Wednesday, 3 April 2019

Larry Richards, a clericalist bully not dissimilar to Rosica - what is this pathology afflicting the celebrity priest?

Image result for father larry richards
Updated: ChurchMilitantTV to sue Larry Richards and the Diocese of Erie

Larry Richards, a celebrity priest has been in the news lately. He lied about those at Church Militant and is now threatening parishioners. His treatment of Steve Jalsevac is disgraceful.


Like Thomas Rosica, Larry Richards is a clericalist and a rage filled bully.

If you priests cannot control yourselves get out of ministry.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/i-know-who-you-are-fr.-larry-richards-threatens-parishioners-who-complained-about-him-to-bishop

I believe we can quickly determine the pathology behind these malefactors.

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

Amazing how Hell only exists for those who cross them.

Anonymous said...

Fr. Richards condemns parents of daily-Mass-going large family. https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/a-disturbing-encounter-with-fr.-larry-richards

P. O'Brien said...

Good to remain suspicious of any celebrity-priest.

TLM said...

Thanks for the link anonymous....WOW!..is all I can say. Something very disturbing is going on with this priest's psyche. I was under the impression that he may have been having what we used to call a 'nervous breakdown', but this has been going on for far too long to be just that. This is much more than a temporary melt down. This seems to be a serious emotional/spiritual malady. Pray for him.

Ademar said...

JMJ

I've taught adolescents for decades. Some years ago, not knowing who Fr. Richards was, I picked up a CD of one of his talks at a local parish and gave it a listen. While his points were good, he came across stylistically, even unseen, as adolescent/sophomoric; that was a real turn-off, I did not listen through to the end, and have paid him no heed since then.

So the nonsense he's doing now comes as no surprise. While his current conduct elicits my anger, I also pity him: his formators and his ordaining bishop should have fathered him into emotional and spiritual maturity before his ordination!

May Our Lord grant him salvation albeit with an intervening period on earth and/or in Purgatory of likely painful purification!

Anonymous said...

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/catholic-left-in-tears-after-fr.-larry-richards-scolds-parishioners

Tom A. said...

Richards may be a lot of things, but his argument that if one claims to be a Catholic, then one does not resist the Pope on matter or faith or morals is absolutely 100% correct.

gm said...

On the office of the Pope, and all ex-cathedra statements, yes!!! On inane and innovative statements, well, no.

Anonymous said...

Too bad the morals that have been touted and acted upon of late have been to favor the guilty clerical cast.
Self love and self identity never trumps the love of God's Word for a Christian who is a true Believer.
Love our Lord Jesus Christ and love of souls whom He loves always comes before self love.

Badcatholic said...

Which Pope?

Tom A. said...

Who decides what is inane and innovative? Bergoglio declared that Amoris L was magesterial. Is that inane? Granted the nonsense he utters off the cuff can be erroneous, but the official documents he issues are magesterial. No where has it ever been taught that we only assent to ex cathedra solemn extraordinary magesterium. We assent to the ordinary magesterium also. Of course it is impossible to assent to Bergoglio's heretical magesterium so you are left with quite the conundrum.

Irenaeus said...

I noted those similarities too. I think there is something in the water that all of these media-savvy priests drink.

Anonymous said...

Tom A,

God gave me the tools to form my intellect. We are not required to accept BULLSHIT, from any human. Period. Pope or not. Anyone who believes otherwise is not Catholic.
If you disagree, you should NOT be receiving the Eucharist because you are defending blasphemy and sacrilege.


Karl

Tom A. said...

Karl, prior to 1958 a Catholic didnt have to worry. The Church presented him with the Faith and all you had to do was assent or not. If you assented in those days you were with the Church and had nothing to fear. That is no longer true so something in essence has changed with what we think is the Catholic Church. It can no longer be trusted. Why? The organization that appears to be the Catholic Church no longer enjoys the protection of the Holy Ghost as promised by Christ.

Anonymous said...

Looks good for a man 59yrs old.

Dad29 said...

the exercise of ordinary assent includes the possibility of faithful dissent because ordinary teachings admit the possibility of errors. But these errors are limited in extent, such that no error can occur which would lead the faithful away from the path of salvation. Therefore, faithful dissent must be similarly limited, never claiming that the ordinary teachings of the Magisterium are such that any one such teaching or error would lead someone away from salvation.

http://catholicplanet.com/TSM/assent-dissent.htm

As I read the above, one does not have to assent to ALL of what Pp Francis has declared in Laudato Si. It is not an infallible document, so it can contain error. We are not required to "assent" to error, nor believe it.

Irenaeus said...

Tom A., what if the Church still enjoys the protection of the Holy Ghost? This is not the first time She has been attacked from within. In those times, God raised up mighty saints to defend His Bride. It is with this precedent that I am confident the same will happen again in our time. How long, I do not know.

Tom A. said...

The post V2 church has been teaching officially and unofficially that outside the Catholic Church, one can find elements of salvation. Is that something you can ignore? Can that false teaching harm your salvation?

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Dad,

" because ordinary teachings admit the possibility of errors."

When are "ordinary teachings" not ordinary Magisterium? Remember the ordinary Magisterium is just as infallible as the solemn Magisterium. Where does your quote come from? I find it a bit confusing. The ordinary Magisterium is infallible, but it may contain a little degree of error? It is white, but it may be a little black. It is tall, but it may be a little short. It is hard, but it may be a little soft. It is true, but it may be a little false. This sounds a bit like modernist double speak to me. If it comes from a legitimate source, it is a very fine point which is most likely to elicit your response exactly in a non-theologian. You are now feeling that you may justly/rightly sift an Apostolic Exhortation. This brings one to the position of the R&Rs - he is Pope, but some of his teaching is error, therefore I must sift his teaching to separate what is Catholic from that which is not Catholic. So who is the authority now? Each one of us, who may all sift differently, or the Pope?

As for AL: I know Paul the Sick claimed that he was not invoking infallibility in AL and that it was not Magisterial, but on at least three occasions he stated quite distinctly that it WAS Magisterial - classic modernist double speak. What could be more Magisterial than an APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION from the POPE published in black and white throughout the WORLD?

Peter Lamb said...

Herein lies the source of the obligation to believe what the Church teaches. The Church possesses the divine commission to teach, and hence there arises in the faithful a moral obligation to believe, which is founded ultimately, not upon the infallibility of the Church, but upon God’s sovereign right to the submission and intellectual allegiance (rationabile obsequium) of His creatures: “He that believeth…shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned” [Mk 16:16]. It is the God-given right of the Church to teach, and therefore it is the bounden duty of the faithful to believe.

But belief, however obligatory, is possible only on condition that the teaching proposed is guaranteed as credible. And therefore Christ added to His commission to teach the promise of the divine assistance: “Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world” [Mt 28:20]. This divine assistance implies that, at any rate within a certain sphere, the Church teaches infallibly; and consequently, at least within those limits, the credibility of her teaching is beyond question. When the Church teaches infallibly the faithful know that whatshe teaches belongs, either directly or indirectly, to the depositum fidei committed to her by Christ; and their faith thus becomes grounded, immediately or mediately, upon the divine authority. But the infallibility of the Church does not, precisely as such, render belief obligatory. It renders her teaching divinely credible. What makes belief obligatory is her divine commission to teach.

…Therefore, whether her teaching is guaranteed by infallibility or not, the Church is always the divinely appointed teacher and guardian of revealed truth, and consequently the supreme authority of the Church, even when it does not intervene to make an infallible and definitive decision on matters of faith or morals, has the right, in virtue of the divine commission, to command the obedient assent of the faithful. In the absence of infallibility the assent thus demanded cannot be that of faith, whether Catholic or ecclesiastical; it will be an assent of a lower order proportioned to its ground or motive. But whatever name be given to it – for the present we may call it belief – it is obligatory; obligatory not because the teaching is infallible – it is not – but because it is the teaching of the divinely appointed Church.

Peter Lamb said...

It is the duty of the Church, as [Cardinal Johann] Franzelin has pointed out, not only to teach revealed doctrine but also to protect it, and therefore the Holy See “may prescribe as to be followed or proscribe as to be avoided theological opinions or opinions connected with theology, not only with the intention of infallibly deciding the truth by a definitive pronouncement, but also – without any such intention – merely for the purpose of safeguarding the security of Catholicdoctrine.” If it is the duty of the Church, even though non-infallibly, to “prescribe or proscribe”doctrines to this end, then it is evidently also the duty of the faithful to accept them or reject them accordingly.

(Canon George Smith, “Must I Believe It?”, The Clergy Review, vol. 9 [April, 1935], pp. 296-309; italics in original; underlining added.)

Tom A. said...

How can what appears to be the Church enjoy the protection of the Holy Ghost? Vatican 2, the new Code of Canon Law, the New Cathecism. All of these documents and many more official documents contain heresies. The true Church has always had enemies and always will. My only undeniable point is that the NO Church cannot be the Catholic Church since it has defected from the Faith and now teaches heresy, a point here that most will agree with. Beyond that all is a mystery as to what happened to the true Church and why.

Anonymous said...

Dear David,
........off topic bit in some ways related.
You have stated to me you are a friend of Mr Voris. well now they have an article and a public "Download" on the topic of abuse in Opus Dei.
CMtv continues to deny involvement with the cult with the exception of two people having been associated with OD no longer with their organization. The problem is that some of us have longer memories and remember Mr Voris' vortex on RealCatholictv in which he promoted the OD. He said, "You know you are a REAL CATHOLIC if you join Opus Dei," now they are attempting to distance themselves from their previous endorsement of how to know you are really Catholic.

That same kind of argument is in this combox only this time it concerns the Pope.

Tom A is correct when he basically says God gave us a brain and we should use it.

Badcatholic said...

The principal of non-contradiction is an essential element in any rational decision as to the truth of an assertion. When Pope A teaches in contradiction to Pope B, which Pope’s teaching is obligatory on the faithful. If the only criteria is the last one to open his mouth, we are in no better position than the Greeks who consulted the Oracle of Delphi.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Tom, the Church has gone nowhere. It is where it has always been - alive and well in her faithful Members - in the Mystical Body of Christ. She has just lost her bricks and mortar. Why this is happening? The Operation of Error - to sift the wheat from the chaff; the Believers from the Unbelievers.

Tom A. said...

The point is Dr Lamb, we do not have to answer the question posed by the R&R camp as to where is the Church. They cannot defend their position that the Novus Ordo sect has not defected. No matter what convoluted scenario they propose, the modern conciliar church does not hold the Faith revealed to the Apostles and therefore cannot be the Church founded by Christ.

Hank Monteith said...

Give it some time.
Victims coming out of the woodwork, soon.
Textbook behavior of a predator bully who believes that he is untouchable.
He isn't.

Peter Lamb said...

Tom, please call me Peter. :)

Anonymous said...

https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2019/03/18/abuse-survivor-priest-tackles-crisis-of-masculinity-in-the-church/