The Vatican Has Fallen

Discussion in 'Church Critique' started by padraig, Dec 31, 2016.

  1. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    The dangers were many, many years in the making...the last 150 years. Also, Bishop Schneider says that there were some positive elements of VII, and said we cannot throw out the baby with the bath water.
    Interestingly, that is an important analogy and point that DeGaulle made recently. I believe it might have been on this thread. He used the exact same words.
    I do like Bishop Schneider very much.
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2020
    Sam, AED, Allyd and 2 others like this.
  2. earthtoangels

    earthtoangels Powers

    Vatican Rejects Gender Fluidity in New Catechetical Text

    ROME — People’s “gender identity” is given to them by God and is directly tied to their biological sex, the Vatican has declared in a major catechetical text published this week.

    A fundamental problem with modern gender theory is that it denies a core biblical truth, namely that God creates human beings “male and female,” states the new, 300-page Directory for Catechesis published by the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization.

    “Gender identity, according to this position, is no longer an original fact that the person must embrace and fill with meaning, but a social construction that is decided independently, totally detached from biological sex,” the document warns.

    A sound anthropology is based on a recognition of the truth of human nature, the text insists, which is not the product of human will but of divine creation.

    In modern gender theory, the person “denies his nature and decides that he creates it himself,” the text continues. “According to the biblical account of creation, however, man was created by God as male and female.”

    This does not negate real psychological problems of gender dysphoria, the Vatican acknowledges, but these issues should not lead to a denial of human nature.

    “The Church is well aware of the complexity of personal situations that are lived sometimes in a conflictive way,” the document states. “She does not judge people, but offers to accompany them always and in any situation.”

    “Nonetheless, she is aware that, from a perspective of faith, sexuality is not only a physical fact, but a personal reality, a value entrusted to the responsibility of the person,” the Vatican declares. “In this way, sexual identity and existential experience must be a response to God’s original call.”

    The new Directory echoes the sharp criticism of gender theory voiced by Pope Francis over the years, which has earned him the derision of many LGBT activists.

    In 2016, the pope published a lengthy teaching text on marriage and the family called The Joy of Love (Amoris Laetitia) in which he underscored the unique value of motherhood and fatherhood, neither of which is dispensable or replaceable with a unisex version of “parent.”

    In that document, Francis slammed gender theory for its denial of “the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman,” and for its dream of “a society without sexual differences.”

    “An appreciation of our body as male or female,” he said, is “necessary for our own self-awareness in an encounter with others different from ourselves.” Efforts to cancel out sexual differences based in anatomy are a symptom of a sick society that “no longer knows how to deal” with sexual differentiation, he wrote.

    The following year the pope issued a similar condemnation, denouncing what he called the “unisex utopia” of the LGBT lobby.
    Don_D, Sam and AED like this.
  3. Don_D

    Don_D ¡Viva Cristo Rey!

    I wonder what happened to Fr. Kalchik the priest who burned the rainbow flag in Chicago and was slated for the mental ward or removal by Cardinal Cupich. I have not seen any updates to his story since the beginning of the year.

    Meanwhile in Chicago;

    CHICAGO, Illinois, June 12, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A Catholic dad in Illinois, dismayed over Cardinal Blase Cupich placing severe post-pandemic restrictions on the resumption of public Masses in the Archdiocese of Chicago, has launched a public campaign to have churches fully reopened.

    Joe Lazar, a father and pro-life activist, has launched a campaign called “Reopen my Church.”

    “Catholics in the Archdiocese of Chicago are being persecuted by our local leadership in an unprecedented fashion,” Lazar said to LifeSiteNews, pointing out that it is Cardinal Blase Cupich who is ultimately responsible for the severe restrictions that, in effect, result in the faithful being denied the Sacraments.

    “Cardinal Cupich has ignored nearly every attempt by credible Catholic leaders in Illinois to dialogue further on the subject,” Lazar said, adding that “if action is not taken, it is a matter of time before reverent devotion in the densely Catholic city of Chicago will be dissolved” and will become an “unrecognizable practice.”

    A petition that Lazar launched online states: “The Catholic Mass must be restored to a level commensurate with grocery stores and pharmacies as soon as possible! Please let your bishops know that you cannot quietly accept the ‘inessential’ status of the Sacraments in Illinois by signing this petition.”

    “As many in the world today grapple with concern over death, Catholics are unable to receive that which our Lord Himself stated is necessary for eternal life,” the petition, which can still be signed online, states.

    “The decision to extinguish the Sacraments, while nearly every material good remains available, renders the Sacraments inessential by default. This goes against everything the Catholic Church has taught us regarding the Sacraments,” the petition continued.

    Addressed to the auxiliary bishops in the archdiocese of Chicago, the petition concluded with a number of questions:

    Are the Sacraments essential, or not? Are we willing to be misunderstood, shamed, and even persecuted by society for our devotion to Jesus Christ? Will we accept the fact that our elected state leaders have clearly made material goods essential and constitutionally protected religious practice inessential, and even, potentially punishable? Will we use this time as an opportunity for bold evangelization through personal witness, or choose to quietly capitulate?

    Cardinal Cupich had suspended all public Masses beginning March 14.

    On March 20, Governor Pritzer, a Democrat, stated in his stay-at-home order, “Pursuant to current guidance from the CDC, any gathering of more than ten people is prohibited unless exempted by this Executive Order.” Since religious services were not mentioned in the document, public Masses, albeit with only a very small congregation, would still have been possible.

    Cupich had not only suspended public Masses, however. He also told his priests that all baptisms “must be postponed.” Even “emergency” baptisms, where the child is in danger of death, required the “permission” of the local ordinary.

    Already on April 22, several Catholic leaders had asked Cupich in a letter “to get back to a real, present Mass and to receive Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.”

    “In some dioceses parking lot Masses have been authorized. Many of our churches are large enough that we could easily follow the social distancing protocols and advise those at greater risk to refrain from attendance,” they pointed out.

    “Perhaps you have a plan in mind already,” the Catholic leaders were hopeful.

    Just over a week later, on April 30, Catholics in the Windy City formed the St. Charles Borromeo Society for the purpose of reopening the churches in the archdiocese.

    Cardinal Cupich refused to meet with the group, letting his flock know that “after careful review and consideration, the Cardinal regrets that this is not an opportune time for such a meeting.”

    Joseph Scheidler, one of the Catholic leaders who had sent the letter on April 22, asked, “When would be an opportune time? We are desperately in need of spiritual leadership during this pandemic and that is sorely lacking in the Archdiocese of Chicago.”

    On May 13, Cardinal Cupich published his guidelines for reopening Catholic parishes.

    “Phase I allows for parishes to reopen for Baptism, Reconciliation, Weddings and Funerals with a limit of 10 attendees,” Cupich declared. “Phase IA allows for parishes to reopen for private prayer and adoration with a limit of 10 attendees. Given the training schedule noted above, it is anticipated that all parishes, if they choose to do so, could be opened by May 23 for Phase I and by May 30 for Phase IA.”

    Most parishes are currently in Phase IA. For those parishes to move on to Phase II, which would allow for the resumption of public Masses, they would have to “apply for certification to offer daily and Sunday Mass.”

    Parishes are required to prepare and submit “a detailed proposal for implementing Phase II,” including maintaining “an on-going procurement program for safety and cleaning supplies” and developing “logistical procedures in accord with the guidelines of the Plan to manage more frequent and larger services that cover actions before, during and after the rites.”

    Very few parishes have implemented Phase II, according to the video. During Phase II, the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue, the traditional practice of the Church, is banned.

    Lisa Bergman, one of the founders of the St. Charles Borromeo Society, wholeheartedly rejected the guidelines, saying Cupich’s remarks were laced with “secular wisdom.”

    “Cardinal Cupich has blithely yielded the Authority of the Church and subjugated the primacy of her worship to laws of man which are being successfully challenged by other denominations,” she said.

    “In doing so, he replaces what has been heroically defended for thousands of years with the absurd perception that the Mass and the Sacraments are less necessary and more potentially dangerous than grocery stores, gas stations, hardware stores, take-out restaurants, laundries, the postal service, and construction trades, all of which are having no trouble observing CDC regulations.”

    “This monstrous triple betrayal of Christ and His Church, from beginning to end, normalizes the narrative that the Church is secondary and must abase itself as though it were merely a place of recreation,” Bergman added.

    Meanwhile, already on May 2, several pastors ministering to Romanian Christian congregations in the Chicago area had told Governor Pritzker that they were going to defy his executive order limiting religious gatherings to only ten people.

    “Please be advised that, beginning on May 10, 2020, our congregations will resume in-person church gatherings, and we will no longer adhere to the 10-person limit or the other unconstitutional restrictions comprised within your orders,” the pastors wrote.

    Governor Pritzer, in turn, was forced to remove all restrictions on religious services following various lawsuits. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was nominated by President Donald Trump, ordered Pritzker to respond to one particular lawsuit by May 28.

    Before that deadline, Pritzker issued new non-mandatory guidelines for churches and other places of worship. The guidelines continued to recommend social distancing, face masks, and limited attendance, as well as excluding singing, refreshments, and close physical contact, but church leaders were free to implement them as they saw fit.

    In spite of Pritzker’s new guidelines, the archdiocese of Chicago under Cardinal Cupich has failed to update his plan for the resumption of public Masses.

    As lay Catholics, led by Joe Lazar, said in their petition, “Essentially, a shorter earthly life with an undying devotion to the Lord through the Sacraments is more essential than a longer life, which is void of a metaphysical reality.”

    The petition urged Catholics “to trust in Jesus Christ, regardless of what it might cost us as individuals.”

    In a video, Lazar recounted how events in the state of Illinois, as well as in the archdiocese of Chicago, unfolded amid the coronavirus pandemic.
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2020
    Sam, AED, Mary's child and 1 other person like this.
  4. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    Thanks for posting this . What a dreadful situation. I was amazed to see that the Romanian pastors stood up! Quite a few Romanians in Chicago and Northwest Indiana.
    AED and Mary's child like this.
  5. padraig

    padraig New Member

    I haven't posted on this thread for a long time for several reasons. Firstly if folks have not realised by now how grim things are as far as the Holy Father and the Vatican are concerned they are probably in a State of Total Denial or complicit. Secondly, well its so depressing.

    Still two recent statements by the Holy Father are eye opening, not to say eye watering and are worth reporting, even if they might make Faithful Catholics want to throw themselves under a high speed train.:rolleyes:

    The first concerns the German Catholic Bishops whom you may recall are defending Contraception and the homosexual lifestyle. Additionally they inform us they are , 'open' to women priests and doing away with a Celibate Clergy.

    The Holy Father has just issued a statement encouraging there Heretics, who make Martin Luther look good on their present Apostate Path:
  6. padraig

    padraig New Member

    Donna259 likes this.
  7. padraig

    padraig New Member

    I can't even comment on the Holy Father's goings on , I just find them too depressing and shocking. They speak for themselves.




    The less I think about him the better I feel. So I'm going to go back to not thinking about him and doing my very, very best to ignore him. But, let's face it, he's a hard guy to ignore.:rolleyes:

    Now where's that High Speed Train? ;)

    Last edited: Jun 30, 2020
    AED, Tanker and Mary's child like this.
  8. Mary's child

    Mary's child Powers

    I am with you 100% on the latter statement, too depressing!
    AED, HeavenlyHosts and padraig like this.
  9. padraig

    padraig New Member

    Yes it's better as St Paul said to concentrate on the positive. I was up with my priest today and told him that the Holy Father had recently called priests himself Adolescents for giving out the Sacraments during the Lock Down. He rolled his eyes and burst out laughing.

    It's good to keep a sense of humour.:) Keep positive.

    Sam, AED, Mary's child and 2 others like this.
  10. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    I agree!!!
    AED and Mary's child like this.
  11. Tanker

    Tanker Archangels

    Yep. I concur with the above. I am just so tired of hearing it. It's like Chinese water torture :(
    Pray4peace, AED and Mary's child like this.
  12. AED

    AED Powers

    There is simply no emoji to cover this. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch.
    Tanker and HeavenlyHosts like this.
  13. AED

    AED Powers

    It really is. Drip drip drip.
    Tanker and HeavenlyHosts like this.
  14. Don_D

    Don_D ¡Viva Cristo Rey!

    You guys should subscribe to his Twitter feed. :ROFLMAO:
  15. Sunnyveil

    Sunnyveil Archangels

    God's generals are forming the resistance. Let's see there's Archbishop Vigano; maybe he'll be the new pope--you never know. Like minded others include Cardinal Zen, retired Bishop Gracida, now retired Archbishop Luigi Negri of Italy. We need to hear more from Bishop Schneider and Cardinal Burke. Keeping track seems like a worthwhile positive exercise in these times.

    June 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Today, Italian Archbishop Luigi Negri published on his website and on the website of Italian journalist Marco Tosatti a public letter to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, in which he gives him his full support for his “message which seems to me to have aptly expressed the living heart of our ecclesial experience.” Speaking about “elements of degradation both in the life of the Church as well as in civil society,” this recently retired Archbishop of Ferrara-Comacchio now endorses Archbishop Viganò's work and says he would like to “accompany” his “path of truth.”

    Archbishop Negri clarified that his praise referred to Viganò’s early May interventions, not his June interventions on Vatican II.
    Sam, Jo M, Tanker and 5 others like this.
  16. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    Q & A about Holy Communion in the hand:

    When receiving Communion in the hand can be sinful
    I have received many questions from worried Catholics asking if it is right for the faithful to go along with bishops' decrees forcing Communion in the hand. Here are some answers.

    by Peter Kwasniewski
    Thu Jul 2, 2020 - 10:30 am EST

    Lincoln Beddoe /
    July 2, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Many bishops around the world are attempting to compel Catholics, who are in the right dispositions to approach the Holy Eucharist, to receive Our Lord in the hand, contrary to their well formed consciences about the risks involved in that method and contrary to their canonical rights to receive on the tongue. I have received many questions from worried Catholics asking if the bishops really have such authority and if it is ever right for the faithful to go along with such decrees. Here, I present some of those questions and my answers.


    While thankfully I have regular access to the Blessed Sacrament, my sons are currently residing in a diocese where the bishop, like so many others, has “mandated” Communion in the hand. I discussed with my sons how the bishop has no authority to mandate such a thing, and shared many articles (including yours), which my sons discussed with their priests. These priests, however, are going to “just do what the bishop says,” and for the past few weeks my sons have refrained from receiving Communion at all rather than have to receive on the hand. Should my sons continue to refrain from receiving? To me, it seems as if it would be just the capitulation the Devil desires if we were to say “okay, whatever — I need Communion, so I’ll go ahead and receive on the hand for now, since it’s my only choice.” I hate to “give in” to this destructive progressivism in any way, but would it be actually wrong to receive on the hand if there was no other way available?


    This is a painful cross that so many Catholics have to bear in these days of upside-down priorities. A few considerations.

    1. Inasmuch as the bishops are abusing their authority (and that they are doing so is beyond doubt, given universal law, which they cannot simply put aside), it is wrong to capitulate to their requests, since this would only confirm them in their contempt for law, tradition, and the legitimate rights of the faithful. The same is true for the priests: they want to be “obedient,” but they are actually being enablers of episcopal overreach, as I explain here. We may pardon their weakness, but we shouldn’t applaud it by “falling in line.” Remember the Austrian Catholics at the time of Hitler? They fell into line except for Franz Jägerstätter: they all said “Oh, we can square this National Socialist oath of allegiance with Catholicism,” and he said: “Not so fast: I don’t see how I can.” He is acknowledged by the Church as a martyr. We can hope the Lord had mercy on the rest who caved in.

    2. “Is it a big deal to receive in the hand?” Well, for starters, if we were doing it in the ancient manner, we would receive in the right hand (not the left!), and bow down in adoration to take up the holy bread with our tongue, and then would lick our palm to make sure no fragments would be left over. (One still sees Byzantine priests licking their fingers as they clean the antimension after Communion.) In other words, not at all what is being done today since the faux “revival” of Communion in the hand in the 1960s and ’70s. It might be possible to receive in the truly ancient manner without sin, but in doing so one would very obviously “stick out” from the rest of the people — and one would still be licking one’s hand, which is hardly sanitary by today’s standards, especially if there is a danger of harmful germs. Put differently, the ancient manner of receiving in the hand has twice the disadvantage, from a hygienic point of view, of receiving directly on the tongue.



    There has been a big debate between some of my friends and me over the matter of receiving Holy Communion in the hand. One young man, although favoring the abrogation of hand Communion, believes that it is wrong to say it is sinful. His main argument is that “the living Magisterium has allowed it” (see Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 92), thus to hold that opinion would be the result of an improperly formed conscience. This to me sounds like a positivistic and ultramontanist approach. There is an objective liturgical tradition that the living Magisterium must adhere to. It seems to me that Communion in the hand could be a sacrilege, and if so, we know that sacrilege is a sin. I think the broader question is, can the living Magisterium promote something sinful through official documents?


  17. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha


    It would be difficult to maintain that it is necessarily a sin to receive the Eucharist in one’s hand, if adequate precautions were taken. After all, if it were sinful in itself, it could never have been practiced in the early Church. If one followed the description attributed to St. Cyril, one would place the right hand above the left hand, and when the host is in the palm, one would bow down to the hand (not moving the hand) and take up the host with one’s mouth, licking the area on the palm in order to make sure no particles remained. This is not a form of “self-communication” but is simply using the right hand as a paten, and showing adoration by the bow. (I speak of this here.)

    All the same, we do not live anymore in the fifth century; we live in the twenty-first, after a millennium during which the Church, moved by the Holy Spirit, abandoned Communion in the hand everywhere because of ever growing reverence for the Most Holy Sacrament, a deepening appreciation of the special anointing conferred on the hands of the priest for handling sacred things, and a realization of the dangers connected with hand reception. Something that might have been acceptable in one age comes to be seen as unacceptable in another, precisely because the Church’s practice develops, even as her insight into revealed mysteries develops. (And if one were to counter that this development went in the direction of corruption, he has basically become a Protestant or a devotee of the error of false antiquarianism.)

    For those who realize, as every well catechized Catholic should, that the Church’s traditions are to be revered and trusted, and who know that Communion on the hand had long been abandoned and replaced for fitting reasons with Communion on the tongue, it would be sinful to receive on the hand, because one would be acting against one’s conscience and against one’s understanding of the Faith. However, there are very many Catholics who are so poorly trained and so ignorant that they actually do not know what the tradition was or why it was that way — or even that we should trust our traditions to begin with. Such a Catholic, if in a state of grace and attempting to do what he believes the Church is asking him to do, would not (necessarily) be committing a sin.

    Obviously, saying this doesn’t cancel out in any way the serious problems with Communion in the hand. It is unfitting for unanointed hands to handle the Body of Christ. It risks profaning Our Lord by the loss of fragments. It is contrary to organic tradition. The living Magisterium itself, as you rightly say, has an obligation to adhere to the tradition and not to contradict it, which would be equivalent to telling the Holy Spirit to get lost. Even Paul VI, who was colorblind and tone-deaf when it came to liturgy, seems to have recognized this (see the strangely contradictory document Memoriale Domini of May 29, 1969, from the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, approved by Paul VI), but he was too weak and self-doubting to uphold what he knew to be true. We, on the other hand, should not be weak and self-doubting in following the wisdom of tradition.


    In general, once one becomes aware of the problems surrounding Communion in the hand — that it risks profanation, that it leads to a loss of faith in the Real Presence and the special nature of the ordained priesthood, that it is contrary to a fitting tradition of many centuries, that it is contrary even to Paul VI’s stipulations, that it facilitates the theft of the Host for satanic rituals, etc.—then it would be contrary to a well informed conscience to receive in that way, and so, it would be sinful.

    This is not, after all, a strange situation. Many times, people are badly informed about moral actions, and it can be that they were so badly formed and at such a disadvantage that they are not culpable for their ignorance. People can do objectively wrong things while not being subjectively guilty of choosing them as evil. However, once they “wise up,” then they are obliged to follow their better informed consciences.

    We must also remember the clear teaching of Scripture and of the saints: God is still displeased by objectively evil actions, even when their perpetrators are ignorant or deceived about what they are doing. Moreover, people will still suffer negative consequences for evil actions. The one who thinks contraception is morally acceptable is nonetheless injured in his life and relationships by practicing it and truly contradicts the will of God, Creator and Lord of life.

    That is why the Catholic tradition places such a premium on the accurate formation of conscience and why it makes sense for someone to confess anything that seems, to him, to be a sin against what is known or believed to be pleasing to God.

    (for the full blog post, go to:

    AED likes this.
  18. Jason Fernando

    Jason Fernando Archangels

    Vigano: Francis Is Liquidating The Church
  19. earthtoangels

    earthtoangels Powers

    Although Fr. Amorth is referenced in this article below I might have some doubts about whether he would totally agree with this understanding given within the article:

    As part of its insistence that only priests with a specific mandate from their bishop may perform exorcisms, the text provides theological arguments as to why it’s the power of Christ channeled through the Church, and not “more potent exorcistic formula or the individual ‘powers’ of a priest” that determine the efficacy of the ritual.

    Vatican-recognized exorcists’ group offers guidelines for ‘quality control’

  20. Dolours

    Dolours Powers

    The guidelines should be required reading for all priests but I wonder at the wisdom of making them available to the general public.

    I can't see anything in the text you quoted which wouldn't meet with the approval of a faithful son of the Church like the late Fr. Amorth. What could be more dangerous than a disobedient priest trying to exorcise demons?

    Mejtom posted some videos of the 2020 Divine Mercy conference. One of those videos had a talk from Fr. Collins who is an exorcist. He distinguishes between deliverance prayers and exorcism. Any baptised person can say deliverance prayers but only a priest authorised by his Bishop has the authority to attempt an exorcism.

    Fr. Collins said that demons can't just take over a person without that person providing an opening. I have heard other exorcists say that and my memory for detail isn't great but I'm fairly sure I heard or read of an exorcist saying something that, while not a direct contradiction of what Fr. Collins said, didn't come across as quite so certain. Maybe I misunderstood.
    Sam and AED like this.

Share This Page