The Vatican Has Fallen

Sg, Ann B posing like that is ridiculous especially considering that she is attempting to defend the Truth and the members here should be aware of this picture.

I have never stated that we cannot question these things but to come right out and state that PEB is still the pope is absolutely wrong.

I believe that you continue to defend Ann B because you have also stated that PEB is still the pope, again this is absolutely wrong.

Even if Ann B is proven to be right at some time in the future, she and anyone else who does not consider Pope Francis to be the reigning pontiff until he is declared otherwise by someone who has the authority to do so is no hero because they took a huge chance with other Catholic's souls. +

 

Blogs
Cardinal Müller: This ‘synodal’ enterprise will not be the ‘Great Leap Forward’
The former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith responds to criticism he faced for comparing the synodal path to the 1933 Enabling Act of Adolf Hitler.
Thu Feb 6, 2020 - 1:28 pm EST | https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/...enterprise-will-not-be-the-great-leap-forward


February 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In a new interview with LifeSiteNews, Cardinal Gerhard Müller presents a more detailed critique of the first synodal assembly that took place in Frankfurt at the beginning of February.

The German bishops, together with the Central Committee of German Catholics, are organizing the so-called “synodal path” that aims at questioning the Church's discipline and teachings on such important matters as female ordination, priestly celibacy, contraception, and homosexuality. For Cardinal Müller, it is clear that this “‘synodal’ enterprise will not be the ‘Great Leap Forward.’”

He even goes so far as to say that bishops who promote heresy lose “the right to the ‘religious obedience of the faithful.’”

Cardinal Müller also refers back to the time of the Donatists in North Africa when he says in light of the German synodal path: “Already many bishops in the course of Church history have become heretical or led their parishes into schism, as for example the Donatists, who, with their majority, stood up to the Catholics in North Africa.”

In the new interview with LifeSite, the German cardinal and former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also touches upon his recent February 3 comments to LifeSite which provoked much indignation among German progressivists including bishops.

Müller had compared the process of the synodal path to the 1933 Enabling Act of Adolf Hitler, which rescinded the Weimar Constitution.

Müller said, after calling the synodal path “suicidal”: “This is like the situation when the Weimar Constitution was repealed by the Enabling Act. A self-appointed assembly, which is not authorized by God nor by the people it is supposed to represent, rescinds the Constitution of the Church of Divine Right, which is based on the Word of God (in Scripture and Tradition).”

Basis for these comments were that the first synodal assembly ruled that even proposals directly opposing Church teaching may be sent to the general assembly of 230 synodal members. The structure of the synodal assembly is also such that the laity hold a majority among the members, thus undercutting the episcopal structure of authority as established in the Catholic Church.

Responding to the question as to why he used this historical comparison to the National Socialist seize of power, Cardinal Müller responds: “To put oneself in diametric opposition to the revealed doctrine of the Faith and then to quote the Holy Spirit is a crude block that has well earned its crude wedge. We are to 'hear what the Spirit says to the churches’ (Rev 2:11); but this is the ‘Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ’ (Rev 1:2) and not the vision of a ‘church’ conforming to society.”

Later on, the German prelate also indicates that he used a provocation in order to break through the wall of silence when it comes to substantial objections to the reform agenda of the synodal path. He says: “It is true that factual statements are skillfully sunk into the spiral of silence. One only has to touch the feeling of indignation and then the ritual is already running.”

In his new response, Cardinal Müller also reminds us that it is not about “power” in the Catholic Church, but, rather, about service and the salvation of souls.

“People are not entitled to absolute power over people,” he explains. “But here it is about the service of salvation to fellow believers in the name of God. In the Church, not everything is about power, but about building up the Body of Christ. Do we want to serve or to rule? That is the question here.”

The German prelate insists that the bishops are tasked to “authentically interpret the Word of God, whether written or handed on (Dei Verbum 10) in relation to the other members of the Church, but by no means in opposition to them, since all are jointly responsible for the unadulterated transmission of the Faith (LG 12).”

According to Müller, it is very important to learn from history, thus the historical comparison. He hopes that the German bishops do exactly that, since part of the reason for the Western schism in the 16th century had been failures of the “Roman Curia and the German bishops” at the time.

Finally, Cardinal Müller comes to the defense of his fellow German Cardinal, Rainer Woelki, who has been sharply criticized in Germany for distancing himself from the synodal path’s methods and substance. Comments Müller: “The verbalized violence against him [Woelki] and others is but an expression of intellectual helplessness and moral confusion 'of earthly-minded people who do not grasp what comes from the Spirit of God' (1 Cor 2:13).”

Further criticizing the German synodal path, he continues: “The whole approach of the ‘Synodal Path’ is ecclesiologically wrong. A wrong diagnosis spoils the best therapy.”

Below is the full interview:

LifeSite: Two days ago you made critical remarks about the first plenary assembly of the Synodal Path and called its process 'suicidal' and then compared it with the repeal of the Weimar Constitution by the Enabling Act. You referred here to the fact that the synodal assembly decided to accept decisions even if they went against Catholic doctrine. Could you explain your thoughts in more detail here? And: may one make such a comparison?

Cardinal Müller: More political power is constantly demanded for the lay functionaries in contrast to the sacramental authority – given by Christ to the bishops – or for more power for the local bishops' conferences (i.e. their apparatus) against the central power “Rome,” as if the Church had lost herself in the arena of media and political battles. Where earthly power is at stake, the separation of powers is absolutely necessary. People are not entitled to absolute power over people. But here it is about the service of salvation to fellow believers in the name of God. In the Church, not everything is about power, but about building up the Body of Christ. Do we want to serve or to rule? That is the question here. In the Church it is about “the knowledge of the One and Only God and the salvation of all people through Christ Jesus as the only mediator between God and men” (cf. 1 Tim 2:5). The Church is a sacrament of the salvation of the world and of Christ himself “here on earth as a visible structure and endowed with hierarchical organs” (Lumen Gentium 8). The common priesthood of all the faithful by virtue of Baptism and Confirmation and the hierarchical priesthood by virtue of ordination (to bishop, priest and deacon) cannot be set against each other in an attitude of class struggle with the aim of a classless society which was in reality the rule of functionaries in the name of an anonymous “people.” Christians (as laity, religious and priests) are organically (not mechanically) related to one another in the whole life of the Body of Christ, insofar as they participate in the priesthood of Christ in a specific way (Lumen Gentium 10). The whole approach of the “Synodal Path” is ecclesiologically wrong. A wrong diagnosis spoils the best therapy. Instead of showing off emotional concern, the majority who are in the lead and in power should better acquaint themselves with Vatican II's understanding of the Church rather than simply referring to its “spirit,” otherwise the whole thing becomes a meeting of spirits [“Geistersitzung”]. To put oneself in diametric opposition to the revealed doctrine of the Faith and then to quote the Holy Spirit is a crude block that has well earned its crude wedge. We are to “hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (Rev 2:11); but this is the “Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Rev 1:2) and not the vision of a “church” conforming to society. In the “Church of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Lumen Gentium 4) one cannot pitch the Christological and historical foundation of the Church against the action of Christ praesens [present] in the Holy Spirit.

continued...

 

continued from above...

LifeSite: You also noted that the Synodal Path is authorized “neither by God nor by men.” Could you explain this to us in more detail?

Cardinal Müller: As I said before: the “divine constitution” of the Church comes from Christ (LG 8) and not from His disciples. In conscience, it is of higher binding force than the constitution of a state or association by human law. Christ himself builds His Church upon Peter and it is not Peter and the other disciples who build their Church on a self-made image of Christ. The Apostles and the bishops as their successors did not seize political power in her and thus transformed her into human work, then took power away from the laity and thus suppressed them. Rather, they were once historically instituted by Christ through direct vocation and now sacramentally through consecration, empowered as servants of Christ to teach the People of God with His Word, to sanctify them with His sacraments and to lead His flock as shepherds (Lumen Gentium 18-29). As soon as they teach and decide something contrary to the Apostolic doctrine and the sacramental constitution of the Church, they have lost the right to the “religious obedience of the faithful” (Lumen Gentium 25; Dei Verbum 10). Already many bishops in the course of Church history have become heretical or led their parishes into schism, as for example the Donatists, who, with their majority, stood up to the Catholics in North Africa.

LifeSite: One of your criticisms of the Synodal Assembly is that it gives much power to lay people and that this undermines episcopal authority. What are you referring to here specifically in relation to the first assembly and what are the doctrinal foundations here?

Cardinal Müller: The Pope and the bishops in communion were also entrusted with the Magisterium to “authentically interpret the Word of God, whether written or handed on (Dei Verbum 10) in relation to the other members of the Church, but by no means in opposition to them, since all are jointly responsible for the unadulterated transmission of the Faith[”] (LG 12). I do not criticize that the laity will claim too much power or that it is given to them, but, rather, that the nature and mission of the Church – the Body of Christ, and Temple of the Holy Spirit – is distorted with the categories of power and prestige by way of a self-secularization. “The Church of Christ is not an NGO” – Pope Francis keeps on repeating these words.

LifeSite: Do you think that Rome should stop this Synodal Path, and if so, why?

Cardinal Müller: The Roman Church, headed by the Pope, has the authority and responsibility, communicated by Christ, for the unity of the Church in the truth of Apostolic doctrine. At the beginning of the division of Christendom in the 16th century, which to this day has profoundly shaken the credibility of our Christian faith before the world, the German bishops and the Curia in Rome failed terribly, as Pope Hadrian VI himself confessed (Nuremberg Reichstag 1522/23). I hope that one does not repeat this historical mistake. Historical knowledge can help to avoid future dangers at an early stage in the light of historical experience, and not only to call for the lid after the child has already fallen into the well. The powerful German Cardinal Albrecht von Brandenburg at the time financed his illegal and immoral accumulation of offices with the sale of indulgences granted by Rome. Thus German money, the theological illiteracy of the German episcopate, the primacy of money and politics in Rome are partly to blame for the schism in the West and its tragic consequences to this day. Money rules the world, but it is also the devil's best means to confuse the Church. In order to counter secularization as a total and totalitarian understanding of self and world without God, there is only one effective antidote, the credible proclamation of the “Gospel of Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God” (Mk 1:1) and a life in the imitation of Christ. The first word of St. Paul after his conversion at the beginning of his “proclamation of Jesus” was – by the way, not historically the reference to interesting trivia about a woman as the first Christian woman in Europe and about baptized slaves in Rome – but the confession: “This is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20).

LifeSite: You have been sharply rebuked in Germany for comparing the Synodal Path to Hitler's takeover of power. The indignation seems to be greater about this comparison than about the fact that German bishops are in the process of upsetting the entire Church hierarchy, as well as the sacramental and moral teachings of the Church, with serious consequences for many souls. How would you comment on this phenomenon?

Cardinal Müller: It is typically German that one does not want to learn anything from history. Our “leftists” in Church and society identify themselves through their double standards and their brilliant inability to respond with arguments to objections. The incessant personal denunciations of those who do not belong to their ideological camp as arch-conservative, fundamentalist, and right-wing, wants to intimidate, but is in reality only the playing off of their power against reason. In any case, this “synodal” enterprise will not be the “Great Leap Forward.” Perhaps this comparative non-comparison in Chinese metaphors awakens her deep-seated sense of humor.

LifeSite: You have made a strong comparison. Did this happen because you recognized the seriousness of the situation and because the welfare of many souls is at stake?

Cardinal Müller: It is true that factual statements are skillfully sunk into the spiral of silence. One only has to touch the feeling of indignation and the ritual is already running. After all, I know most of the actors personally and know how the network works. With all the madness of commissioned works, citation cartels, the satisfaction of sensationalism, the money of well-paid articles, the personal political intrigues and slander against outsiders of the cartel, one only ridicules to outsiders the fine speeches of brotherhood and mercy, of synodality and dialogue, thus discouraging the sincerely believing Christians.

LifeSite: Cardinal Woelki was sharply attacked when he distanced himself from the first synodal assembly. You are informed that you are no longer an acceptable discussion partner. It seems that the preservers of the Faith are marginalized, just as they were in the minority at the synodal assembly. Do you feel reminded here of other moments in Church history?

Cardinal Müller: Cardinal Woelki is a bishop ordained by Christ in the Holy Spirit and, as a Cardinal of the Roman Church, is the closest collaborator of the Pope in the responsibility for the universal Church. The verbalized violence against him and others is but an expression of intellectual helplessness and moral confusion “of earthly-minded people who do not grasp what comes from the Spirit of God” (1 Cor 2:13).

In view of the excommunicating claims to power of such heroes, who could hardly pass a dogmatic test, I can only think of Dietrich Bonhoeffer who, in 1943, summed up against stupidity: “Never again will we try to convince the stupid with the help of reasons, it is useless and dangerous.” (DBW 8, 26).

 

Poor Cardinal Mueller, the good saintly man. He is German too. He must feel like he is sinking into some kind of bog. Poor, poor holy man.

Thank God for Cardinal Mueller.

 

Gotta hand it to the Germans. They don't do mediocre. Their good Bishops are very, very good and their bad Bishops are very, very bad.

 

I really don't know how Bishop Sorondo got through seminary never mind climbing the clerical ladder. The man is a joke. A sick joke. Here's his latest attempt at explaining away the hypocrisy of our hierarchy who are incapable of practising what they profess to believe: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/e...dent-and-mistress?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com

No wonder so many Catholics don't believe that Jesus is really present in the Blessed Sacrament. Our hierarchy evidently don't believe it. And no wonder so many Catholics promote the wholesale slaughter of innocent pre-born babies. Our hierarchy are happy with it so why would the average pew-sitter believe that it's an intinsic evil crying out to God for vengeance? Evidently, too, Amoris Laetitia was written for the benefit of people like the President of Argentina. I suppose that buying or networking your way to Heaven is the "narrow" path nowadays. What next? A price list or the right contact list for indulgences?

 

Another great piece from Liz Yore.

THE VATICAN CAUCUS

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4763-the-vatican-caucus

 

Carol did not tell Ann B to pose for that picture. That was strictly Ann B’s doing. It’s a
publicity photo.
In all its wondrous glory.

 

HH, Thank you.

I believe that it is a very good possibility that Ann B had that photo taken in 2016 when she did an interview with Pat Archbold in which she referred to herself as Alpha Bravo. The interview was entitled "When do we start shootin'?" and they were discussing the appropriate time to take arms against the US government.

I am not truly sure about the timing of the picture but I stand by my statement that Ann B is a bit off and I don't believe this to be unkind at all nor do I believe that posting that photo of her was unkind either. I actually think it would be a bit dishonest of me if I continued to not post it on the forum because I came across it a few months ago and I hesitated then but since her ideas are continuing to be presented on the forum I really felt compelled to post it now. In addition, the photo is not difficult to find all one needs to do is search on "Ann Barnhardt" and click on images and it immediately pops up.

I also believe that when Cardinal Raymond Burke spoke of extremists when Ross Douthat asked him if Pope Francis is the legitimate pope he was referring to Ann B and others like her. So, yes I believe that Ann B is a bit off.

Douthat: You believe Francis is a legitimate pope?

Burke: Yes, yes. I’ve had people present to me all kinds of arguments calling into question the election of Pope Francis. But I name him every time I offer the Holy Mass, I call him Pope Francis, it’s not an empty speech on my part. I believe that he is the pope. And I try to say that consistently to people, because you’re correct — according to my perception also, people are getting more and more extreme in their response to what’s going on in the church.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/09/opinion/cardinal-burke-douthat.html
​

But, imho, that is enough about Ann B. There are so many more important things that I prefer discussing on MOG.

 

Cardinal Robert Sarah (R) attending the Oct. 5, 2019, consistory for cardinals in St. Peter's Basilica, stresses, ‘One is called by God, and the Church confirms this call. Celibacy guarantees this call.’ (Daniel Ibáñez/CNA)
In Person | Feb. 8, 2020
Cardinal Sarah: The Priesthood Today ‘Is in Mortal Danger’
In an exclusive English-language interview, the African cardinal discusses his new book, the status of the Catholic priesthood, and addresses those who say he opposes Pope Francis.
Edward Pentin | https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-sarah-the-priesthood-today-is-in-mortal-danger
VATICAN CITY — Cardinal Robert Sarah has made a further impassioned plea not to weaken the mandatory celibacy rule for priests, saying it would be a catastrophe that would amount to an “attack on the Church and her mystery.”

In an exclusive Feb. 7 interview with the Register in advance of the publication later this month of the English translation of From the Depths of Our Hearts: Priesthood, Celibacy and the Crisis of the Catholic Church, his new book on the priesthood with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI in English, the Guinean cardinal explains why he and Benedict wrote the book — namely to warn that separating celibacy from the priesthood, even just as an exception, would remove the priest’s imitation of Christ as spouse of the Church and turn her into a “mere human institution.”

And, in advance of next Wednesday’s release of Pope Francis’ post-apostolic exhortation on the Pan-Amazon synod, Cardinal Sarah, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, also explains how the exception proposed at the synod is different to previous exceptions and the situation with the Eastern Churches, and he notes that even when there were married priests in the early Church, they lived chaste lives.

He also discusses what he sees as one of the most serious problems facing the priesthood today: lack of apostolic fervor in the Church and lukewarmness. He urges radical discipleship and priests who are “radically saints.”

Cardinal Sarah also touches on the fracas over the book’s launch in French, stressing there was no misunderstanding but rather “sordid machinations” enacted by “opponents of the priesthood,” intent on diverting attention from the “content of the book.”

“They know their arguments are based on historical errors, on theological misunderstandings,” he says. “They know that celibacy is necessary for evangelization in mission countries. So they try to delegitimize the book itself.”

Your Eminence, why did you want to write this book?

Because the Christian priesthood is in mortal danger! It’s going through a major crisis.

The discovery of the great number of sexual abuses committed by priests, and even bishops, is an indisputable symptom of this. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI had already spoken out strongly on this subject. But then his thinking was distorted and ignored. Just like today, attempts have been made to silence him. And like today, diversionary maneuvers were mounted to divert attention from his prophetic message. Yet I am convinced that he has told us the essential — what no one wants to hear. He has shown that at the root of the abuses committed by clerics, there is a deep flaw in their formation. The priest is a man set apart for the service of God and the Church. He is a consecrated person. His whole life is set apart for God. And yet they wanted to desacralize priestly life. They wanted to trivialize it, to render it profane, to secularize it. They wanted to make the priest a man like any other. Some priests were formed without putting God, prayer, the celebration of Mass, the ardent search for holiness at the center of their lives.

As Benedict XVI said, “Why has pedophilia reached such proportions? In the final analysis, the reason is the absence of God. It is only where Faith no longer determines man’s actions that such crimes are possible.”

Precisely how poor has this formation been that you mention, and what have been the effects?

Priests have been formed without teaching them that God is the only point of support for their lives, without making them experience that their lives only have meaning through God and for him. Deprived of God, they were left with nothing but power. Some have fallen into the diabolical logic of abuse of authority and sexual crimes. If a priest doesn’t daily experience he is only an instrument in God’s hands, if he doesn’t stand constantly before God to serve him with all his heart, then he risks becoming intoxicated with a sense of power. If a priest’s life is not a consecrated life, then he is in great danger of illusion and diversion.

Today, some would like to take a further step in this direction. They would like to relativize the celibacy of priests. That would be a catastrophe! For celibacy is the most obvious manifestation that the priest belongs to Christ and that he no longer belongs to himself. Celibacy is the sign of a life that has meaning only through God and for him. To want to ordain married men is to imply that priestly life is not full time, that it does not require a complete gift, that it leaves one free for other commitments such as a profession, that it leaves time free for a private life. But this is false. A priest remains a priest at all times. Priestly ordination is not first of all a generous commitment; it is a consecration of our whole being, an indelible conformation of our soul to Christ, the priest, who demands from us permanent conversion in order to correspond to him. Celibacy is the unquestionable sign that being a priest supposes allowing oneself to be entirely possessed by God. To call it into question would seriously aggravate the crisis of the priesthood.

Does Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI share this point of view?

I am certain of it, and he has told me so, face-to-face, on several occasions. His greatest suffering and the most painful trial of the Latin Church is the crime of pedophile priests, priests who violate their chastity. One only has to read all that he wrote on this subject as a cardinal, then during his pontificate, and, most recently, in From the Depths of Our Hearts.

He never ceased to stress the importance of priestly celibacy for the whole Church. Let me remind you of his words: “If we separate celibacy from the priesthood, we will no longer see the charismatic character of the priesthood. We will see only a function that the institution itself provides for its own security and needs. If we want to take the priesthood in this light ... the Church is no longer understood except as a mere human institution.”

But they wanted to muzzle Benedict XVI. I must confess my revolt at the slander, violence and rudeness to which he has been subjected. Benedict XVI wanted to speak to the world, but they tried to discredit his words. I know that he takes on everything that is written in this book with determination, and I know that he is delighted with its publication. He wanted to write and publicly express this joy, but they would like to prevent him from expressing it. But to recount in detail, hour by hour, these maneuvers is useless. I prefer not to dwell on these sordid machinations, for which those responsible will one day give an account before God.

continued...

 

continued from above...

What is behind this opposition?

The opponents of the priesthood don’t want to get to the bottom of the debate. They know their arguments are based on historical errors, on theological misunderstandings. They know that celibacy is necessary for evangelization in mission countries. So they try to delegitimize the book itself. Having nothing to oppose in the text, they attack the cover. What a pity! They make the pope emeritus out to be an old man. But have you read what he writes? Do you think one can write pages of such depth without having all one’s faculties? Some people want to pass us off as naïve. They try to make us believe that our publishers have manipulated us and have taken advantage of a misunderstanding to mount I don’t know what kind of communication stunt. This is totally false! There is no misunderstanding. Our French publisher has simply implemented what I personally worked out with the pope emeritus. I’ve already mentioned this. I would like to pay further tribute to the loyalty and professionalism of all my publishers, especially my French publisher.

All these polemics are a diversionary tactic to avoid talking about the essential, the content of the book.

In view of the timing of the book, coming just before the Feb. 12 planned publication of his post-synodal apostolic exhortation, which may accept the synod fathers’ proposal to ordain some married men in the Amazon as priests, did you want to put pressure on Pope Francis?

I have already written that “whoever is against the Pope is outside the Church,” but I am always made out to be opposed to him. I am even at the top of the list of opponents of Pope Francis. These accusations break my heart and sadden me deeply. But I remain serene and confident that the Pope pays no attention to such false insinuations.

I am in no way in opposition to Pope Francis! Those who claim I am are trying to divide the Church. They lie and play the devil’s game. I have written this book in order to humbly and filially offer my contribution to the Pope in a spirit of true synodality. I challenge you to find in everything I have written a single line, a single word of criticism against the Pope!

But I am uneasy. In Germany, a strange synod clearly envisages the questioning of celibacy. I wanted to cry out my concern: Do not tear the Church apart! By attacking the celibacy of priests, you are attacking the Church and her mystery!

The Church does not belong to us; she is a gift of God. She perpetuates herself through the ministry of priests, who are also a gift of God and not a human creation. Each priest is the fruit of a vocation, of a personal and intimate call from God himself. Benedict XVI explains this in depth in this book. One does not decide by oneself to become a priest. One is called by God, and the Church confirms this call. Celibacy guarantees this call. A man can only renounce starting a family and having a sexual life if he is certain that God is calling him to this renunciation. Our priesthood hangs on God’s call and on the Church’s prayer for vocations.

So to question celibacy is to want to make the Church a human institution, within our power, within our reach. It means renouncing the mystery of the Church as God’s gift.

The Amazon synod did not propose a general questioning of priestly celibacy, but only to allow for exceptions to deal with a shortage of priests. Does this seem possible to you?

The ordination of married men is a fantasy of Western academics who are in search of violations. I want to affirm it forcefully: The poor, the simple, rank-and-file Christians do not demand an end to celibacy! They expect priests to be saints, to be entirely given to God and his Church. They expect celibate priests who incarnate among them the figure of Christ, spouse of the Church. I wanted to affirm in this book that we must help Pope Francis to be on the side of the poor and simple and refuse the pressure of the powerful, those who have the means to finance media campaigns. Some Church organizations which handle a lot of money believe they can put pressure on the Pope and the bishops. We see it in Germany. Some want to impose their projects on the whole Church. Let us pray for the Pope; we must help him to resist the pressures of these rich and powerful ecclesial bodies. We must help him to defend the faith of the simple. We must help him to defend the poor of Amazonia against those who try to exploit them by depriving them of a priesthood fully lived in celibacy. This book was written above all to support the Pope in his mission.

On the other hand, as Pope Francis pointed out at the end of the synod, the real problem in the Amazon is not the ordination of married deacons. The real issue is that of evangelization. We have renounced proclaiming the faith, salvation in Jesus Christ. Too often we have become humanitarian assistants or social workers. In Amazonia, we lack laypeople who take their missionary vocation seriously. We need catechists. Allow me to refer to a situation that I personally experienced. At the beginning of 1976, my experience as a young priest brought me into contact with remote villages in Guinea. Some of them had not been visited by a priest for almost 10 years, because the European missionaries had been expelled in 1967 by Sékou Touré. The catechists continued to teach the catechism to the children and to recite the prayers of the day. They recited the Rosary. They met on Sundays to listen to the word of God. I had the grace to meet these men and women who kept the faith without any sacramental support, for lack of priests. I never forget their unimaginable joy when I celebrated the Mass that they had not known for so long. I believe that if married men had been ordained in every village, the Eucharistic hunger of the faithful would have been extinguished. The people would have been cut off from the joy of receiving, in the priest, another Christ. Yes, with the instinct of faith, the poor know that a priest who has renounced marriage gives them the gift of all his love as a husband.

As for the priest shortage, it is real. But I believe that Pope Francis is right when he writes: “Many places are experiencing a dearth of vocations to the priesthood and consecrated life. This is often due to a lack of contagious apostolic fervor in communities which results in a cooling of enthusiasm and attractiveness. Wherever there is life, fervor and a desire to bring Christ to others, genuine vocations will arise” (Evangelii Gaudium, 107).

But what about exceptions to the law of celibacy that already exist, for example in the Eastern Catholic rites or the Anglican Ordinariate?

An exception is transitory by definition and constitutes a parenthesis in the normal and natural state of things. This was the case of Anglican pastors returning to full communion. But the lack of a priest is not an exception. It is the normal state of any nascent Church, as in the Amazon, or dying Churches, as in the West. Jesus warned us: “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few.” The ordination of married men in young Christian communities would prohibit the raising of vocations of unmarried priests. The exception would become a permanent state. A weakening of the principle of celibacy, even if limited to one region, would not be an exception, but a breach, a wound in the internal coherence of the priesthood. On the other hand, the dignity and greatness of marriage is increasingly better understood. As Benedict XVI points out in this book, these two states are not compatible because they both demand an absolute and total gift.

In the East, some churches have married clergy. I do not in any way question the personal holiness of these priests. But such a situation is only livable because of the massive presence of monks. Moreover, from the point of view of the sign given to the whole Church by the priesthood, there is a risk of confusion. If a priest is married, then he has a private life, a conjugal and family life. He must make time for his wife and children. He is unable to show, by his whole life, that he is totally and absolutely given to God and the Church. St. John Paul II stated it very clearly: The Church wants to be loved by her priests with the very love with which Jesus loved her, that is to say, with an exclusive spouse’s love. It is important, the saintly Polish pope said, that priests understand the theological motivation of their celibacy. He said: “Priestly celibacy should not be considered just as a legal norm or as a totally external condition for admission to ordination, but rather as a value that is profoundly connected with ordination, whereby a man takes on the likeness of Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd and Spouse of the Church” (Pastores Dabo Vobis, 50). This is what we wanted to recall with Benedict XVI. The true foundation of celibacy is not juridical, disciplinary or practical; it is theocentric. On this subject I refer you to the extraordinary speech of Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia on Dec. 22, 2006. Celibacy for God is an absurdity in the eyes of the secularized and atheistic world. Celibacy is a scandal for the contemporary mind. It shows that God is a reality. If the life of priests does not concretely show that God is enough to make us happy and to give meaning to our existence, then who will proclaim him? More than ever our societies need celibacy because they need God.

continued...

 

continued from above...

What do you say to the view that priestly celibacy is a relatively recent norm in the Catholic Church?

We are often victims of a profound historical ignorance on this subject. The Church had married priests during the first centuries. But as soon as they were ordained, they were required to abstain completely from sexual relations with their wives. Benedict XVI reminds us of this very clearly in this book. Everybody knows his deep historical culture and his perfect knowledge of the ancient tradition. This is a certain fact and is proven by the most recent historical research. There was no taboo in this requirement, no fear of sexuality. It was a matter of affirming that the priest is the exclusive spouse, body and soul, of the Church. From the historical point of view, things are very clear: from the year 305, the Council of Elvira recalls the law, “received from the apostles,” the continence of priests. As the Church was just emerging from the age of martyrdom, one of her first concerns was to affirm that priests must abstain from sexual relations with their wives. Indeed, the Council states: “It was unanimously agreed that bishops, priests and deacons, that is to say, all clerics constituted in the ministry, should abstain from their wives and should not bear children; whoever has done so [had sexual relations] should be declared to be deprived of the clerical office” (Canon 33). If this requirement had been an innovation, it would not have failed to provoke widespread protest among priests. On the whole, however, it was received peacefully. Christians were already aware that a priest who celebrates the Mass, that is, the renewal of Christ’s sacrifice for the world, must also offer himself to God and to his whole Church, body and soul. He no longer belongs to himself. It was only much later, because of the corruption of the texts, that the East would evolve in its discipline, without ever renouncing the ontological link between priesthood and abstinence.

You return several times in this book to the necessity of radical evangelism. Do you believe we are facing a lessening of apostolic fervor, that the Church has lost her salt?

I’m glad you asked that question. It is certainly the most important aspect of this book, but no one has noted or commented on it. We are content with secondary and sterile polemics. I think we’ve been overwhelmed by lukewarmness and mediocrity. We must aspire to holiness. Benedict XVI, with prophetic courage, dares to affirm that “without the renunciation of material goods, there can be no priesthood. The call to follow Jesus is not possible without this sign of freedom and renunciation of all compromises.” He thus lays the foundations for a true reform of the clergy. He calls for a radical change in the daily life of priests as he continues: “Celibacy cannot attain its full meaning if we conform to the rules of property and the attitudes of life commonly practiced today.” I am convinced that in truth it is the radicality of this call to holiness which is disturbing and which we do not want to hear. This book is disturbing because the pope emeritus offers a demanding and prophetic perspective.

For my part, I have tried to develop this call by emphasizing that priests must find concrete ways to live the evangelical counsels. Bishops must reflect on this, for themselves and for priests: We must concretely put God at the center of our lives. The life of priests cannot be a life according to the world. “No one can serve two masters.” The West is out of breath. The West is old, with all its renunciations and resignations. It waits, without perhaps being aware of it, for youth, for the rawness of the Gospel’s demand for holiness. So it waits for priests who are radically saints.

 

Ann, So, if I began defending Stephen Walford's stance on Pope Francis on the forum would you have a similar response? I don't plan on doing that, btw but he of course, is at the other extreme imho.

To clarify, I am simply trying to help other members become aware of Ann B's extremism. I would never ever suggest that anyone do anything other than ignore her ramblings. When we stand before God on judgment day I highly doubt that I or anyone else could claim "but Ann B had a good case as to why PEB was still the pope." I don't think that this would float and everyone should think of this before they defend Ann B's stance on who the legitimate pope is. The legitimate pope is Pope Francis, period Amen until someone who has the authority to state otherwise does so. Ann B and Sg do not have that authority.

I have to say that I am a little offended by Sg's comments that I was unkind to Ann B, I actually find that comment of Sg's a bit strange and now I am also a little offended by your inference that I am stating that we should not stick together because long before Michael Matt suggested such I stated this on MOG.

Btw, do you ever think that extremists like Ann B may cause the same sort of threats to be made to Pope Francis or even worse? I am referring to the threats that you have stated Liz Crokin has received or threats that Ann B may have received.

Again, it was not I who posed for that photo. I don't support violence of any kind. Defending oneself and one's family etc is something entirely different but aggressiveness should be condemned.

 

AED, I accept your apology but if you are extremely concerned about heated words toward each other than maybe you should have asked Sg why she would continue to state that I was unkind in regard to Ann B? All I stated is that Ann B is a bit off and I posted a picture of her that I came across on the internet, was this really unkind to point that you have inferred it to be? I do not wish any ill on Ann B or Sg or anyone else.

As you have stated, we all are not going to agree on the little things and it is absolutely more important that we agree on the big things. With that said if Sg can have her opinion on Ann B why can't I, without it being said multiple times that I was unkind to Ann B? Of course, I am going to explain my comments and defend myself. As I stated, in an above post - enough said about Ann B. I don't agree with her or her approach and I ignore her. For the sake of everyone's soul including AnnB's we should accept that Pope Francis is the legitimate pope. Imho it is also an insult to good cardinals like Burke, Mueller, Brandmueller, Sarah, etc to do otherwise.

PS -

I am going to be taking a break from the forum for awhile I just reread Sg's last reply to me and I just can't believe that she is allowed to continue to state that Pope Benedict is the true pope. Yeah, I absolutely need a break and I hope that a week is enough. Good bye all, see you in a week.

Lol "unkind to Ann B", how about unkind to the authority of Christ's Church? How about disobedience?

And finally, how about we do what the Blessed Mother, the Mother of God, told us to do which was to pray for the pope? +​

 

A lot can happen in a week, C55. We will definitely continue to need your wise perspective and comments. Don’t stay away too long.

We’ve already had the ‘big switch off’ when we were all incommunicado. Come back soon.

 

I stand by what I said in this post.

The naked Emperor is NOT wearing new clothes.

+

 

I need to take a break. Otherwise I'll be spending the rest of this papacy in Confession if God grants me the grace to stay in the Church headed by this hypocrite. Lord, save your Church.

https://twitter.com/CatholicSat/status/1226104664879489024

https://onepeterfive.com/liberation-theologian-boff-francis-is-one-of-us/

 

I know what you mean! Lord save your Church for only You can!