Cardinal Gerhard Müller, “No one has the right to indict the Pope”

I find it fascinating at just how selective certain "Catholic" websites are in reporting and/or responding to stories regarding those they either support or hate.

As I wrote HERE, almost no Catholic blog or website reported on the article by Father James Martin in which he unequivocally stated the teachings of the Catholic Church in regard to homosexuality.  Father Martin made it very clear that the Church condemns homosexual activity and same sex marriage.  As far as I know, only John Zuhlsdorf responded to Father Martin's article, and he did so with his usual response:  propaganda, aspersions and lies.

Another news story completely ignored by the "faithful catholic" internet was the fact that a court found Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, hero of "faithful catholics", guilty of defrauding his brother, also a priest, of family inheritance.  Vigano was ordered to pay $2 million to his brother.  Vigano also defrauded his sister and settled out of court to pay her.  You can read this story HERE. 

You won't find the Vigano story on Church Militant, Lifesitenews, Father Z, or any other "faithful catholic" blog or website.

I wonder why.

The Real Cause of the Crisis In the Church

Credit

Why are there so many fallen away Catholics? Why have people stopped attending Mass? When I was a kid back in the 60's, we would have Sunday Mass starting at 6:00 a.m. and every hour to hour and a half until 12:00. And the Masses were packed. The later Masses were standing room only. There was five to six priests on average for each parish. There was Catholic schools packed with teaching nuns and up to 50 kids in every class.

The faith sure seemed more vibrant 50 to 60 years ago. But was it really? What was really driving these Catholics?

Catholics Leaving The Church and the Need for Vatican II: Part 1

Credit:  www.thelocal.de

When I was growing up in the 50's and 60's, Catholic churches were packed every week for Sunday Mass. There were 5 to 6 Masses or more, and the pews were filled for all of them. There were long lines for confession on Saturday. Many Catholics defined their lives by their neighborhood parish.

However, as we are all well aware, all churches in western society, including Catholic churches, have been emptying out for the past 50 years. Religious belief and practice now play a very minor role, if any role at all, in most lives. Many conservative and traditional Catholics say it is not rocket science to figure out what happened in the Catholic Church. These people tell us that before Vatican II, when people were held to a "stricter standard" and "knew" Church teachings, the Church was strong. Then the Second Vatican Council happened, which many feel watered down Church teachings, and that caused a mass exodus out of the Church.

A typical response to the situation was laid out by Father John Zuhlsdorf, who did a blog post in August 2013 entitled, "Institutional collapse: a fruit of Vatican II?" [HERE]. Father Z quotes from an article by Louie Verrecchio, a bomb throwing traditionalist who writes his own blog entitled "Harvesting the Fruit of the Vatican II" and who has all but completely denounced Pope Francis as a heretic. In fact, a couple of weeks ago Verrecchio called for the bishops to denounce Pope Francis as a heretic and recently posted an article on his blog entitled, "Pope Francis Hates the Catholic Faith". That should tell you everything you need to know.

In any event. Verrecchio based his article cited by Father Z on another article written by Dr. Ralph Martin who succinctly describes the current situation of the Catholic Church in the West:

"There is something like an institutional collapse going on, evidenced by the vast numbers of schools closing, parishes merging, clustering and closing and the multiple assignments that many young priests now are asked to manage. Besides the institutional collapse, there is evidence of a widespread repudiation of the teaching of Christ and the Church by vast numbers of Catholics."

Verrecchio agreed with Dr. Martin's assessment but complained that "he [Dr. Martin] leaves the disease undiagnosed."

Verrechio then gives us his diagnosis:

With the intellectual currents of the Enlightenment, the subsequent anti-religion rebellion of the French Revolution, and the profound intellectual rejection of the Christian worldview symbolized by Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, forces were unleashed in Western culture that eventually led to not only a repudiation of the church-state relationships that had evolved over many centuries but a repudiation of religion itself as a legitimate shaper of culture.

What Martin leaves unaddressed is the degree to which these “intellectual currents” were unleashed, not only in Western culture at the hands of determined secularists, but in the very heart of Catholicism via the Second Vatican Council at the hands of determined churchmen.

Michael Voris Calls For The Destruction Of The Catholic Church

UPDATE: Thanks to PewSitter linking to me, I am getting tons of Voris supporters commenting here. Could at least one of you please respond to the actual points I make? Do you still believe the Catholic hierarchy, no matter how you may feel about them personally, are duly ordained priests and bishops? Or do you agree with Voris that they are evil, that we as laity have the right to judge their souls, and decide that they must be destroyed? And what gives you the right to condemn our bishops and priests and even the Holy Father?

Every time I think that Michael Voris can't get any more radical than he is, he surprises me. Now he has actually called for Catholics to stop financially supporting their churches and dioceses.

In a recent Vortex episode, which you can watch HERE if you really want to subject yourself to it, Voris again discussed the situation at Holy Innocents Church in New York City, once again accusing Church hierarchy, and specifically Cardinal Dolan, of hating and trying to stamp out Catholic Traditionalists.  I have already been through this on previous blog posts and don't wish to rehash it at this point.

Suffice it to say that Voris is using the circumstances here in New York to push his point that the "establishment" Catholic Church is dying,

Do you see what’s going on here? The Church in America is on her last legs. And the battle royale is on – the fight for the soul of what’s left. On the one side the small but growing population of Catholics .. in fact, the only place where there is growth, the tradition minded. Unfortunately, they have no power.

As Voris would have us believe, "tradition minded" Catholics are the only Catholics who still have the faith.  Everyone else is a CINO - Catholic In Name Only.  But why don't the "real Catholics" have any power in the Church?

That’s because the Protestant minded, homosexual friendly, man-centered crowd that took over the chanceries parishes seminaries hospitals and universities in the 1970’s has never been dislodged.

You see, the real enemies of true Catholics is the Church hierarchy - those who are responsible for our souls.  We must do everything possible to take them out because all they really want to do is destroy the Church.  And Voris assures us that this evil hierarchy "will get theirs":

But they are falling victim to their own success. Desiring to re-make the Church they have largely succeeded and they are now reaping their rewards.

But the sorry truth is, they are going to try and ride into their sorry sunset with their crushing debt and faithless parishes on the backs of the only truly completely faithful Catholics left.

And, as Voris tells us, this is not something that should be mourned. These evil men in the Church hierarchy - the bishops and priests - deserve exactly what they have coming to them. Just look at all the horrible things they have done. It truly is a miracle that any part of the Church is still standing:

They have stood silent and sometimes preached affirmatively on contraception, abortion, active homosexuality. They have abandoned the Gospel truth to accommodate the heresies of Protestantism and Modernism.

They have done all in their power to eradicate ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that points to the Church’s tradition – from liturgy, to education, to proper moral instruction, to breaking canon law and just about any other area of Church life you point to.

And now they are going broke. SHOCKING! Well, the few remaining Catholics who have suffered at the hands of these prelates, professors, priests, liberal chancery personnel, feminized men – all of whom will roll out the red carpet for any wacked out theology that presents itself – all under the cover of charity – are not gonna take this any more.

How does Voris propose that the "few remaining Catholics" (all of whom, of course, think just like Michael Voris, who is the personification of "loyal Catholic") react to the "dying Church of America"? Should we fast and pray? Should we offer up our suffering on behalf of the Church?

No, nothing as mundane as all of that.  We have to hit the evil establishment Church where it hurts the most - in the pocketbook:

Since money seems to be the only thing that motivates the Establishment Church – it is more than time for the faithful to begin withholding contributions. Why give money to a diocese that is gonna use that money to keep the status quo going – to abuse faithful Catholics while supporting fake Catholics – parishes and individuals.

And just in case you're not sure:  "faithful Catholics" means everyone who thinks like and agrees with Michael Voris.  "Fake Catholics" are all of those who do not think like and actually are evil enough to disagree with Michael Voris.  

So here is good, faithful Catholic Michael Voris exhorting other good and faithful Catholics to willfully withhold financial support from the church in order that the "establishment" church dies, which is all for a good cause - to get rid of the evil hierarchy.

And all of you good and faithful Catholics who are fighting against the ordained hierarchy of the Catholic Church - don't feel that you are really doing anything wrong. You are just hastening along the inevitable and actually making way for a "purified" Church:

The whole thing is gonna blow up anyway – the sooner the better. What will emerge from the rubble is a purified Church, doctrinally, liturgically, morally, devotionally and clerically. Too bad Catholics didn’t know this about 50 years ago.

What happened 50 years ago?  Oh yes - the Second Vatican Council.  If only Michael Voris had been around 50 years ago to give this great advice to withhold financial support from the Church.  Maybe Vatican II would have never happened and we wouldn't be in this colossal mess!

Ah, but no use crying over spilled milk.  Let's just do what we can now to make things right in the Church:

But that was then, this is now. Simply stop giving your money to the Establishment Church. Forget the diocesan pledge drives, forget the so-called social justice initiatives, like CRS and CCHD. Let them get their money from the government, whose interests they serve over and above the Church’s anyway.

You see, we are really helping those in charge by withholding financial support.  In fact, to give financial support to the "establishment" church is actually just enabling their wickedness.  By withholding financial support, we are practicing tough love, just like we would use with anyone with a destructive addiction.  This is what will help the evil hierarchy to wake up:

Maybe then, those in charge of this massive meltdown will finally wake up. Giving the Establishment Church and any group that supports it is like enabling an alcoholic.

Normally, we don't believe in euthanasia, but in this case it is a good thing:

Like the old adage goes – feed a cold, starve a fever. The Establishment Church has a death bed fever. Time to starve it. Maybe then the homosexualists in power throughout the Church will think twice before trying to go after the few faithful Catholics left.

You silly Catholics who actually thought prayer was the way to go. How could you be so naive? We've got to financially starve the Church to death. That is the only way to save her.

In all seriousness, I just don't remember seeing anywhere in scripture or Church teaching that it is the responsibility of the laity to "take out" church hierarchy whom they deem unfit by withholding financial support.  If followed, this action would lead to the total collapse of the Church:  no parishes, no priests, no Masses, no sacraments.  And that, of course, would lead to NO SALVATION.  We can rest assured that Our Lord will never allow this to happen, but if taken to its logical conclusion and without divine intervention, this would be the result of the action proposed by Voris.

Further, it is actually sinful for a Catholic to willfully withhold financial support from the Church.  

From "The Commandments of the Church" from dailycatholic.org:

The chief commandments, or laws, of the Church are these six:
1. To assist at Holy Mass on all Sundays and holydays of obligation.
2. To fast and to abstain on the days appointed.
3. To confess our sins at least once a year.
4. To receive Holy Communion during the Easter time.
5. To contribute to the support of the Church.
6. To observe the laws of the Church concerning marriage.

To use a favorite Voris phrase, it boggles the mind that anyone could call himself a "loyal Catholic" and at the same time urge other Catholics to stop supporting the Catholic Church. Voris has many times called for priests and bishops to leave and/or be fired. Does anyone see anything wrong with this? Catholics have always been exhorted to pray for those in leadership positions, not wish them in the cornfield.

Voris defends this apparently heretical position by stating that the institutional Church that we see is a fake. He does not tell us by what authority he makes this judgment and condemnation. Yes, there are problems in the Church. But when hasn't that been true? What about England at the time of Henry VIII when all but one bishop denounced Rome? What about the Arian heresy which basically took over the Church? In 2000 years of history, does anyone really believe this is the first time there has been a crisis of belief in the Church?

Our Lord gave us fallible human beings to run the Church. We have seen their weaknesses since the founding of the Church in the first century. Our first pope was a coward who literally denied our Lord. I wonder if Voris has ever heard this scripture: "My strength is made perfect in weakness." (II Cor. 12:9). These were the words of Jesus Christ to St. Paul when St. Paul begged Our Lord to remove an unidentified but heavy cross he was carrying. Our glory should always be in the Lord, never in ourselves. He is our strength, He is our salvation. Often when things look the worst is the time when Our Lord shows Himself most powerfully.

We are in a time of testing. There is no doubt of that. We are in the boat in the middle of the lake during a fierce storm, just as the apostles were with the sleeping Christ. The apostles were sure they were going to drown. They could not understand how Jesus could just sleep and not care what was happening to them.

Is that how we feel? Do we think Jesus has gone to sleep and is letting the Church just go to hell in a handbasket? Remember the words of Jesus Christ, "Oh ye of little faith. Why are you so afraid?" (Matthew 8:26). Why are we so afraid? Why would we even listen to the heretical words of someone like Michael Voris who says we must disobey the Church in order to "save" her? Remember, the Church was saved 2000 years ago when Christ died on the cross and then rose from the dead. As Our Lord said in His last dying words, "It is finished."  (Just to clarify:  although the Church is saved, we as individuals are still working on our salvation and will be until our last moment on earth.)

Please stop listening to the likes of Michael Voris. He is a danger to souls. He says to stop supporting the Church hierarchy financially because they are destroying the Church. For any of you who are sending him money, you might want to think about who is really hurting the Church and who really does or does not deserve your money.

The Church is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Those are not just words. It is not a symbol or a nice image. It is the truth. When St. Paul, as Saul, was persecuting the Church, Jesus said to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" (Acts 9:4).  To persecute the Church is to persecute Christ.  We are His Body, a part of Him. He will always take care of us.

Is Jesus Christ saying to Michael Voris, "Michael, Michael, why are you persecuting me?"

• 
  

Michael Voris Instructs The Holy Spirit

Michael Voris basically makes his living from criticism of Church hierarchy. He has recently made a public statement that he is drawing the line at the Pope and will not engage in public criticism of the Holy Father. His followers, rightfully, have asked how he can justify tearing into the bishops but not the Holy Father when the Pope is saying the same things about which Voris is so critical of the bishops.  Voris says it doesn't matter how bad the pope is, we are not free to criticize him. In effect, Voris is not saying that he likes or agrees with the pope, but since the pope does sit in the Chair of Peter, Voris will refrain from criticizing him.

And Voris wonders why his followers cannot understand him.

I for one, am glad Michael Voris has decided to draw some kind of line in the sand, even if it is too little and too late. However, Voris has now stepped into a new area of criticism in that he is now giving the Church advice on how she should choose the men who are to be priests. He recently did a Vortex episode in which he maintains that if a man does not have a strong father figure in his life, he should be rejected for the priesthood because he is not a strong man.

First, it should be stated that Holy Mother Church definitely has set down rules as to who is allowed to enter the priesthood. Not every man who enters the seminary is actually called by the Holy Spirit. There are men who enter the seminary in order to run away from something.  No man can enter the priesthood without a direct calling from the Holy Spirit. The Church in her wisdom realizes this. And because of the abuse scandal, the Church has placed certain restrictions on homosexuals entering the priesthood. But this is directed towards those who have not fully renounced their homosexuality.  This is from the 2005 document, which you can read HERE:

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture."

As a further clarification, the document says:

Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.  

The document also states:

There are two inseparable elements in every priestly vocation: the free gift of God and the responsible freedom of the man. A vocation is a gift of divine grace, received through the Church, in the Church and for the service of the Church. In responding to the call of God, the man offers himself freely to him in love. The desire alone to become a priest is not sufficient, and there does not exist a right to receive sacred ordination. It belongs to the Church - in her responsibility to define the necessary requirements for receiving the sacraments instituted by Christ - to discern the suitability of him who desires to enter the seminary, to accompany him during his years of formation, and to call him to holy orders if he is judged to possess the necessary qualities.

However, Michael Voris does not seem to believe in the process of discernment. He feels that if someone lacked a strong father figure, that automatically disqualifies a man for the priesthood. Voris starts out by explaining how the lack of a strong father figure can hurt the development of boys into men. And he actually makes some good points. But he then uses this reasoning to say that no one who was without a strong father figure while growing up is eligible for the priesthood.

From Voris:

The culture is awash in these young men – many of whom have physically matured now into middle aged men and even older.

And they have also entered the Catholic clergy, in some places in droves.

And there is little else more dangerous than a man who does not know how to harness his masculinity .. presenting himself before a congregation with a roman collar on his neck.

Weak men being ordained .. and even consecrated to bishop has been the bane of the Church for the past 50 years.

I have looked throughout the Bible, and nowhere do I find anything that says if you don't have a strong father figure, then you better not even think about being a priest. In fact, there is that pesky statement that says with God all things are possible. Michael Voris, however, evidently does not believe this. According to him, The Holy Spirit is not enough. Men who did not have strong father figures are beyond the transforming power of the Holy Spirit and should not be in the priesthood.

Voris then goes on to explain just why these "fatherless" men are so unqualified for the priesthood:

We call them “Father”, but they are ill-equipped to bear such a noble title – not totally their own fault. The anger some of these men feel is not entirely unjustified.

They were victimized in their youth. Turning around to look for a father to draw them up out of their silly selfish boyhoods, they had no one. They deserved – had a right to such a man – but one was not there.

No one was available. So they had to go in search of something or someone to fill the role of father. Often enraged while at the same time despondent of their lot in life, they could encounter all kinds of mischief – and the diabolical is always prowling around doing its best to ensure they did.

Many men in the priesthood and the episcopate have undergone this kind psychological stress – they are truly victims. Having been ordained, they carry this trauma into their priesthood and become paralyzed in their new found role of father or shepherd.

Father Donald Calloway

Father Don Calloway is a member of the Marians of the Immaculate Conception.  You can find Fr. Calloway's story HERE.  The story starts out as follows:

Heroine, cocaine, opium, marijuana, excessive alcohol, not to mention hallucinogenic drugs like mushrooms (psilocybin) and LSD – he consumed most of these before the age of 18, many before he turned 14, the addictions growing stronger as the existential emptiness deepened. What sounds like an introduction to a Hunter S. Thompson novel actually constitutes the autobiography of a Catholic priest. Fr. Donald Calloway of the Marians of the Immaculate Conception retells his dramatic and heart-wrenching life story in No Turning Back: A Witness to Mercy.

As a destructive youth, Calloway spent his adolescence succumbing to temptations large and small, from sins of the flesh with constant promiscuity, to crimes against the law with thousands of dollars of grand theft in stolen merchandise, as well as nightly partying with friends consuming all forms of drugs and addictives while listening to heavy-metal music.

Michael Voris would tell us that a man such a Father Don Calloway would be eminently unqualified to be a priest. He lived such a debauched life that there is no way he could ever lead a congregation. Voris needs to tell this to all the tens of thousands of people that Father Calloway is leading to God.

Then, of course, there is St. Augustine. This is the story of his father, which you can read HERE:

Patricius, the father of Augustine, was a man whose darker qualities sorely tested the Christian charity of his wife and his older son. ...

Patricius (Patrick) worked in the local Roman administration.

He was a decurion, which meant that he was a town councillor with the duty of collecting taxes.
Although he belonged to the influential class in the local society, Patricius lived in difficult financial circumstances.

Augustine said that his father owned only a small amount of land.

His vineyards were worked by slaves, and Augustine had a slave (called a pedagogue) who took him to school.  Patricius seems to have had nothing remarkable either in mental ability or in character.

He was a lively and sensual person, and one who easily became angry.

He was entirely taken up with his daily concerns. He was hostile to the Christian church until the end of his life.

Thanks to the efforts of Monica, Patricius died a baptised Christian.

The father of St. Augustine seems to have died a holy death, but he sure didn't live a holy life.  So, according to Michael Voris, St. Augustine should have most definitely been rejected from the priesthood.

Voris explains why "weak men" must be barred from the priesthood:

Weak men, psychologically and emotionally weak men, who have never been taught how to be a father, can lead the flock astray with little effort because they do not understand because they have never been taught, that a father lives for his children and not himself.

But a weak man, is weak specifically BECAUSE he has this paradigm totally backwards. He lives for himself, for his own desire to be accepted and not rejected. And too many men in authority in the Church are unwilling to eschew this basic human desire, fueled by rage and self-doubt, in favor of the needs of their flock.

They crave being admired – or advancement up the clerical ranks – clinging to these things in the belief they are loveable.

So a paralysis has set in, where the most common approach on the part of leaders is to offend as few of the faithful as possible. The RATIONALIZATION is of course, that this is done for the sake of unity.

I wonder if Michael Voris has ever read the Gospel accounts of the apostles. Men don't come a whole lot weaker than those who were handpicked by Jesus Christ to found His Church. The first apostle to be chosen, Matthew, was a tax collector, which meant he was a professional thief who collected large amounts of money and then kept most of it for himself. They all, with only one exception, ran away when Christ needed them most. They argued about who would be greatest. Our Lord even accused Peter of working for Satan when Peter said he would never allow Christ to be crucified. None of these men were admirable, respectable men in society. They were just a rag tag bunch with major character flaws whom most would dismiss as insignificant and unimportant men.

Yet, Judas was the only one to be lost from this bunch of weak, vain and cowardly men. The rest went on to become strong men of God willing to give up their very lives for the Gospel. That is the power of the Holy Spirit. Our own personal weaknesses and failings mean nothing to God. The key is how much we submit to the power of the Holy Spirit to TRANSFORM who we are. To dismiss a man from the priesthood just because of his background without any discernment of his heart and attitude goes against everything God says.

It is interesting that Michael Voris, whether he realizes it or not, is portraying the priesthood as just another profession in which we need "qualified" men.   Yes, we do need qualified men for the priesthood, but as stated earlier, the only real qualification is a calling by and submission to the Holy Spirit.  Our Lord decides where we will be in His Body, the Church. And as He tells us, he does not look at who we are or the things as we do.

When the prophet Samuel was choosing a king for Israel, God told Samuel:

"Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."  (I Sam. 16:7)   

Isaiah 55:8 tells us, 

"'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,' declares the LORD."  

In fact, St. Paul writes that God purposely picks those the world considers weak to achieve His purposes:

Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful.  (I Cor. 1:27)

In this Vortex episode, Voris pronounces his usual judgment on the priests and bishops:

We need to pray and sacrifice mightily for our priests and bishops my fellow Catholics – the Church will be impotent in fighting the powers of hell, of storming the gates of hell with weak men as leaders.

Everyone has psychological junk to deal with. But there comes a time in the lives of some, when it must be dealt with and laid aside – or those incapable of dealing with it must at the very least recognize it and STEP aside.

Again, Voris totally discounts the work of the Holy Spirit with the statement, "the Church will be impotent in fighting the powers of hell, of storming the gates of hell with weak men as leaders." Just where does Voris think our strength as a Church comes from? Is this the Church of Strong, Manly Men or the Church of God? And again, Voris takes it upon himself to tell duly ordained priests and bishops to "STEP aside." When did Michael Voris become judge and jury over people's souls?

This is certainly not to say that we don't have weak priests among us. We always have and we always will. Judas was only the first. But does this weakness come from the lack of a strong father figure and/or some other character flaw, as Voris would have us believe? Or is it the result of abandoning their relationship with their Heavenly Father? Doesn't weakness in all of us, not just priests, come from the fact that we have not totally submitted ourselves to Our Lord, that we are trying to do things "our way" instead of allowing the Holy Spirit to work within us?

Not every man is qualified for the priesthood.  In fact, only a tiny percentage of men are actually called into this great vocation.  But let's leave it to the power of the Holy Spirit and Holy Mother Church to make this decision, not lay people like Michael Voris.

Every time I think Michael Voris has jumped the shark, he goes even further. His hubris seems to know no bounds. He condemns and criticizes priests and bishops with abandon, telling them that they are headed for hell and they need to get out of the church. Voris tells us that the institutional church we see around is nothing but a sham, and that only he and others who think like him constitute the true church. They are the only "faithful" Catholics. If you don't agree with Voris, you belong to the "Church of Nice", which he says is the great false church of our time.

There is a reason why Voris is not allowed by his bishop to use the word "Catholic" in his organization. I use to be a loyal follower of Voris, and I understand his appeal. He seems to give concrete answers to all the confusion around us. But I have learned that we need to stay far away from anyone who stands in constant criticism of the Church and purports to know more than those who have been ordained to watch over our souls.

It doesn't matter what has happened to you in life. It doesn't matter how low you have sunk. The Holy Spirit can completely remake you into a child of God. Don't listen to people like Voris who say you don't have what it takes. Alone, you don't have it. But if you submit your will to God, He will raise you up and use you in ways you would have never dreamed.

 

Credit: www.renewedstrength.org

Are You Driven By Faith Or Ideology?

Christianity, before being a moral or an ethic, is the event of love, it is the acceptance of the Person of Jesus.

Pope Benedict XVI

I love the Traditional Latin Mass, which in many circles defines me as a "Traditionalist."  I think of myself as just Catholic, but it seems that in our world today we must have precise labels for each other or we don't know how to relate.

Because I attend the TLM, I also interact with many other "Traditionalists." Lately, especially since the election of Pope Francis, I have felt more and more estranged from many of my fellow "Trads". Like many of them, I use to be big into Vatican II bashing (Vatican II is the "root of all evil"), bishop bashing and even a little Pope bashing now and then, as past posts on this blog will show. However, I have come to realize that that I do not and cannot see the whole picture and it is not my job to sit in public criticism of the hierarchy of the Church.

As a result of my changed attitudes, I am now being shunned by those with whom I once agreed. At a recent all night prayer vigil which we spent before the exposed Blessed Sacrament, one woman, whom I thought was my friend, quite literally turned her back on me after I made it clear that I did not agree with her harsh criticism of the bishops and Pope Francis. How does one spend all night in adoration before the Blessed Sacrament, and then shun people?

Credit:  www.centerforinquiry.net 

There is another man I know who tells me he goes to Mass twice a day, to adoration several times a week, and spends many hours outside of abortion clinics, and yet also tells me that his "Catholicity" tells him he has to reject Pope Francis and most bishops, most especially Cardinal Dolan. This man has also begun to shun me. How does one engage in all these devout Catholic practices, and yet remain so hard of heart?

This has really puzzled me. How does one profess a deep love for our Lord, and at the same time profess a "my way or the highway" attitude exhibited by so many Traditional Catholics? This can be seen quite clearly on Traditional Catholic blogs, which I have highlighted in past posts.

Pope Francis gave me some answers to my questions in a recent sermon in which he discussed the difference between "faith" and "ideology." Father Z says we need to read Pope Francis through Pope Benedict XVI. This is one time when I think this will be extremely helpful.

Pope Benedict XVI gave us an excellent definition of faith, which can be found here :

Faith, in fact, is an encounter with God who speaks and works in history and converts our daily life, transforming within us mentalities, value judgments, decisions and practical actions. Faith is not an illusion, a flight of fancy, a refuge or sentimentalism; rather it is total involvement in the whole of life and is the proclamation of the Gospel, the Good News that can set the whole of the person free.

Pope Francis warns us that if we are not careful, this life giving faith, infused into by the Holy Spirit, can be transformed into a deadly ideology, which does not come from God but from our own fallen nature:

“The faith passes, so to speak, through a distiller and becomes ideology. And ideology does not beckon [people]. In ideologies there is not Jesus: in his tenderness, his love, his meekness. And ideologies are rigid, always. Of every sign: rigid. And when a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the faith: he is no longer a disciple of Jesus, he is a disciple of this attitude of thought… For this reason Jesus said to them: ‘You have taken away the key of knowledge.’ The knowledge of Jesus is transformed into an ideological and also moralistic knowledge, because these close the door with many requirements.”

I have to say, very sadly, that this is what I am witnessing in many who call themselves Traditional Catholics. As stated by Pope Francis, I do not see the "tenderness, love and meekness" of Jesus Christ. Instead, I see, as Pope Francis says, that they are very rigid and unbending, very sure and unquestioning of themselves.  What is the result of this?

“The faith becomes ideology and ideology frightens. Ideology chases away the people. It creates distances between people and it distances the Church from the people. But it is a serious illness, this ideology in Christians. It is an illness, but it is not new, eh? Already the Apostle John, in his first Letter, spoke of this. Christians who lose the faith and prefer the ideologies. His attitude is: be rigid, moralistic, ethical, but without kindness. This can be the question, no? But why is it that a Christian can become like this? Just one thing: this Christian does not pray. And if there is no prayer, you always close the door.”

But how does the life giving faith we receive from Holy Spirit change into a toxic ideology which creates division and drives people away?  From Pope Francis:

“When a Christian does not pray, this happens. And his witness is an arrogant witness.” He who does not pray is “arrogant, is proud, is sure of himself. He is not humble. He seeks his own advancement.” Instead, he said, “when a Christian prays, he is not far from the faith; he speaks with Jesus.”  

Pope Benedict XVI said the same thing using different words:

Many people today have a limited idea of the Christian faith, because they identify it with a mere system of beliefs and values [this is ideology that Pope Francis speaks of] rather than with the truth of a God who revealed himself in history, anxious to communicate with human beings in a tête-à-tête, in a relationship of love with them [this is the faith we receive only through prayer, as Pope Francis said]. In fact, at the root of every doctrine or value is the event of the encounter between man and God in Jesus Christ. Christianity, before being a moral or an ethic, is the event of love, it is the acceptance of the Person of Jesus. For this reason the Christian and Christian communities must first look and make others look to Christ, the true Way that leads to God.  [Our relationship with God can only be grounded with prayer]

But the Traditionalists I know do pray. Many of them faithfully say the Rosary and other devotions. They express a very devout and reverent attitude towards our Lord, as I have shown in the two examples I have given. What is missing?

And, the Pope said, “I say to pray, I do not say to say prayers, because these teachers of the law said many prayers” in order to be seen. Jesus, instead, says: “when you pray, go into your room and pray to the Father in secret, heart to heart.” The pope continued: “IT IS ONE THING TO PRAY, AND ANOTHER THING TO SAY PRAYERS.”

So the Pope is saying that just mouthing words to our Lord does not in itself constitute praying.  Our prayers must come from our heart in order to transform us and make us more like Our Lord, filling us with love for other human beings.  As Pope Benedict XVI would say, our prayers must be an encounter with God.  That cannot happen if we let our own ideology stand in the way.  Pope Francis reminds us here that the Pharisees in Jesus' time said many prayers, and yet they were filled with pride and hatred.

This sermon by Pope Francis, like almost everything the Holy Father says and does, had many "Traditional Catholics" criticizing and decrying His Holiness yet again.  Father Z mentioned this sermon on his blog but shed no light on it whatsoever, instead writing:  "The Pope’s language about ideology is so vague that I can’t for the life of me make out who or what he is talking about. It could be that he has a first name and a last name in mind, but I have no idea who she might be."

I personally don't find the Pope's language to be vague at all.   I say with all sincerity that it is possible that I'm just not smart enough to see the "vagueness" in the Pope's words.  On the contrary, these words of Pope Francis have actually helped bring much clarity to my life.

If Father Z is interested in seeing a shining example of the "ideology" which the Pope speaks of, he should take a look at a video produced by Remnant Newspaper and the Remnant Forum, a Traditionalist Catholic group. In this video, Michael Matt and Christopher Ferrara discuss and criticize this sermon given by Pope Francis.  You can go here to watch the entire video. This video is an excellent example of the Pope's words, "when a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the faith: he is no longer a disciple of Jesus, he is a disciple of this attitude of thought… For this reason Jesus said to them: ‘You have taken away the key of knowledge.’ The knowledge of Jesus is transformed into an ideological and also moralistic knowledge, because these close the door with many requirements."

Michael Matt starts out with a very negative statement, "Is this another sort of papal bombshell in the making?"  Chris Ferrara laughs and shakes his head and says, "One of many.  I mean, the ground is littered with craters from the bombs that have been dropping from the mouth of this Pope."  Ferrara goes on to say that the Pope's statements are a "false disjunction that is typical of modernist thought as if there is a dichotomy between saying and praying prayers."  Well, yes actually, there is a huge difference between "saying" and "praying" prayers,  and Chris Ferrara, who holds himself out to be a very learned Catholic, should know that.

Michael Matt responds by saying, "Am I being paranoid?  When I read this today, it struck me once again, since Tradition minded Catholics are among the few who are still saying rosaries. . . is this another, just another sort of brush off against the Traditionalists on the part of Pope Francis?"  I am really amazed that neither Michael Matt nor Chris Ferrara seem to be aware that our Holy Father prays three rosaries every day. He has led public rosaries several times since being elected Pope, the latest being on the day of prayer and fasting on September 7 which he called in regard to the war in Syria. On August 15, the Feast of the Assumption, Pope Francis said the following:

“Mary joins us, she fights at our side. She supports Christians in the fight against the forces of evil. Especially through prayer, through the rosary. Hear me out, the rosary... Do you pray the Rosary each day? I don't know, are you sure? There we go!”

Pope Francis publicly praying the Rosary

Read the entire article on this sermon here. This is only one of many statements by Pope Francis in promoting the Rosary. But you wouldn't know this from listening to Michael Matt and Chris Ferrara. They have no qualms in falsely accusing the Pope of bashing the Rosary. 

Chris Ferrara actually made a very astute statement in the following: "Obviously, if one recites the Rosary in the manner of a machine gun, a completely rote manner without meditating on the mysteries, then one is not really praying. If that all is that Pope Francis means, that is completely unobjectionable."

In light of the Pope's constant promotion of the Rosary, what else could he mean? Yet, Ferrara and Matt just go right past this. Ferrara puts words in the Pope's mouth when he says: "The idea that saying prayers without actually having a spiritual consolation or actively meditating and seeking communion with God is in itself an ideological activity that should be rejected by Catholics. This is just bad pastoral advice."   Ferrara is drawing this false conclusion from the Pope's statement that we should go to our room and pray to the Father in secret, which is a quote from Our Lord found in Matthew 6:6.

In actuality, this is a complete misrepresentation of the words of Pope Francis (and Jesus Christ). The Pope never said anything about "spiritual consolation." Many saints, if not most, went through long periods in their lives when there was no spiritual consolation. That can actually be a sign of great holiness, as we saw with Blessed Mother Teresa, who spent 50 years in the Dark Night. Pope Francis is obviously talking about the need for prayers to be more than just words, empty gestures and motions. Shouldn't that always be our goal? Why would anyone criticize this statement? Yet, that is just what Ferrara and Matt do. Ferrara actually accuses Pope Francis of "anti-pastoral naivety." Ferrara falsely accuses Pope Francis of saying that our prayers mean nothing unless we achieve the "unitive state". Michael Matt chimes in and says, "there is a certain Protestant flavor to it. I'm not saying that is what was intended, but there is a certain Protestant flavor."

Matt then goes on to state that Pope Francis is "giving the impression" that he "doesn't care" for the rosary, "and that repetitive prayer is useless or that memorized praying is not praying at all."  Ferrara responds with, "Yea, where is the vaunted sympathy for the sinner and weak of heart?"  He then says, "This is part of a pattern.  It seems there is an inescapable pattern of a total lack of sympathy for Catholics of Traditional orientation."  He then goes on to recite a litany of statements Pope Francis made that are supposedly attacking Traditional Catholics.  He carries this argument to an extreme by saying that criticism of Traditionals means that the Pope is actually attacking all traditions in the Church and is ready to throw it all away.  

Traditionalists have to stop playing the victim. All this does is drive people away from them, just as Pope Francis warned in his sermon. Instead of immediately coming up with counter-arguments and criticisms to everything the Pope says, they would do much better to humbly and prayerfully meditate on the words of the Vicar of Christ to determine if these words have any relevancy in their lives. Humility is the key to everything.

Ferrara and Michael Matt continue to discuss the Pope's sermon using a totally false premise by continuing to attribute ideas to the Pope which he never conveyed in any way. Michael Matt says, "If memorized prayers are somehow problematic [something the Pope never said], what do you do with all the indulgenced prayers?" Ferrara says this shows the "cruel school master", again accusing the Pope of not caring about people. This is a pure straw man argument because the Pope has never at any time said we should not use the memorized prayers of the Church.

Ferrara then says "I'm sorry if I sound acerbic and sarcastic, but I've had enough of this!!"  Yes, Mr. Ferrara, you sound very strident, and that is not going to draw anyone to Christ, exactly what Pope Francis was warning against.  

Michael Matt, later in the video, says, "What is going on?  I don't want to believe that the Holy Father is intending to say these things and I want the spin.  I want the good, favorable positive spin, but he keeps saying things that are getting increasingly difficult to spin in a Catholic direction. What in the world is going on?"

Ferrara once again accuses Pope Francis of being sympathetic to modernists and wanting to destroy everything in the Church that is not in line with the evil Vatican II.  Here are two men who hold themselves out to be good, loyal Catholics but yet are warning other Catholics against this "liberal, modernist" Pope who is seemingly out to destroy the Church.    

Towards the end of the video Michael Matt laments, "I look to Pope Francis and I don't see any clarity.  In fact, I'm finding more confusion looking to Rome right now, and I know I'm not alone in that."  Ferrara responds by saying that he loves the Church and reveres the Pope and the office that he occupies.  He said he was hopeful when Pope Francis was elected.  "I don't enjoy sitting here doing a postmortem on the latest papal statements that make the Church and us look ridiculous, which they do."  He says he wants The Remnant to be a "papal loyalist newspaper" as he says they were under Pope Benedict XVI, basically conceding that they are not loyal to Pope Francis.  

Ferrara says that he now has a "queasy feeling":  "we haven't been to this place yet in the post conciliar epic.  This is a new destination on the train ride to disaster."  Matt responds, "I think I'm going to let that be the last word because that pretty much sums it up.  I don't know what to say to people other than to agree with you absolutely this is terrifying."  Ferrara tells us that "the enemy is inside the household of the faith and is running through all the rooms of the house right now." 

How does this type of thinking happen?  How do supposedly loyal, devout Catholics come to see the Holy Father as the enemy of the Church? As Pope Francis, said, they are a "disciple of their ideology", and they will attack and destroy anything that threatens their ideology, even if it includes the Holy Father himself. Nowhere in this 27 minute video is there even a hint of humility, of questioning themselves and where they are going with their often blatantly false accusations and misrepresentations of the Pope's words. 

I am not questioning the sincerity of these two men or even of those who feel they are justified in shunning me. My prayer is that they will truly pray as Pope Francis has exhorted us to do and get beyond their ideology, which is destroying them. We must remember that Satan can appear as an angel of light, and his greatest trick with believers is to make us believe that we are right and everyone else, especially Church hierarchy, is wrong. This is the genesis of all heresy. As the Apostle Paul warned us in I Cor. 10:12, "Let he who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall."

It seems that no one is more sure of their "firm footing"' than Traditionalists, and therefore, no one should be questioning themselves on a regular basis more than Traditionalists. We need to constantly be asking ourselves and asking God to reveal to us whether we are truly following the lead of the Holy Spirit, or blindly following an ideology born of our pride and our fallen nature.

Vatican II: A Case of Selective Hearing

Songwriter Paul Simon of Simon and Garfunkel wrote a song in the 1960's called "The Boxer", which has some great lines it.  For purposes of this posting, I point out the following line:

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.  

As far as being a Catholic is concerned, this statement is never truer than when discussing the Second Vatican Council and the ramifications therefrom. Father John Zuhlsdorf recently linked to an article from almost five years ago concerning a letter from Bishop R. Walker Nickless. The article was originally posted on Lifesitenews.com and is entitled "Sioux City Bishop Calls for 'Exorcism' of  'Spirit of Vatican II'".  You can read Father Z's post here. The article refers to the 17-page letter written by Bishop Nickless in 2009. He was the then-newly appointed bishop of that diocese, and this was his first letter as bishop.

Father Z's readers saw this and read it as a bishop condemning Vatican II and all that came from it, despite the fact that this was not in any way the intention of Bishop Nickless. Here is the first part of the article as posted by Father Z (the comments in red are his):

Bp. Nickless (D. Sioux City): we must “exorcize” the “spirit of Vatican II”

Posted on 31 May 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I have mentioned Bishop Nickless of Sioux City before.

This is from LifeSite:

Sioux City Bishop Calls for “Exorcism” of “Spirit of Vatican II”

By Kathleen Gilbert

SIOUX CITY, Iowa, October 16, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Catholics must learn to “exorcise” the so-called “spirit of Vatican II” to end the secularization that has “wreaked havoc” on the Church since the Council, says Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa. [Do I hear an "Amen!"?]

Notice that this very clearly says that the Bishop feels "the spirit of Vatican II" needs to be exorcised, which is not Vatican II itself.  Yet the comments left by readers make it very clear that they completely disregard the words of the Bishop and equate the "spirit" of Vatican II with the Council.  Even the few excerpts from the article made it clear that this was not what His Excellency was saying.  The next two paragraphs as quoted by Father Z make that very plain.   The words in bold are from Father Z's post:

In a pastoral letter issued Thursday to the lay and religious of his diocese, Nickless wrote that he has “no other desire” than to see the reforms of Vatican II implemented properly. However, he said, “It is crucial that we all grasp that the hermeneutic or interpretation of discontinuity or rupture, which many think is the settled and even official position, is not the true meaning of the Council.”

The “hermeneutic of discontinuity,” under the guise of the “spirit of Vatican II,” sees “the Second Vatican Council as a radical break with the past,” explained the bishop. However, “There can be no split … between the Church and her faith before and after the Council.”

This makes it very plain that the Bishop does not believe that Vatican II constitutes a break with the past or a "rupture" in Church teaching. He plainly says that those who teach such are teaching falsehoods. The LifesiteNews article continues, and unless the reader is careful, he can continue to read this as Bishop Nickless condemning the Vatican II council:

This “hermeneutic of discontinuity,” said Nickless, “emphasizes the ‘engagement with the world’ to the exclusion of the deposit of faith.”

“This has wreaked havoc on the Church, systematically dismantling the Catholic Faith to please the world, watering down what is distinctively Catholic, and ironically becoming completely irrelevant and impotent for the mission of the Church in the world,” he said.  “The Church that seeks simply what works or is ‘useful’ in the end becomes useless.”

It is important to note that Bishop Nickless is not condemning Vatican II as "systematically dismantling that Catholic Faith", but blames the false "hermeneutic of discontinuity." As quoted above, His Excellency believes that "There can be no split … between the Church and her faith before and after the Council."

The article was so old that the link to the Bishop's original letter was broken.  Fortunately, one of Father Z's readers provided a working link, and therefore we are able to read the Bishop's entire letter, which is here.  Other than the one reader posting a working link, none of Father's Z's readers seem to question the broken link and are presumably not interested in reading the actual letter.  Father Z originally posted about this letter in 2009, and he quoted from the letter at that time, so I don't understand why he did not correct his readers who got it so wrong, as can be seen from their comments.

Here are some of the comments to Father Z's blog:

1. Gratias says:

   31 May 2013 at 10:45 am

   The Church has been taken over by the outside world and they still are not pleased with us. V2 was a rupture and a mistake.
   
   

   
2. Bob B. says:

   31 May 2013 at 12:48 pm

   I’ll bet Fishwrap is having a fit right about now.
   
   
3. backtothefuture says:

   31 May 2013 at 2:42 pm

   We need to exorcise the whole council on the whole.
   
   
4. Catholic Johnny says:
5. 31 May 2013 at 3:59 pm

   Your Excellence, this may be a little more difficult than you think. We have an obstacle in the way of your much needed suggestion: Pope John Paul “the great”:

   “Entrusting myself fully to the Spirit of truth, therefore, I am entering into the rich inheritance of the recent pontificates. This inheritance has struck deep roots in the awareness of the Church in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously, thanks to the Second Vatican Council…”

   This, Bishop Nickless is THE ‘spirit of Vatican II’.
   Kyrie Eleison!
6. 
7. Nancy D. says:

   2 June 2013 at 10:51 am

   Vatican II is a rupture because it made the erroneous claim that the Jews and the Moslems worship the same God as we do, when the fact is, we, who are Catholic, worship The True God, The God of our Salvation, Who desires we overcome our disordered inclinations, including our disordered sexual inclinations, so that we are not led into temptation, but rather, sin no more. The Sacrifice of The Cross, Is The Sacrifice of The Holy Trinity, for “God so Loved us, that He sent His Only Son…”.

   God Is Love. Love exists in relationship. There Is only One Spirit of Love Between The Father and The Son.

I find all of these comments to be very disconcerting. Unlike Bishop Nickless, who is attacking the false "Spirit of Vatican II", these comments are attacking the Council itself. None of these readers seem to understand Bishop Nicklass' message. I won't accuse Father Z of encouraging these kind of comments, but I do question why he let these comments stand without some response or correction.

The 17-page letter from Bishop Nickless is actually a wonderful teaching tool as to the real meaning of Vatican II and why it has not borne the anticipated fruit of its founding fathers.

Would Bishop Nickless agree that "V2 was a rupture and a mistake"? Hardly. This is what he wrote in his letter:

I studied and was ordained a deacon and priest during the exciting, almost intoxicating, time of the Second Vatican Council. I am thoroughly a product of that momentous time, the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church in centuries. It has formed the context and culture of my entire ministerial life. Like Pope John Paul the Great, I have no other desire for my ministry than seeing the hopes and reforms of the Second Vatican Council fully implemented and brought to fruition.

Portions of this excerpt were included in the Lifesite news article, but Father Z did not use these quotes. If he had used these quotes, would Father Z's readers still make such comments as: "Wow, what a great Bishop!" or "Please, dear papal nuncio, Cardinal Ouellet and Pope Francis, we need a few more bishops like this guy!"  Something tells me that their sentiments would be very different if they realized that this is how His Excellency actually views Vatican II.  

As can also be seen from the above quote, Bishop Nickless has great admiration and respect for Blessed John Paul II (who was not a Blessed at the time this letter was written), even calling him "Pope John Paul the Great."  Unlike "Catholic Johnny" above, Bishop Nickless sees Blessed John Paul as anything but an "obstacle."

Bishop Nickless quoted from Blessed John XXIII's opening sermon at the Council:

In opening the Council, Blessed John stated that the “greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council” was twofold: “that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be [both] guarded and taught more efficaciously.” Later in the speech, he elaborated on this: “The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.” The teachings of the Church, our identity and culture as Catholics, must be loved and guarded, yet brought forth and taught in a way understandable to the modern world. 

Bishop Nickless goes on to explain how this is what the "New Evangelization" is all about.  The substance of the Church's teaching is not new, but the way in which it is presented to a changing world is new.  This is the heart and soul of the meaning of Vatican II, and this was the driving force of the pontificate of Blessed John Paul II:

Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul the Great constantly preached the same thing in calling for a “New Evangelization” of the faithful, our separated brothers and sisters in Christ, and all those who do not know Jesus Christ or the Church. This New Evangelization was to be “new not in content but in ardor, methods, and expression.”  It is readily apparent from his teaching and ministry that for Pope John Paul the Great, the New Evangelization was the true fruit of the Second Vatican Council. Indeed, the Council was the beginning and blueprint for evangelization in the modern world. He explicitly stated this as his particular mission at the time of his election, and he lived it to the end.  He spent his entire pontificate interpreting and implementing the Council’s documents according to the light of the Holy Spirit, given in virtue of his office, amid the changing circumstances of the Church and the world.

Bishop Nickless readily admits that something has gone terribly wrong since Vatican II.   He quotes from Pope Benedict XVI:

The question arises: Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult? Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or—as we would say today—on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarreled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.

Bishop Nickless is telling us that the false "hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture" has been the root of the crisis in the Church and has presented a false interpretation of Vatican II:

On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture,” it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the “hermeneutic of reform,” of renewal in the continuity of the one subject – Church – which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God. The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the postconciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council.

Bishop Nickless quotes extensively from Pope Benedict XVI and says:

the “spirit of Vatican II” must be found only in the letter of the documents themselves. The so-called “spirit” of the Council has no authoritative interpretation. It is a ghost or demon that must be exorcised if we are to proceed with the Lord’s work.

Coincidentally, Michael Voris just released a Vortex video, which you can watch here, regarding comments made by Cardinal Walter Kaspar who has suddenly come to the conclusion that the Vatican II documents were purposely made ambiguous as a result of "compromise forumlas" which "open the door to a selective reception in either direction."  Michael Voris finds this "admission" by Cardinal Kaspar to be "stunning, absolutely stunning" . . . "that the (Vatican II) documents were deliberately written in such a way to please everyone and cause confusion and conflict."  Hmmmm.  That is not what Bishop Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa said, nor is it what Pope Benedict XVI has said, or even our current Holy Father, Pope Francis, who called the Council "a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit" in a homily on April 16 of this year (you can read an article about this homily here).

Quote from Cardinal Kaspar

Michael Voris, to bolster his position, goes on to quote from Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan. From the Vortex video:

About two years ago – a very well respected bishop .. Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan was addressing a large group of bishops and cardinals in Rome. He suggested that the time has come for a Syllabus of Errors to be published by the Holy Father clearing up the misinterpretations of the documents of the Second Vatican Council which have become so rampant.

Bishop Schneider

You can read the address by Bishop Schneider here.  You will see that he quotes extensively from Vatican II documents and in a very positive light.  Bishop Schneider give us basically the same argument as that of Bishop Nickless:  Vatican II has been grossly misinterpreted, and that has been the cause of the crisis in the Church.  Bishop Schneider has only praise for the true intentions of Vatican II, as can be seen in the following quotes:

According to an expression of Blessed Pope John XXIII in the speech given at the final general congregation of the first session of the Council, December 7, 1962, the one purpose of the Council and the one hope and confidence of the Pope and the Council Fathers consists in this: “To make ever more known to the men of our time the Gospel of Christ, that it be practiced willingly and that it penetrate deeply into every aspect of society.” (loc. cit., pp. 881-882). Can there be a more authentic and more Catholic pastoral principle and method than this?

Bishop Schneider explains what he feels are the reasons we have not seen greater fruit from Vatican II:

In substance, there were two impediments against the true intention of the Council and its Magisterium bearing abundant and lasting fruits. One was found outside the Church, in the violent process of cultural and social revolution in the 1960s, which, like every powerful social phenomenon, penetrated within the Church, contaminating vast ranges of people and institutions with its spirit of rupture. The other impediment showed itself in the lack of wise and intrepid Pastors of the Church who would be ready to defend the purity and integrity of the faith and of the liturgical and pastoral life, not letting themselves be influenced either by praise or by fear (“nec laudibus, nec timore”).

Bishop Schneider sums up his position on Vatican II in his final statement:

Thus there truly is the need for a conciliar Syllabus with doctrinal value, and moreover there is need to increase the number of holy, courageous pastors, profoundly rooted in the tradition of the Church, free from any type of mentality of rupture whether in the field of doctrine or of liturgy. In fact, these two elements constitute the indispensable condition so that doctrinal, liturgical, and pastoral confusion may diminish notably and the pastoral work of the Second Vatican Council may bear many and lasting fruits in the spirit of tradition, which joins us with the spirit that reigns at all times, everywhere, and in all true children of the Catholic Church, which is the one and the true Church of God on the earth.

I have shown in previous posts that Michael Voris tends to make very misleading statements, but I think he has outdone himself this time when he invokes Bishop Schneider to back up his argument that Vatican II has been the source of the crisis in the Church.  Bishop Schneider would be the first disagree with Voris.

Interestingly, Father Z posted in regard to the Vortex video about the Vatican II documents.  Father Z starts out his post by writing, "I will remind the readership that in the greater arc of the Church’s history, Vatican II wasn’t all that important."  He writes further, "Vatican II has taken on a kind of mythic importance in the identity of many Catholics of a certain age."  These statements would seem to indicate that Father Z is not in step in his view of Vatican II with Bishop Nickless, whom he had praised just a few days prior, or with any of our recent Popes, including Pope Francis, or with Bishop Schneider, to name just a few good and holy men of the Church, all of whom defend Vatican II and place great importance on it.

Father Z offers his take on Vatican II: "During Vatican II, after many of the working drafts and schemata were junked, committees and subcommittees, working under pressure and time constraints, cobbled the documents together.  Is it any wonder that the documents have some problems?"  I guess Father Z doesn't give much importance to the influence of the Holy Spirit.

So Father Z agrees with Voris that there are problems with the documents in Vatican II.  Again, he would not seem to be in step with any of the post-conciliar Popes or with Bishop R. Walker Nickless or with Bishop Athanasius Schneider.  It should be noted that in January 2011, Father Z praised Bishop Schneider and even did a podcast on the aforementioned speech, which can be found here.  Yet, Father Z's statements in this last post would seem to be at odds with those of Bishop Schneider.  It all gets quite confusing.

Again, the comments to Father Z's post are more enlightening than the actual post.  The following comment is typical of many that were posted, and to which Father Z made no response:

Johnno says:

4 June 2013 at 3:43 pm

There’s a false equivalence here between Vatican II and previous councils.

Previous Councils sought to clarify and nail down certain things and reduce ambguity as much as possible.

Vatican II’s purpose, according to the testimony of those who were involved, seemed primarily set on the objective to purposely further ambiguity and water down the Catholic faith so as to somehow trick Protestants and the world into imagining that they could find common ground with us and therefore join in… An idea so ill-conceivably and amazingly stupid that it makes far more sense to reach the conclusion that the architects of Vatican II didn’t seek to clarify Catholicism or explain ambguities and answer divisive topics like other councils, but rather to destroy tenets of the Catholic Church itself so that it would join the modern world in all its glorious progress.

Regardless of however you want to see it, Vatican II’s supposed goals were never met and are colossal failures, and the only reason we continue to try and find some light in its darkness is to avoid responsibility for it. That and stubborn pride. Whatever good we do salvage from it is likely God making lemonade from the lemons we fostered upon His Church.

The bottom line is this:  All of the Holy Fathers in the last half of the 20th Century and into the 21st Century have told us that Vatican II was an important council and a good and holy council.  The purpose of this council was to aid in spreading the saving message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a changing world.  Many have tried to hijack this council and make it into something it was never meant to be:  a reform of the Church.  If we try to belittle the council or worse, condemn it, we have fallen into the trap of Satan himself.  

Pope Francis

Dr. Jeff Mirus of Catholicculture.org wrote a brilliant post in regard to the previously mentioned April 16 address by Pope Francis in which he said that the Council "is a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit."  From Dr. Mirus:

Just as the Modernists ignore the Magisterium as a relic of the past, replacing it with the spirit of the current age, the Traditionalists ignore the contemporary Magisterium, replacing it with the spirit of some previous age. But please note that these descriptions are not perfect, and that one can have a fairly liberal or a fairly conservative outlook without really crossing the line into either camp. If we agree that the actual Conciliar texts are a great gift of the Holy Spirit for authentic Catholic renewal, it is safe to say we are in neither group. But in any case, the Pope rebukes both groups, insisting that the Council was a wholly legitimate and continuous growth or development of the Church, which everyone is bound to accept and act upon:

Everybody seems happy about the presence of the Holy Spirit but it’s not really the case and there is still that temptation to resist it…. The Council was a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit…. But after 50 years, have we done everything that the Holy Spirit said to us in the Council? In the continuity of the growth of the Church which was the Council?

Pope Francis, in other words, has the same view of the Council as his predecessors, which is really the only properly Catholic view. The same points were made by Paul VI; and by John Paul II; and by Benedict XVI. Every pope since the Council has insisted upon its faithful implementation. And yet too many of us still find ourselves either in one camp or the other, or else we are all too willing to accept things as they are, and to make a comfortable ecclesiastical place for ourselves in the status quo. Indeed, how many churchmen themselves fall into this more universal third category?

We need to turn off all of the chaos and clamor around us and even our own deceptive voices and open our minds and hearts to the Holy Spirit, allowing Him to guide us into all truth.

Credit:  thesestonewalls.com