola Bux, a respected theological consultor to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, at a Nov. 29 Rome conference on Pope Francis’ pontificate. The centerpiece of the conference, hosted by the Lepanto Foundation, was José Antonio Ureta’s book Pope Francis’ Paradigm Shift: Continuity or Rupture in the Mission of the Church? — An Assessment of his Five-year Pontificate — a work which Msgr. Bux described as a “valuable tool” for understanding Francis’ first half-decade as pontiff. Msgr. Bux, who was a consultor to the Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith under Benedict XVI, said the key to understanding this pontificate is realizing what this “paradigm shift” means. Although not formally defined, it is widely believed to refer to a “pastoral conversion” in which pastoral approaches to concrete situations take precedence over doctrine or legal structures. According to Ureta, this “new spirit, this new approach,” as Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin once described it, is “above all an inversion of factors: doctrine and the law must be subordinate to the lived life of contemporary man.” But according to Msgr. Bux, such a concept presents a number of dangers. He referred to a recent reflection by Stanislaw Grygiel, a professor of philosophical anthropology and longtime friend of Pope St. John Paul II, who wrote that by submitting divine reason to pastoral praxis, the “Person of Christ becomes just one opinion or hypothesis that was applied yesterday but no longer today.” In effect, Grygiel wrote, it is a Marxist principle — that man’s social practice alone is the criterion of the truth — which has entered the Church and become popular with “many Latin American professors.” It is a “metaphysical and anthropological error” hardly recognized by students, Grygiel added, something “they will pay dearly for, and unfortunately we will pay for, as well.” Creeping Marxism “Marxism has crept into the mentality of Western intellectuals and of many men of the Church, so as to induce them in their practice to modify the doctrine of the Church, that is, the Person of Christ,” Grygiel wrote, referring to Karol Wojtyla’s Sign of Contradiction, Spiritual Exercises to Paul VI in 1976. “The confusion that follows constitutes the greatest danger for the Church.” “So what must we do?,” asked Msgr. Bux. “Always proclaim the truth because ‘the truth will set you free,’” he said. By contrast, to be “silent when one has to speak is just as vile a lie as to speak when one has to be silent,” he warned. He also reminded those present that John Paul II “never used words of compromise” when defending the truth of the person. “He was not a Peronist,” Msgr. Bux said. “Therefore the error we are witnessing in the Church allows us to detach man from the truth and chain him to praxis, which decides how man and things should be.” Furthermore, Msgr. Bux noted, “every praxis that produces truth is reduced to politics,” and proposed that this is, in essence “the paradigm shift of Pope Francis.” Drawing on Ureta’s book, he further pointed out that for Francis, “truth is a relationship” and therefore “relative.” “Thus, the prevailing perspective in which he [Francis] moves is politics, whether it be political or ecclesiastical questions, of Venezuela, of Ukraine or China,” Msgr. Bux explained. And again quoting Grygiel, he said that Pope St. John Paul II “never did politics” because for him, being a priest, bishop and then Peter meant entrusting his work “to the truth of man, revealed in the Person of Christ.” This enabled him to be “one of the greatest politicians” able to “change the world.” Furthermore, the fear of God kept him from “adding something of himself” to the Word of God. “Christ is to be worshipped, not modified,” Grygiel wrote. “John Paul did not adapt Christ to the world.” Msgr. Bux went on to explain that only through conversion to the love of God can true dialogue take place, otherwise the Church is turned into a “mere human organism, reduced to a bureaucratic organization,” and is not able to “realize the sanctification of the world.” He asserted that orthodoxy puts forward the notion that the faith “continually” has the ability to “judge the world” but today, the opposite has happened. Instead of “purifying the humanist values of modernity with the Catholic faith,” he added, perhaps without wishing it, Paul VI and the Second Vatican Council actually brought about postmodernity, the fruit of which was this “paradigm shift.” He argued that this has led to a sense within the Church that to oppose the world is something negative, “to be overcome in the name of tranquillity,” but this is contrary to the belief that a Christian is a “foreigner in the world and can never rest easy, as John Paul II and Don Giussani [founder of the Communion and Liberation movement] agreed.” Mixing “Extreme Situations” Elaborating on this point, Msgr. Bux said the “radical paradigm shift” now in vogue means to “believe in an urgency” to bring justice to the world in terms of “eliminating poverty, or of fair trade, fraternity,” or mixing it with “extreme situations” such as “migrants, homosexuals, divorcees.” Yet often one does not hear the words “Jesus Christ,” he observed, and the Mass is “reduced to a television show with dance and applause.” And all this is happening, he said, “while in the world reference to God is absent” and the world itself “becomes more and more indifferent, an enemy of the Church, of religion, of the faith, of God.” He went on to refer to words of Eugenio Scalfari, who said after one of his interviews with the Pope, that Francis was pushing for a “change” in the “concept of religion and divinity” that would result in a “cultural change” that would be difficult to modify. “If that were to happen,” Msgr. Bux warned, “the consequences would be catastrophic.” Already, he said, the missionary drive is “diminished, a sign of a crisis of faith.” He then pointed out a stark contradiction in Francis’ words: on the one hand, in Evangelii Gaudium, he affirms that mission and proclamation of the Gospel are the “paradigm,” but on the other hand, and “in a Peronist way as they say in Buenos Aires,” he has said there is “no Catholic God” and that proselytism “is a solemn nonsense; not to convert but to serve, to walk together.” Msgr. Bux then drew further on St. John Paul II, in particular a quotation from his encyclical Veritatis Splendor: “The unity of the Church is damaged not only by Christians who reject or distort the truths of faith but also by those who disregard the moral obligations to which they are called by the Gospel.” He also addressed Ureta’s recommendation in his book to resist those Church leaders who read the “paradigm shift” as a “rupture” with the Church’s teaching and tradition. Msgr. Bux made the point that the Holy Spirit “was not promised to Peter's successors to reveal a new doctrine, but to guard the deposit of faith.” And quoting recent comments of Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Fatih, he noted that the Pope’s authority extends “over the revealed Faith of the Catholic Church and not over the individual theological opinions of himself or those of his advisers.” Because of this, Msgr. Bux said, “there are occasions in which it is legitimate to prudently suspend assent.” When the Cross of Christ is “made vain,” in order not to lose faith he proposed “conscientious objection and fidelity to the Pope in spite of the Pope" — again quoting from Ureta’s book. “The evolution in the Church's understanding of the Gospel over the centuries is not a question of a paradigm shift,” he concluded, “but of the development of doctrine, organic and in continuity with the faith.” *** Imho the alleged seer Vassula Ryden appears to promote Pope Francis' "paradigm shift".
Excellent analysis IMO. I think you nailed it. Betrayed by Judases in the hierarchy and paid for with 30 pieces of silver in globalist influence. Dragged before the civil authorities while hierarchy remain silent, complicit or afraid. Sounds like the Passion of Christ being reenacted in His Bride. They will all conspire to destroy her for their own selfish interests and it seems all we can do is accompany Mary our Mother and St John (the faithful remnant of priests and Bishops). This is so horrible and sad but God is allowing it. It is a glorious purification when the Church rises from the grave more pure more holy more powerful than the world has seen in A millenia. This is what I get in prayer. "The Church has gone to the dogs at least 3 times in her history and each time it is the dog who died." GK Chesterton.
Now, there's a quote worth remembering, though my Devin would bark his disapproval over the dying part! Safe in the Flames of the Sacred Heart!
2Cor 12:8 Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; 9 but he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then I am strong.
From Cardinal Newman: “He may hide my future from me, He may make my spirits sink. Still, He knows what He is about. Therefore, I will trust Him”
Fr. Hunwicke is worried that they may try to use Cardinal Newman's canonization to advance their agenda. I don't know if that will happen or not, but it is conceivable they will try. http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2018/12/saint-john-henry-newman-doctor-of-church.html
I tried clicking on your link and this is what I got, Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.
This most often happens when the blog author has second thoughts about publishing the article and withdraws it. He may change it and republish. But from my best recollection of the several times i have seen it occur cf Fr Hunwicke, i would wager the article is not coming back.
My prayers for Dr. Peter Kwasniewski appear to be working... Vatican II Council, Rome, 10/11/1962. API/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images What Vatican II said—and didn’t say—about the liturgy By Dr. Peter Kwasniewski | https://www.lifesitenews.com/all/today#article-what-vatican-ii-saidand-didnt-sayabout-the-liturgy December 4, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Today is the 55th anniversary of the promulgation of the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, which took place on December 4, 1963. It is a cause for amazement just how much nonsense people have attributed to it, how much harm they have justified by airy appeals to its supposed requirements. Today, there are few who could tell you accurately what Vatican II actually did say about the liturgy—and more importantly, what it did not say. It may be helpful, therefore, to offer a brief overview of the most salient features of the Council’s teaching on the liturgy. The introduction of Sacrosanctum Concilium exhibits a mystical, contemplative, symbolic vision of liturgy. The remainder enunciates two controlling principles for renewal: first, “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation (actuosa participatio) in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy” (§14); second, “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (§23). In a 1998 address, John Paul II explained the meaning of the first principle: Active participation certainly means that, in gesture, word, song, and service, all the members of the community take part in an act of worship, which is anything but inert or passive. Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness, and listening: indeed, it demands it. … In a culture which neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be countercultural. As for the second principle, the Constitution generally models the modesty it recommends. It brings forward various proposals, yet there is a surprising absence of the very things people most often associate with Vatican II. Thus, the Council never said that Mass should cease to be in Latin and should only be in the vernacular. The Constitution reaffirmed that the fixed parts of the Mass would continue to be in Latin, the very language of the Roman Rite, but gave permission to vernacularize some parts, such as the readings and the general intercessions (§36; cf. §101). After stating that the people’s language may be used for some parts, the Council added: “Steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them” (§54). Latin remains, to this day, the official language of the Roman Catholic Church and of her liturgy. It is surprising, to say the least, that the aforementioned desiderata of Vatican II are only rarely achieved. The Council never said that Gregorian chant should be set aside in favor of new songs. On the contrary, the Council acknowledged Gregorian chant as “specially suited to the Roman liturgy” and deserving “foremost place” (principum locum) in the celebration of Mass, along with the great musical compositions of our heritage (§114–§117). New songs could be added as long as they suited the liturgy—which most of the new songs after the Council didn’t and still don’t. The Council breathed not a word about the priest “facing the people” over a table. The Council assumed that Mass would continue to be offered at an altar by a priest facing eastwards, so that priest and people were together aligned towards the East, symbol of the Christ who is to come—the universal custom of all liturgical rites, Eastern and Western, from the beginning. In fact, the rubrics of the Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI presuppose that the priest is facing eastwards. The Council never dictated that tabernacles be moved from the center of the church, that sanctuaries be “reordered,” or that altar rails be removed. It said nothing about receiving communion in the hand while standing. It assumed that communion under both species would continue to be of rare occurrence among the non-ordained (cf. §55); extraordinary ministers of holy communion are nowhere mentioned. Lastly, the Council did not downplay or discourage traditional practices of piety such as Eucharistic adoration and Marian devotions. Consider how Pope John Paul II, in a 2001 address, explained the essence of the Mass: The celebration of the Liturgy is an act of the virtue of religion that, consistent with its nature, must be characterized by a profound sense of the sacred. In this, man and the entire community must be aware of being, in a special way, in the presence of Him who is thrice-holy and transcendent. Consequently, the attitude of imploring cannot but be permeated by reverence and by the sense of awe that comes from knowing that one is in the presence of the majesty of God. … [The Mass] has, as its primary aim, to present to the Divine Majesty the living, pure, and holy sacrifice offered on Calvary once and for all by the Lord Jesus, who is present each time the Church celebrates Holy Mass, and to express the worship due to God in spirit and truth. Anyone who attends a Catholic liturgy ought to be able to see, hear, and internalize the attitude and the aim of which the late Holy Father speaks. Pope Benedict XVI taught us, in word and in deed, the very same lessons. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote many years ago: In the history of the postconciliar period, the Constitution on the Liturgy was certainly no longer understood from the viewpoint of the basic primacy of adoration, but rather as a recipe book of what we can do with the liturgy. In the meantime, the fact that the liturgy is actually ‘made’ for God and not for ourselves seems to have escaped the minds of those who are busy pondering how to give the liturgy an ever more attractive and communicable shape, actively involving an ever greater number of people. However, the more we make it for ourselves, the less attractive it is, because everyone perceives clearly that the essential focus on God has increasingly been lost. Thanks to many acts and documents of Benedict XVI, above all Summorum Pontificum, the future of Catholic liturgy looks bright again—if only we will trust and embrace the age-old tradition of the Church. This treasury of wisdom and beauty is far more valuable than the wares of the so-called experts who set up their trade in the temple. When the Lord in His mercy wills it, He will prepare a whip of cords and drive them out. The Christian people who have suffered so much from the “spirit of Vatican II” deserve to know what Vatican II really taught and did not teach about the liturgy—what it asked for, and what it did not ask for. Sacrosanctum Concilium will not come off looking blameless, but it cannot be blamed for the most obviously disastrous things that happened to the liturgy in the mid- to late 1960s. For this, the blame lies largely elsewhere, as a new biography* shows with utmost clarity. *ref: https://www.amazon.com/Annibale-Bugnini-Reformer-Yves-Chiron/dp/162138411X *** There must have been a delay in the book, The Strength of a Vocation, which is an interview of Pope Francis. Here is an article from editor-in-chief of LifeSiteNews.com, John-Henry Westen, about the anticipation of this new book - What Pope Francis may really be doing by saying he doesn’t want gays to become priests . *** Edited to add: This story from LifeSiteNews' Doug Mainwaring is a wonderful sign - In blow to political correctness, Italy wants crucifixes and nativity scenes in all classrooms .
The link that was posted Is not complete It doesn’t connect But the blog article exists Try typing it in
No, the article is still there. The link is just faulty. Maybe he moved the page on his site. It's actually listed on the left of the page if you scroll down. It's called "Saint John Henry Newman, Doctor of the Church" I think the problem was that he puts his articles up on his splash page and then when he writes a new one the older one goes into the archives. I must have put the link from the initial day it was published, but he has since written another one so the last one was archived. I fixed the original link. Here it is again: http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2018/12/saint-john-henry-newman-doctor-of-church.html
Here is Father Martin at it again. This time supporting a blasphemous "Modern Sorrows Rosary" with new meditations on LGBTQRSTUV perversions and Earth worship. http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/2018/12/father-james-martins-new-rosary.html
Why doesn't he just start a new religion, worshipping sodomy and the sod? There's a spare stang hanging around the Vatican somewhere, if he needs one.
