A corporal work of mercy.

A corporal work of mercy.
Click on photo for this corporal work of mercy!
Showing posts with label Cardinal Nichols. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cardinal Nichols. Show all posts

Monday 11 July 2016

The "ad orientem" fight in the Nervous Disorder, is on! Who will win? -- UPDATE - Not Cardinal Sarah, he's now been thrown under the Vatican bus!

This past week, I decided, in consultation with the Pastor where I have been singing the Ordinary Form on Saturday for the past eight years, to resign. My frustration has been building for a while now. I have come to the conclusion that no matter how faithful the priest, the people are just so distracting and so disrespectful and so utterly stupid, that I could no longer bear it. The actions against Cardinal Sarah now have affirmed my decision.

The contrast between the Novus Ordo in general and the Mass on Sundays two dioceses away where I direct the music in the traditional Rite is like night and day. It has become, for me, simply too much to bear.

Dysfunction of the liturgy is embedded

The inherent dysfunction of the Novus Ordo, is impossible to reform. Priests who have tried to do it have been, and continue to be, persecuted.  Cardinal Sarah is now open to being persecuted already by Federico Lombardi!

I have given it 30 years. I was once denounced publicly from the Ambo on Good Friday by the Pastor of the parish I grew up in for delivering a Good Friday liturgy in accord with the Novus Ordo Roman Missal. He was a priest of the Polish Congregation of St. Michael the Archangel, and even denied my mother's funeral in her parish church because the request was for it to be in Latin, and according to the Novus Ordo! Another, a "baby priest" at 27, wagged his finger after Mass in front of the parishioners at me and said, "I told you never to sing in Latin, I am the priest and you must obey!" To which I responded, "No Father, you told me not to sing that which was not in Catholic Book of Worship II and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops have put it in the hymnbook, perhaps you should take it up with them." Fortunately, that effeminate and rageful clericalist is no longer in Toronto but now in the Archdiocese of Detroit and is a Pastor. Keep him away from you boys, he was once also from the CSMA.

I will give the Novus Ordo, no more of my time. It is a useless exercise. It is a liturgy which was an error and remains so. It was and remains, an abomination. It cannot be reformed, it will not be reformed until the Pope and Bishops find the determination to do it. Nice words from Cardinals are not enough as we have no seen.

"Person" centered worship

It was not from the Holy Spirit. It is simply not possible. It is a cult of man, not of God. It is illogical and blasphemous to think that it could be from the Holy Spirit. 

Look at the fruits!

God knows all things. Sees all things. He knows the future. Father, Son and Holy Spirit know all, see all. This great God could see the damage to souls and the faith that the new order of the Mass has produced. He saw it all. Why would He cause it? He permitted it, to be sure, but the Novus Ordo and the theology that formed it has caused the literal collapse of the faith because it is the point at which most Catholics come together. Why would God debase a liturgy that is meant to worship Him and sanctify us? It is simply not possible that this was from the Holy Spirit, it simply defies logic.

Valid? 


Yes. That is a different matter.

Yet it remains a liturgical abomination, I am convinced of it. After 30 years, of labour, there is no fruit, there are no seeds sprouted, the ground is barren. My time and talents will now be spent exclusively with the traditional Latin Mass. Week by week, we see the fruit, the growth, the faith.

Cardinal Sarah himself has stated that the "faithful are now unfaithful." He also knows why.

I raise the possibility of looking again at the Constitution and at the reform which followed its promulgation because I do not think that we can honestly read even the first article of Sacrosanctum Concilium today and be content that we have achieved its aims. My brothers and sisters, where are the faithful of whom the Council Fathers spoke? Many of the faithful are now unfaithful: they do not come to the liturgy at all. To use the words of Pope Saint John Paul II: many Christians are living in a state of “silent apostasy;” they “live as if God does not exist” (Apostolic Exhortation, Ecclesia in Europa, 28 June 2003, 9). Where is the unity the Council hoped to achieve? We have not yet reached it. Have we made real progress in calling the whole of mankind into the household of the Church? I do not think so. And yet we have done very much to the liturgy!

The Novus Ordo and any reform of the reform is a dead letter. Unless it is put in the Missal and ordered by the Pope, it will not be carried out. It will not be fixed, not by this Pope. Leave it. If you wish to remain Catholic, get yourself to the traditional Mass.

The proof is for all to see




Anthony Spadaro's little tweet is evidence of this. It may also disclose what Francis thinks as Spadaro is a confidant. Cardinal Sarah's recent talk in Rome was just that, talk, and his views, virtually alone.

Spadaro is also wrong. He is not only wrong, he is manipulative. The paragraph in the GIRM appears again at the Pax Vobiscum. Why? Because it is presumed that one is actually, not "FACING THE PEOPLE" or the direction would not be there.


In the original Latin, the GIRM, presuming the priest has just incensed the altar and performed the Lavabo, states:



146. Ad medium altaris deinde reversus, sacerdos, stans versus populum, extendens et iungens manus, populum ad orandum invitat, dicens: Oráte, fratres, etc. Populus surgit et responsionem dat Suscípiat Dominus. Deinde sacerdos, manibus extensis, dicit orationem super oblata. In fine populus acclamat: Amen. 146. Upon returning to the middle of the altar , the priest , facing the people , extending and then joining his hands, invites the people to pray , saying : Pray, brothers and sisters, etc. The people rise and make their response May the Lord accept . Then the Priest, with hands extended , says the Prayer over the offerings. In the end, the people make the acclamation, Amen.

Why would it say, "facing the people" it it were not the norm? It specifically instructs him to face the people thereby presuming that he was not, previously!

Not only Spadaro, but now Cardinal Nichols of Westminster has ordered his priests to ignore the Cardinal's request; saying that is not for priest to “exercise personal preference or taste,” citing GIRM 299. 

Again, like Spadaro, Nichols displays his twisted logic and in fact, discloses his bias.

GIRM 299 states:

The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the centre toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns. The altar is usually fixed and is dedicated.’”

Note that? 

"Can" not must. 

"Desirable" not mandatory.

Father Z addresses the matter at his blog.

It seems that that this Cardinal Nichols knows how to pray to pagan gods but he won't permit his priests to face the True God?


Is he even Catholic?





The Congregation for the Liturgy and Discipline of the Sacraments has already address this in  Prot. No 2086/00/L


The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has been asked whether the expression in n. 299 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani constitutes a norm according to which the position of the priest versus absidem [facing the apse] is to be excluded.
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, after mature reflection and in light of liturgical precedents, responds:
Negatively, and in accordance with the following explanation.The explanation includes different elements which must be taken into account. First, the word expedit does not constitute a strict obligation but a suggestion that refers to theconstruction of the altar a pariete sejunctum (detached from the wall). It does not require, for example, that existing altars be pulled away from the wall. The phrase ubi possibile sit (where it is possible) refers to, for example, the topography of the place, the availability of space, the artistic value of the existing altar, the sensibility of the people participating in the celebrations in a particular church, etc.

Benedict XVI wrote in the Spirit of the Liturgy that Mass facing the people was a community "turned inwards on itself." He had the opportunity to order this change. He did not. Now Cardinal Sarah voices the desire and immediately, it is rejected by a prominent Cardinal and a confidant of the Bishop or Rome.

Lombardi contradicts


Just after the announcement that he is being replaced by a layman, professional journalist Greg Burke, Federico Lombardi said:



"There are therefore no new liturgical directives foreseen from next Advent, as some have wrongly inferred from some of the words of Cardinal Sarah, and it is best to avoid using the expression ‘reform of the reform’ when referring to the liturgy, as it's sometimes been a source of misunderstandings.”

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/father-lombardi-cardinal-sarahs-ad-orientem-suggestion-misinterpreted

Exactly padre, they're already there!

How much longer do we need to keep repeating the same thing over and over again whilst expecting a different result? That is insanity!

What will happen in Toronto?

This photo is of then Archbishop and now Cardinal Thomas Collins celebrating a Latin Ordinary Form Mass at the Toronto Oratory, he is celebrating "ad orientem." After the Mass, which I attended, I greeted him downstairs. I kissed his ring and thanked him for what he did at Mass. His response? "I think I should do this in the Cathedral some time."

Yes, he said that to me.

Those writing last week with effervescent enthusiasm were premature. Until Rome orders it and authorises it in writing and prohibits the persecution of priests by bishops for doing it, nothing will change.

Mass facing the people is illogical. It is the single worst problem with the Novus Ordo and it is not even mandated! It is against 1,935 years of liturgical history. It is against the practice of our Jewish forefathers in faith. It points to man, not God. 

The Reform of the Reform of the Novus Ordo is a dead letter. Spadaro and Nicholls prove it.

There is only one option.

Take it.


Vigil of Pentecost, June 7, 2014, Solemn Mass in the Presence of a Greater Prelate
Thomas Cardinal Collins, Archbishop of Toronto together with Diocesan priests and seminarians at St. Lawrence the Martyr Parish in Scarborough, Ontario

Thursday 24 September 2015

Cardinal Nichols - a "sting in the tail" is better than a sacrilege!

Ah, Cardinal Nichols, what a happy inclusive old chap. 

When he's not terrorising priests and bloggers he likes to receive blessings from pagan priests. 





The good Cardinal, clearly on the side of the Kasperites, says that:
“Many write of happy and fulfilling marriages but often with a sting in the tail regarding their children having difficult and broken relationships and not keeping the faith. Time and again respondents refer to the pain and suffering caused by the denial of the sacraments to those whose marriages have failed and have divorced and remarried. The disturbing and damaging effect on children is frequently referred to.” 
All sentimentalism and emotionalism.

Because if they're "divorced and remarried" they are in a state of adultery!

But the Pope has come up with the perfect solution.

Water down the annulment process that not a bit of it matters anymore.

Problem solved, ipso facto.

Truly, these are evil men.


Read the rest of it at Catholic Herald.

Thursday 26 March 2015

Would Pope Leo XIII have approved of bloggers?

We've heard lately from Pope Francis about "chiacchierare" translated as gossipy chat and from the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Nichols chastising in the press his priests for speaking to the press. Previously he and others have chastised bloggers (myself) and we have seen the example of the Bishops of Metuchen and Boise in their persecution and chastisement respectively, of two faithful Catholic women.

Brother Alexis Bugnolo is a consecrated man of private vows observing the Rule of St. Francis and is resident in Rome. He is the Editor and Publisher of The Franciscan Archive and the blog, From RomeWith Brother's permission, I have reposted this. Oh, to have the time to mine the riches of these Encyclicals past which make up the Magisterial teaching of the Church.

I imagine that if Pope Leo XIII had bloggers back then, he would have approved of blogs.


From his Encyclical Letter, Sapientiae Christianae, of January 10, 1890
14. But in this same matter, touching Christian faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: “Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.”(12) To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: “Have confidence; I have overcome the world.”(13) Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.
15. The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. So soon as Catholic truth is apprehended by a simple and unprejudiced soul, reason yields assent. Now, faith, as a virtue, is a great boon of divine grace and goodness; nevertheless, the objects themselves to which faith is to be applied are scarcely known in any other way than through the hearing. “How shall they believe Him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? Faith then cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.”(14) Since, then, faith is necessary for salvation, it follows that the word of Christ must tie preached. The office, indeed, of preaching, that is, of teaching, lies by divine right in the province of the pastors, namely, of the bishops whom “the Holy Spirit has placed to rule the Church of God.”(15) It belongs, above all, to the Roman Pontiff, vicar of Jesus Christ, established as head of the universal Church, teacher of all :hat pertains to morals and faith.
16. No one, however, must entertain the notion that private individuals are prevented from taking some active part in this duty of teaching, especially those on whom God has bestowed gifts of mind with the strong wish of rendering themselves useful. These, so often as circumstances demand, may take upon themselves, not, indeed, the office of the pastor, but the task of communicating to others what they have themselves received, becoming, as it were, living echoes of their masters in the faith. Such co-operation on the part of the laity has seemed to the Fathers of the Vatican Council so opportune and fruitful of good that they thought well to invite it.“All faithful Christians, but those chiefly who are in a prominent position, or engaged in teaching, we entreat, by the compassion of Jesus Christ, and enjoin by the authority of the same God and Saviour, that they bring aid to ward off and eliminate these errors from holy Church, and contribute their zealous help in spreading abroad the light of undefiled faith.”(16) Let each one, therefore, bear in mind that he both can and should, so far as may be, preach the Catholic faith by the authority of his example, and by open and constant profession of the obligations it imposes. In respect, consequently, to the duties that bind us to God and the Church, it should be borne earnestly in mind that in propagating Christian truth and warding off errors the zeal of the laity should, as far as possible, be brought actively into play.
_________________
12. Summa theologiae, IIa-IIae, qu. iii, art. 2, ad 2m. 
13. John 16:33.
14. Rom. 10:14, 17. 
15. Acts 20:28.
16. Constitution Dei Filius, at end. 

Wednesday 25 March 2015

Cardinal Nichols chastises priests and bloggers and lays flowers at hindu god

One wonders what Cardinal Nichols is afraid of. He has chastised five-hundred priests in England who felt it necessary sign a letter restating their "unwavering fidelity to the traditional doctrines regarding marriage and the true meaning of human sexuality, founded on the Word of God and taught by the Church’s Magisterium for two millennia.” Father Alexander Lucie-Smith gives his reasons quite clearly on why he signed the letter. As a moral theologian and a parish priest witnessing what has been occurring he expressed his "worry about the future."

Cardinal Nichols states that "Every priest in England and Wales has been asked to reflect on the Synod discussion. It is my understanding that this has been taken up in every diocese, and that channels of communication have been established."

Perhaps, His Eminence's "understanding" is not correct. Perhaps the established "channels of communication" have been closed. Perhaps these priests have, to their horror. concluded that they had no other choice but to declare publicly their faith. Did they conclude that they were not being listened to by their bishops? Did they determine that there was some kind of collusion with the likes of Kasper and Marx and Bonny and others to change the teaching of the Church and debase the Holy Eucharist by allowing the divorced and civilly remarried and those engaged in other sexual practices to receive. 


Bloggers bad, Hindus good


This is the same Cardinal Nichols who said that "Pope Francis understands this (love) in practical terms. He has already identified two kinds of behaviour that destroy love in the Church. They are complaining and gossiping. He is a practical man. He knows that we live in a society in which complaining and gossip is a standard fare. They sell newspapers and attract us to blogs because we love hear complaints and to read gossip. But Pope Francis is clear: they should have no place in the Church."
Archbishop Nichols at the Hindu temple
On another occasion, as preserved on the web page of Diocese of Westminster, The Most Rev Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster and President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, made an official visit to the BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Europe’s first traditional Hindu temple in Neasden, north London. Archbishop Nichols was greeted by the  Mandir’s spiritual leader, Yogvivek Swami, ( Head Sadhu, BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha - UK & Europe) and the Trustees of the Mandir. He was welcomed in traditional Hindu style – with a red vermillion mark applied to the forehead and the tying of a sacred thread on the wrist, symbolising friendship and goodwill.  Yogvivek Swami guided the Archbishop around the Mandir complex, including the sanctum sanctorum.  He then moved to the deity of Shri Nilkanth Varni (Bhagwan Swaminarayan) where he joined Yogvivek Swami in praying for world peace and harmony.

Damian Thompson at the Telegraph reported that "After wagging an admonishing finger to the incoming Traditionalist Anglicans that they may not "pick and choose," Archbishop Nichols chooses to go to Europe's first Hindu temple to receive a pagan blessing. 

Did Cardinal Nichols show real respect for the gentleman in saffron robes by preaching to him Jesus Christ and Him crucified and risen from the dead or did he allow our brother to be left in sin worshipping false gods?

Synod warning


Archbishop Nichols chastises his priest for being faithful, states that bloggers should be silent or put out of the Church, offers flowers to a pagan god and receives a so-called blessing from a pagan priest's smudge mark. Did Cardinal Nichols and Bishop Petersen of Boise, who chastised a State Senator in Idaho regarding this same false religion to false gods, studied together the Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita?


These priests and we simple lay Catholics are not alarmists. We witnessed last October and we see the same shenanigans being played out leading up to this year's Ordinary Synod on the Family. Damian Thomson has written today in the Spectator that Cardinal Nichols' attempt at silencing these men will "backfire." He has posted the names of the five-hundred priests so as to "keep an eye on what happens to them."

Cardinal Burke said yesterday that "confusion is spreading in an alarming way." It is spreading because of these kinds of comments and the behaviour of Cardinal Nichols.

At his Wednesday audience on March 25, the Pope said that there is a need for more prayer and not "gossip and chatter." If exposing to the light the comments and attitudes of these Cardinals is "gossip and chatter" then we have a very big problem on our hands.

Rather than chastise these priests, His Eminence should be applauding their faithfulness to Christ and championing the truth. 


This is this just the latest example of a clericalist bullydom first to the laity in Toronto, Patterson and Boise and now extending to priests in England.

Tuesday 17 March 2015

Cardinal Tagle: Please explain, I'm just a simple guy

You just can't make this stuff up.

The Filipino Cardinal said, “Every situation for those who are divorced and remarried is quite unique. To have a general rule might be counterproductive in the end. My position at the moment is to ask, ‘Can we take every case seriously and is there, in the tradition of the Church, paths towards addressing each case individually?’ This is one issue that I hope people will appreciate is not easy to say ‘no’ or to say ‘yes’ to. We cannot give one formula for all.”

The Cardinal, with all respect, needs to explain himself. At the bottom of this post is the full reprint of the article from the Catholic Herald on his talk; but for the time-being, let me explain.

It is really simple.

  • Catholics who marry civilly or in a protestant service without the permission of the local Ordinary and witness by the Church's minister - a priest or deacon; are not married and they are living in a continual state of fornication and thus, mortal sin.
  • Catholics who divorce and remarry civilly or in a protestant service (or Catholic if you live in Aurora, Ontario) without the benefit of a Decree of Nullity are living in a perpetual state of adultery and therefore, mortal sin.
  • A Catholic who approaches Holy Communion in such a state will commit the sin of sacrilege which is also a mortal sin.
  • A Catholic who, objectively speaking, dies in a state of mortal sin will go to Hell for all eternity and be cut off from God.

Those four points above make-up my understanding of Catholic teaching in this regard. Because I believe in the Truth as transmitted by Christ through two-thousand years of magisterial teaching, I feel it important to tell you what that teaching actually is; because it seems to me that someone is spinning here and it isn't me.

Am I wrong?

Or is the Cardinal?

As if the statements of Cardinal Tagle at the bottom of this post are not bad enough; another speaker at the conference was Timothy Radcliffe, O.P. 
So, who is Timothy Radcliffe, O.P.?

Oh my; this post is going to be a lot longer than I had intended.

Well, Timothy Radcliffe, O.P., was once interviewed by Father Thomas J. Rosica, CSB at Canada's Salt + Light Television, Our Catholic Channel of Hope. You will begin to get the picture on his theology by losing the twenty-two minutes and twenty-two seconds which you'll never get back from watching it. 

You can also find out about this wayward Dominican at Protect the Pope wherein you will find that this Dominican is a dissenter on the Church's teaching on a number of areas involving homosexual behaviour. Here we have a report on his appearance at the 2014 Divine Mercy Conference as reported by Protect the Pope and copied below in the event that something mysterious happens with that blog and we maintain the original bolding:

Let's take a little look, shall we?:


* * * 

A selection of Fr Radcliffe’s writings expressing dissent from the Church’s teaching:

Fr Radcliffe gave the following contribution to the Church of England ‘s review of homosexuality and gay marriage:

Fr Radcliffe OP expands the meaning of fertility to include gay sex

But not every marriage is fertile in this way. We must avoid having a mechanistic or simplistic understanding of fertility. Jesus speaks a fertile word: This is my body, given for you. He is God’s fertile word. And surely it is in the kind and healing words that we offer each other that we all share in fertility of that most intimate moment. When Jesus met Peter on the shore after Easter, he offers him a word that renews their relationship. Three times he asks him; ‘Do you love me more than these others?’ He allows him to undo his threefold denial. Sexual fertility cannot be separated from the exchange of words that heal, that recreate and set free.

How does all of this bear on the question of gay sexuality? We cannot begin with the question of whether it is permitted or forbidden! We must ask what it means, and how far it is Eucharistic. Certainly it can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and non-violent. So in many ways, I would think that it can be expressive of Christ’s self-gift.

We can also see how it can be expressive of mutual fidelity, a covenantal relationship in which two people bind themselves to each other for ever. But the proposed legislation for ‘gay marriage’ imply that it is not understood to be inherently unitive, a becoming one flesh. [...]

And what about fertility? I have suggested that one should not stick to a crude, mechanistic understanding of fertility. Biological fertility is inseparable from the fertility of our mutual tenderness and compassion. And so that might seem to remove one objection to gay marriage. I am not entirely convinced, since it seems to me that our tradition is incarnational, the word becoming bodily flesh. And some heterosexual relationships may be accidentally infertile in this sense, but homosexual ones are intrinsically so.

Sexual ethics is about what our acts say. And I have the impression that we are not very sure of what gay sexual acts signify. Maybe we need to ask gay Christians who have been living in committed relationships for years. I suspect that sex will turn out to be rather unimportant.’

Fr Radcliffe on Holy Communion for Catholics who are divorced and re-married:


I would conclude with two profound hopes. That a way will be found to welcome divorced and remarried people back to communion. And, most important, that women will be given real authority and voice in the church. The pope expresses his desire that this may happen, but what concrete form can it take? He believes that the ordination of women to the ministerial priesthood is not possible, but decision-making in the church has become ever more closely linked to ordination in recent years. Can that bond be loosened? Let us hope that women may be ordained to the diaconate and so have a place in preaching at the Eucharist. What other ways can authority be shared?’

* * * 

The Catholic Herald has a collection of articles about Timothy Radcliffe, O.P. You will have not difficulty finding out more by doing some searching.

The next explanation that His Eminence needs to give is this:

Why Eminence did you appear on the same program with a Preacher who holds and teaches such heterodoxy and; 

Did you correct him?
* * * 

Cardinal Tagle:  There is no "formula for all" on Communion for the divorced or the re-married.

Cardinal Tagle said "every situation for those who are divorced and remarried is quite unique" (CNS)

Cardinal Tagle was speaking at the Flame 2 Youth Congress earlier this month
The Archbishop of Manila has said that there is no all encompassing answer to the question of Communion for the divorced and remarried. Speaking to the Catholic Herald at the Flame 2 Youth Congress earlier this month, Cardinal Luis Tagle, said it was not a question of simply saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’, but that every case should be judged individually.
He said: “Every situation for those who are divorced and remarried is quite unique. To have a general rule might be counterproductive in the end. My position at the moment is to ask, ‘Can we take every case seriously and is there, in the tradition of the Church, paths towards addressing each case individually?’ This is one issue that I hope people will appreciate is not easy to say ‘no’ or to say ‘yes’ to. We cannot give one formula for all.”
Speaking about the upcoming extraordinary synod, Cardinal Tagle said: “The questions asked were an invitation for people to really examine their conscience. For example, in your parish if you are aware that something is happening are you just aware? Or have you already started doing something? There’s the question of the youth, the elderly, and in the case of the Philippines, families that are separated by migration because of jobs. We know what is happening and we know about the negative effects. But what are we doing? Are we just talking about it?
“We must remember that this is an international gathering so people are coming from different contexts. It is the same gospel and the same truth, but you cannot avoid people thinking: ‘How do I present this teaching to my people?’. No single country, diocese or parish can exhaust all possible responses, so it will be a learning moment where the diversity could help all of us.”
Cardinal Tagle spoke of the need to experience Christ for evangelisation: “An evangeliser must first be evangelized. For how can I share the person of Jesus Christ with others if I have not experienced Him myself?”
The Flame 2 Youth Congress attended by approximately 8,000 young Catholics. Surrounded by young people who had gathered for the country’s largest national Catholic youth event at the SSE Wembley Arena, Cardinal Tagle said: “Where there is mercy there is joy. I am only a cardinal and a bishop because of the mercy of God and the kindness of other people.”
The event included prayers incorporating dance and reflection, and ended with exposition and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament led by Cardinal Vincent Nichols of Westminster.

Thursday 18 April 2013

Archbishop of Westminster: "bloggers not Catholic."


It appears that the Archbishop of Westminster, when not offering flowers to a Hindu deities, has been taking cues from the President of the Internet.  


"Pope Francis understands this in practical terms. He has already identified two kinds of behaviour that destroy love in the Church. They are complaining and gossiping. He is a practical man. He knows that we live in a society in which complaining and gossip is a standard fare. They sell newspapers and attract us to blogs because we love hear complaints and to read gossip. 

But Pope Francis is clear: they should have no place in the Church."


Rather "self-referential" and "clerical" methinks; or am I taking it out of context? Does he mean secular newspapers and blogs or is he referring to Catholics who blog on catholic issues?

If this Archbishop and his Episcopal colleagues in your town and mine were doing their jobs, the little people would not have to complain, but complaining is not necessarily gossip. The Archbishop seems to desire a return to the day when the laity did not question what these leaders of the Church of Christ Catholic were doing, even when what they were doing amounts to liturgical abuse, patrimonial iconoclasm and the child abuse or the hiding of pederasts. 

Is the Archbishop now not "complaining and gossiping" about Catholics who blog to the point where he would exclaim that we "should have no place in the Church?" Is he taking the Holy Father out of context?

Perhaps the good Archbishop needs to pay particular attention to the pederasts in the Catholic Church in the United Kingdom and the re-evangelisation of lapsed-Catholics rather than take the words of the Holy Father out of context and twisting them to serve an agenda that is hardly becoming of his Office.