Apparently, Karl Keating of Catholic Answers is concerned about me; so concerned, in fact, that he took to FaceBook on Friday to ask the people on his “friends list” (of which I am one), “Can anyone explain what’s going on with Louie Verrecchio?”
Though I’ve already provided this answer directly to Karl (as men, at least where I come from, are accustomed to addressing one another), I do so publicly as well since that was the venue in which the query was posed. In truth, this topic concerns all who sincerely wish to follow the way of salvation given by Christ through the Holy Catholic Church alone. It is a public matter.
Karl’s specific concerns and my response follow:
You are correct, the work I began in 2003 (the Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II Faith Formation Series) has “achieved some level of notoriety for [my] positive work on behalf of the Church … seconded by the episcopal endorsements.”
This recognition remains as the content and value of this work also remains.
Though you are also correct in recognizing a shift in the focus of my writing, what you refer to as “apparently new views” are really better understood as simply a continuation of the original purpose of my apostolate; namely, to shine the light of sacred Tradition upon the conciliar text, so that it may be evaluated and understood for what it truly is.
This work entails measuring the individual propositions set forth in the Council documents, not by anything mutable, but by the Faith that comes to us from the Apostles, the same that is transmitted by this Tradition, the same yesterday, today and always.
More broadly speaking, my work has always been motivated by a desire to “safeguard” from all corruption and misunderstanding, “the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine,” whether such be invited explicitly through error, or implicitly by way of ambiguity and imprecision, regardless of the source. This, incidentally, is exactly what Pope John XXIII instructed the Council Fathers to do as their “greatest concern.”
Initially, my writing on the Council focused primarily on refuting the “spirit of Vatican II” wherein the Council is often misquoted or misunderstood.
Today, I tend to focus more on that much smaller portion of the conciliar text, those that are sources of doctrinal confusion, not based on a misrepresentation, but for what they actually say. This text represents “a little leaven” indeed, but has created much difficulty in the Church. A number of examples exist that I will not list here, but many are treated on this blog. (Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Walter Kasper have both spoken out on this problem with the text as well. Their comments are worthy of examining if you haven’t already.)
You wrote, “Recently Verrecchio has been posting jabs at the last few popes and at the Council.”
Again, I must clarify; what you call “jabs” are not properly aimed at the person of the pope, but rather at individual statements or actions of the pope that run counter to the doctrine of the faith, inviting misunderstanding and confusion. Likewise, with regard to the Council.
Let’s look at the latter first. You point as an example to my FaceBook post of Oct. 11 where I wrote:
“Fifty-one years ago today, as the Church celebrated the Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Second Vatican Council opened. On December 8, 1965, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, the Council would close, the work of dethroning her Son having been completed.”
You then ask, “So the purpose of Vatican II was to ‘dethrone’ the Son of God?”
My statement concerns one rather specific, and very tragic, result of the Council’s work; namely, the effective dethronement of Christ the King, otherwise understood as the tacit rejection of what is called His Social Kingship. (A point that Bishop Schneider also notes.)
This incredibly important topic cannot be properly addressed in just a few paragraphs. In fact, I provided a much more detailed treatment in that very same post, but perhaps you missed it.
Below is a video of a talk that I gave on this topic. It runs approximately 45 minutes and is really just a good start. Beyond that, I would invite you to read (or reread as the case may be) the Encyclical Quas Primas in which Pope Pius XI instituted the Feast of Christ the King.
Religious Liberty: In Defense of Christ the King from Louie Verrecchio on Vimeo.
Though there is much more one might explore in order to grasp this matter, having done just these two things, it should be clear based upon the contents of Dignitatis Humanae (the Declaration on Religious Freedom of Vatican II) and the way in which this document has been interpreted and implemented by the popes since the Council (as evidenced by their treatment, or lack thereof, of humankind’s obligation to recognize the Social Kingship of Christ) that indeed the work of the Council has effectively resulted in His dethronement. (Of course, I speak figuratively since no one – not a pope and not a council – has the authority to truly dethrone Him. Our Lord’s reign is an enduring reality even if the men of our age choose to ignore it, as indeed they do.)
Unfortunately, apart from taking considerable time to become familiar with the doctrine articulated in the pre-conciliar magisterium on the topic of religious liberty and Church-State relations, (as articulated in such documents as Immortale Dei, Libertas, Vehementer Nos, Quanta Cura, for example) a meaningful conversation on the subject will not be possible. Then again, neither will it be possible to apply the “hermeneutic of continuity” that was urged by Pope Benedict XVI, as the traditional teaching is precisely that which provides the basis for continuity.
Moving on to the pope, you pointed out:
Two days ago Verrecchio wrote this, “Does the pope really believe that the entire human race enjoys, in some form or fashion, communion with the Church? Well, yes, apparently so, which explains why he has so much difficulty accepting the Church’s mission as the Lord plainly gave it.”
About which, you declared, “What hubris.”
I agree. One of us, either me or the pope, is guilty of hubris, but before I address this concern directly, let me first say that I was pleased to see that you had made mention in this same FaceBook post of the Arian heresy since it provides a rather poignant historical precedent for the very serious situation of a legitimate pope embracing doctrinal error to the harm of the faithful.
As you know, during the Arian crisis, Pope Liberius and the majority of bishops fell into this error, with the pope even going so far as to condemn St. Athanasius for upholding the truth! (Notice which one is a saint.)
This, of course, is just one such incident in the history of the Church wherein a pope has publicly invited harm upon the faithful by either his words or his deeds. The first, needless to say, is recorded in Sacred Scripture in the rebuking of St. Peter by St. Paul.
In any event, your mention of the Arian heresy points to the widely unrecognized fact that popes can in fact depart from the doctrine of the faith, and when they do (as Aquinas and others have made very clear) we are obligated to oppose their errors for our own good and for the good of others. I would even say that those, like us, who have a public voice are all the more obligated in this sense.
Now, back to Pope Francis and his difficulty accepting the mission of the Church. (This response is long already, so I will give this an abbreviated, but adequate treatment.)
What is the mission of the Church? We both know that it is, as recorded in Matthew 28, properly summarized as converting the nations to Christ and His Holy Catholic Church, baptizing, teaching all that He commanded; bringing the peoples of the world into the Catholic Church. Simple enough.
I think you would agree with me in saying that St. Peter gave an excellent example of what the Lord expects of His Church on Pentecost when he taught very plainly and very directly, calling the people to baptism, in charity, that they may live.
To this point in his papacy, Pope Francis has made any number of false and misleading statements on this note, one building upon the other, to the point of doing serious harm to the faithful and to unbelievers alike. I offer just a few examples:
“Do you need to convince the other to become Catholic? No, no, no! Go out and meet him, he is your brother. This is enough. Go out and help him and Jesus will do the rest.” (Pope Francis, as reported by CNS, August 7, 2013)
In another venue he said, “Proselytism is solemn nonsense. It makes no sense.”
What is proselytism? Seeking proselytes; i.e., converts. This is, quite simply, the mission of the Church. It most assuredly is not nonsense. Many martyrs died doing exactly this, as you well know.
These are not just isolated incidents.
On a related note, we find another, related, very harmful statement made by the pope in which he called “diversity of religions” whilst addressing a gathering that included Muslims and other non-Catholics, “a gift.”
Now that is hubris. Imagine, a pope daring to profess to the world that false religions, those that honor false gods and cannot save, the same that supplant the worship due as the first demand of justice to Our Lord, is a gift. A gift!
This is a terrible, terrible offense against God and a gross distortion of the faith of the Church. It also endangers the souls of many.
How can a faithful Catholic not combat such poisonous prose as this?
Is one constrained simply because it comes from a pope? Certainly not.
If a Protestant caller to Catholic Answers Live insisted on these very same things, (religious diversity is a gift, there is no need to for you to labor for converts to the one true faith, proselytism is nonsense) you would reject such propositions plainly and firmly, as you should.
Likewise, if some liberal Notre Dame theology professor was teaching the same, you would rebuke him.
Yet, how much more danger is posed when the pope, the Vicar of Christ, makes such unbelievable statements? We both know that the answer is much, much more. It is a terrible thing, a very painful thing, when these offenses against the faith come from the pope.
As we both know, these kinds of things and worse have happened in ages past. Why Catholics today are willing to check their intellect at the door, as if we are magically immune from such things, is a mystery to me.
In conclusion, while I am flattered by your concern, my loyalty is to Jesus Christ and His Holy Catholic Church.
Where the Council invites error and confusion, I will address it head on. Likewise, if the pope or anyone else does the same, even if he be an angel from heaven, as St. Paul said, I will combat that as well.
In other words, I will always do my best to defend the truths of our faith as they have been handed down to us through the centuries, not because I happen to like them, but because they come from God.
Those who maintain that we must accept with docility everything the pope states, even when such is clearly not Catholic, simply do not know what the papacy truly is. Those who believe the same regarding the Council likewise haven’t a clue what the Council is.
Whether you or anyone else finds what I’ve offered here compelling is of no consequence. My role isn’t to change anyone’s mind, it is simply to defend the truth, and I will gladly relinquish every accolade and endorsement in the process.
I pray for your continued courage and protection, and that-after you have fought the good fight -you may hear these words from Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: “Well done, My good and faithful servant.” May the kind of Peace that only Our Lord can provide, indeed a peace not of this world, be to you.
Again, if the situation is this bad, I have to question Catholic teaching on the Petrine office and even the indefectibility of the Church. What you say may be true, but saying it in this way is corrosive of faith for many people, including me.
Clare NJ, the Petrine office and the indefectibility of the Church do not depend on any one person in the Church, even the Pope. A pope can, indeed, fall into error. If your understanding of the Petrine office and indefectibility of the Church is dependent on members of the Magisterium never falling into error, then you definitely need to adjust your understanding of both. If what is corroded is your faulty understanding of the faith, then you ought to thank Mr. Verrecchio, not condemn him for challenging your uninformed assumptions.
A very inexpensive book you will want to purchase is The Binding Force of Tradition by Fr. Chad Ripperger. For a good summary of how it is possible for members of the Magisterium, even the pope, to fall into error, this is an excellent link:
Mr. Verrecchio, what is a better question is: Why are the Karl Keatings of the Catholic world becoming more and more liberal everyday?
The answer is pretty obvious… wherever the current pope blows is the wind that carries them.
David, I’ve gone from SSPX to sedevacantism to Orthodoxy and back again. I know the arguments. I’m trying to recover my Catholic faith. This does not help, I assure you.
God bless you, God bless you, GOD BLESS You Mr. Verrecchio. You speak Truth in a world gone insane.
Clare, inform yourself and put on your big girl pants. Don’t blame someone else for your wavering faith.
Dear Mr. Verrecchio!
You have defended His Truth, as a true Soldier of Christ. Your answer to Karl Keating is most noble, and accurate.
The most lamentable is, how confused Catholics are fighting one another, instead of seeking unity in His Truth, as true Christians ought to. Haven’t we learned from the saints, from the martyrs, who paved the road for us for centuries, how we ought to love, and defend TRUTH at all cost, and above all. We cannot be blind to heresies that are unfolding in front of our eyes, especially by those who are in ‘authority’, years of abuse, and compromise. Who is their ‘master’…….? We are either for God, or against……God forbid!
Good Bishop Fulton Sheen long ago said……… God gave us limit to our intelligence, but no limit to our stupidity………the joy of the enemy of the holy Church. The ‘prince of the world, Satan’ never sleeps, he leaves alone those who belong to him, but he torments the Catholics….who are such an easy target……..infiltrated.
May you persevere, and when they persecute you, remember the words of our Lord………’If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you……”
Instaurare Omnia in Christo!
Viva Cristo Rey!
@Clare NJ- Mr. Verrecchio made it clear that an important part of our faith is to correct the Magisterium when they fall into error. From St. Paul to today, it has always been so. That is what Mr. Verrecchio is doing, and it should not shake your faith. The church still stands, even if the Pope is a heretic, as history shows us.
Thanks for your comments Mr. Verrecchio. There is more need today than ever to point out errors that have seeped into the Church. I predict that in a short while, the once liberal wing of the Church will be extinct. The new liberals will be the ones who see their ends as protecting every word that the pope of today or tomorrow utters, no matter if he is speaking infallibly or not. The fight will then be against tradition and modernity.
We have forgotten the slow erosion of the faith in England, thanks to the bishops bending over to the demands of the state via Henry VIII. Elizabeth seeing the weakness of the people who called themselves faithful, dealt a severe blow, from which the people never recovered.
The errors of Vatican II have been presented as dogmatic and binding to us, because we say yes to anything from our bishops as such. No questions asked.
We went to bed after having drunk 1/5th, and were forced out of bed before morning broke and before our senses were alert. We were asked to accept all these changes, and we said sure, just as long as you tuck me back in. We were sleeping at the helm…and were taken by surprise.
I fear for my children’s faith, and for mine. Everyday, I pray to be delivered from the modern errors of this world, whatever they be–weather seen or unseen.
I shall keep you in my prayers. We ned more men taking a leap of faith to challenge those confusing documents.
Excellent article, Mr. Verrecchio. As much good as the Catholic Answers/EWTN crowd has done in bringing souls to Christ, it seems their focus has shifted greatly since the election of the new Pontiff. Now they spend time defending everything that he says or does regardless of whether or not it is bringing people home to Christ and the One Catholic Church. They’ve also spent much more time criticizing those who are faithful to the Gospel and to the Church, starting with their attacks on who they call “Radical Traditionalists” or “Mad Trads”.
Between Mr. Keating (whom I respect, and whose “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” book is a wonderful resource), Patrick Coffin, Mark Shea, Tim Staples, and countless others, it seems that these “career apologists” are spending far too much time attacking fellow Catholics who follow Church teaching rather than the Catholics who are truly doing the most damage – those that pick and choose what teachings they want to believe and want the Church to change.
Keep up the good work and the good fight, and may God bless you!
God Bless you brother!
Yours is an honest, clear, Catholic voice amidst a babbling chorus of modernist confusion, Mr, Verrecchio. Some Catholic writers appear to have misplaced their “thinking caps”……
You are so right. Human respect is worth nothing in comparision to Our Lord’s sublime call.
The modernists have destroyed so much of Catholic beauty and even true respect for the office of the Papacy which is currently being reduced to the whims of populism…
I support you completely and have you in my prayers,
God bless you!
CatholicMom: “Mr. Verrecchio made it clear that an important part of our faith is to correct the Magisterium when they fall into error.”
Uhh…this isn’t how this Catholic thing works.
Great article – would love to see Keating’s response if he provides one. I used to be a big supporter of Catholic Answers but they have outlived their usefulness (for me anyway). Their forums brook no criticism of the hierarchy however justified but give free reign to those who promote voting for pro-abortion politicians under the typical “social justice” rubric. They have come to epitomize all that is wrong with the “professional Catholic” class…maybe that’s why their funding support is plummeting.
The charism of infallibility is very limited. It does not protect against Popes or members of the magisterium from saying or doing things contrary to the Faith, or that may be harmful to the Faith. It only protects the Pope, and those bishops in union with him, from formally declaring something as Dogma which is contrary to the Faith. In informal settings, they can say all manner of confusing things. And even in some formal settings, such as V II documents, they can say/write ambiguous things (something which can be interpreted in either an orthodox or heterodox way). In fact, the main difficulty with VII is precisely that – its documents were written (intentionally, apparently) with just this ambiguity. That does not mean VII is in error doctrinally, but it is fair to argue that it was imprudent in significant ways.
To somewhat clarify, it only protects formal pronouncements of Dogma relating to the Faith and morals. But then, other than the Faith and morals, I am not sure there are other dogmatic topics.
Dear Claire in NJ;
Allow me to take a stab at answering your concern.
What I believe is happening in your case is that you (like so many, many others) are confusing infallibility with impeccability. That confusion haunts both those who might properly be called “papolaters” and those who are leaning towards the dead end of sede vacantism. Infallibility, as you know, simply means that on matters of faith and/or morals ONLY, the Pope – when speaking solemnly in his official capacity as Vicar of Christ, and “ex Cathedra” – will be protected from formally teaching error. That is a very limited and specific thing. That means when the Pope talks about the weather, football players, his personal views on things, etc. ,is NOT protected from speaking error.
Now some ascribe to the Pope an impeccabilty – meaning he cannot ever, under any circumstances make a mistake of any kind. Such a thing is ludicrous and impossible of course but so many people understand the Pope’s charism of Infaliibility as impeccability. That misunderstanding causes, ironically enough, both the papolaters and the sedevacantists to hold the same error. When a papolater sees or hears the Pope talking in a way that is clearly contrary to the Faith their mind shuts down and says to itself, “Well, if the Pope said it it must be OK”. On the other hand when a sedevacantist sees or hears the Pope talking some rubbish their minds also shut down and they say, “Well, since the Pope cannot make any erroneous statements then by making these odd statements we see that he cannot be a true Pope.” Do you see what I mean, Clair, that both the sedes and the papolaters share the identical false thinking about Infallibility, why they both confuse infallibility with impeccability?
May I urge you respectfully to read the great Church historians of the past, Hollis, Wyndham-Lewis and Belloc to get a better understanding of how some Popes can be great Saints and others great scoundrels.
It is a great chastisement that there a only a few real men left.
God bless you, Mr. Verrecchio.
Very well stated. Please keep up the fight in a very tough time.
May God have mercy on us all.
For those of you who don’t know, there is now a new FULLY TRADITIONAL apologetical organization up and running called Faithful Answers. Please review their website and offer the forms of support that you can. We finally have a good counterpart to the Catholic Answers – Catholics United For the Faith outfits and they merit our ardent support.
Catholic Answers has been taken over by career protestant apologists who converted to Catholicism but still carry their protty baggage with them. EWTN has been watered down as well since Mother Angelica lost control. As history shows, Catholic organizations have to be continually reformed as the rot inevitably sets in, and apparently now we have a liberal pope. Pray and fasting people!
spot on! very clearly spoken, praise God!
Sadducees do not know the Scripture nor the power of God (IGNORATIO SCRIPTURARUM, IGNORATIO CHRISTI EST) –St. Jerome
Is proselytism “solemn nonsense” to Francis because there are limits to what he believes? I ask this based on a number of quotes, including the following one on the miracle of the loaves and fishes:
“This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer.”
There is no “rather than”. The miracle is the multiplication.
Rock on Louie! God is merciful to give us you as an island of sanity in this storm. Keep at it…we’ve got your six:+) God bless~
LV, it’s good that you refuse – unlike NeoCatholics such as the Catholic Answers crew – to defend the indefensible. Never relent.
In fact, Impersonator, Faithful Answers is a quasi-traditionalist outfit. They’re very much NOT the answer to Catholic Answers.
Perfect, Mr. V. My first reaction to the Pope’s statements was disbelief. Then, I just wrote them off as authentic Jesuit gibberish. Now, it’s clear each questionable remark must be exposed and corrected. We owe it to the faith. We owe it to the martyrs. We owe it to Christ.
So what happened to Louie? The blinders fell off, and they can’t get up.
My dear Louie, Now is the time for Men of Faith to stand up and be counted. The battle of our times is a spiritual battle. We stand in communion with all the holy saints of the Catholic Church. Our weapons are prayer and sacrifice and the Holy Rosary. Ours is a mighty God with the power to move mountains. Alleluia. “In hoc signo vinces” Chi Rho.XP. “In this sign you will conquer”
@Shane Speaking out against error is how the “Catholic thing works.”
Canon 1935 states:
‘Any member of the faithful may at all times denounce the offence of another, and the obligation of denouncing another becomes urgent… when one is obliged to do so in virtue of the natural law where there is danger to faith or religion or other imminent public evil.’
As Mr. Verrecchio stated, there is a long history of saints denouncing any errors held by the hierchy. St. Athanasius is a perfect example of this.
I was wondering when the “conservative” catholic machine was going to strike Mr. Verrecchio. It was inevitable. As usual, Keating does it in as classless a way as possible.
I commend Mr.V on the thorough, iron-clad, yet classy response. No personal attacks on Keating or
Catholic Answers. You’re a better man than me Louie!
Kevin: Just went and read the Angelus message. If a parish priest like myself had said, “This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer,” my people would think I had lost it. Pray!
Excellent response to Karl Keating!
The worship of God is most important. This is the First Commandment of God. The Catholic Church never sanctioned intercommunion with non-believers but that they must cease and come into the One true Church of Jesus Christ. This book is strong, but very true.
Yo, all….the term Magisterium means “teaching office”; thus it is improper to say “correct the Magisterium” or “those who are part of the Magisterium”, as if the term was equivalent to episcopacy, hierarchy, etc..
the Pope and the bishops united with him have in their own unique ways a duty to teach which makes what they say under certain and specific conditions part of the teaching or doctrine contained in the Magisterium of the Church, whereby the Church Herself shares in,but in a lesser way, the perennial and only Magisterium in the Church, that of Christ Jesus Himself.
I have a question for all of the bloggers here, especially David Werling. Why is it that someone ( Clare NJ ) cannot have an opinion without being accused of condemnation of someone else? I thought it was an open forum for discussion. Maybe it is just a game of kiss a#* to the one who writes the articles. By reading some of the responses, I have come to the conclusion that I am in no way intellectual enough to keep up with all of this. Besides, having a different perspective is apparently just viewed as an attack ( not unlike Louie questioning the Pope.) Kind of hypocritical, isn’t it? It’s been fun folks. See ya and God Bless all of you.
I think, Mr. Verrecchio, you have walked much the same path I have, and I have experienced much the same response. “How dare you undermine the authority of the Pope, bishops, etc?” I certainly never set out to do any such thing, and still don’t intend to. But as I have studied the Faith and especially the constant belief of the Church as expressed in primarily pre-conciliar documents, writings of great Saints, Doctors, and theologians, and assuming the principle of non-contradiction still applies (which, for modernists, it doesn’t), I was led to the inevitable conclusion that aspects of Vatican II were at the very least exceedingly difficult to reconcile with the prior expressed Magisterial beliefs and practice of the Church, if not completely irreconciliable with same.
It is far more than just a few traddies who have said such. As you pointed out, both Cardinals Kaspar and Bishop Schneider have made plain that VII contained numerous ambiguities and elements difficult to reconcile with the Tradition. At times, even senior curial cardinals express grave disagreements over both what the conciliar documents say (with regard to the tradition), and even what level of assent Catholics must give to some of the documents. See:
I should add that Cardinal Canizares-Llovera has expressed opinions along the line of Cardinal Brandmuller, but the fact that not even senior princes of the Church can agree on the level of assent Catholics must give regarding the more problematic documents of VII is most disconcerting. But it would appear that men like Keating, Akin, and others simply cannot stand to see elephant in the room – that there are at the least massive ambiguities in some of the conciliar documents that need clarification or even redefinition, or at worst stand in stark opposition to the preceding Magisterial orthodoxy/praxis. The more I study the documents and the men whose beliefs informed them (de Lubac, Congar, de Chardin, Rahner, etc) the more I tend towards the latter.
Unfortunately, Vatican I and the whole, very necessary reaction to the threat of enlightenment “liberty,” rationalism, and the pagan cult of modernism has led to a sort of ultramontanism that now breeds a sort of unquestioning obedience to every papal statement, no matter how informal or even bizaare. Many Catholics, especially of the conservative or “neo-con” sort, define their orthodoxy strictly in terms of obeiscance to the Pope, which is why we see such wild swings in their own professions of faith. This is simply not Catholic and stands in marked contrast to the guidance given by great Saints and Doctors like St. Vincent of Lerins and Angelic Doctor himself. Yes, we must have great fealty and respect towards both the office and the man in terms of the papacy, but we cannot let this respect blind us when there are problems, especially doctrinal problems. Frankly, as you have so eloquently pointed out, all of the conciliar and post-concliar popes have made statements and endorsed beliefs and practices very, very difficult to reconcile with their predecessors. JPII constantly quoted de Lubac and seemed to endorse his really radical beliefs regarding an anthropogenesis of the Christ. Ratzinger was Rahner’s prize pupil and endorsed much of that apotheosis of modernism that Rahner advocated, even if he backed away from that – to a degree – later. Both accepted the historical-critical method as an acceptable means of Scripture scholarship – a method that was deliberately designed and brought about by modernists to attack and destroy traditional understanding and interpretations of Sacred Scripture. The great Garrigou-Lagrange (and where is his cause of canonization?!?) just exploded on all these errors, but did not have the strength to prevent their being accepted.
I could go on and on. THIS is the THE issue that afflicts the Church. The Council simply cannot be ignored, nor can papal statements that embrace the entirely novel ethos the Council proclaimed.
I do not see any accusations herein, let alone that of condemnation, toward anyone. What I do see is a commenter approaching a level of profanity which is unacceptable. Please do not repeat. Mr. Verrecchio’s blog has heretofore been one which even elementary school age children can read without being exposed to a low level you have introduced, including the content of commentors.
Does every human being enjoy some form of union with the Church? Were we not created in the image and likeness of God with an imortal soul? Are not the properly baptized (even in other Christian churches) not adopted sons and daughters of God? The church has taught this and recognized as valid baptisms in the person of the Trinity regardless of who administers this baptism…yes…even if by an atheist. Are not protestant Christians who accept the Gospels in some form of union with the Church? What we need to distinguish is the perfection of that union with the most perfect enjoyed by the saints in heaven and the least perfect those that reject God completely but who still in this life have an opportunity to receive the gift of faith. Only upon death and damnation does this union become severed and there is no longer hope. We should not be fighting that there is no union whatsoever however imperfect because we know the parable of the mustard seed and what God can do with it. God has created and sustains every living person on this planet and longs for/awaits their return to Him. He also established the Church to be His instrument in bringing about the transformative means of our perfection and desires we use this means to gain salvation for ourselves and the whole of mankind. It does not mean that if we fail then God is bound by our failure to condemn an immortal soul. We spend time fighting about our own perfection and holiness when we should seek out and faciliate relationships with those who have some small measure or form of union that will pave the way to a greater fullness of unity if offerred by a true witness to Christ in our faith and our lives. Did not Jesus say to St. Peter…”if you live by the sword, you will die by the sword?” Let us drop our swords, verbal and physical, and pick up the cross that will bear witness to Christ and open the ears, eyes and hearts of our lost brothers and sisters.
KAT, I am glad you brought up “the properly baptized (even in other Christian churches)” and what the Church recognizes “as valid baptisms” as it relates to the idea of union with the Church. This of course is of paramount importance, and it is precisely what is missing from the treatment given here wherein it is suggested that the communion of the Church embraces “the whole human race.”
It seems you might agree, after all; where the need of baptism is overlooked, so too is the mission of the Church.
I’m not sure what earned us the title “quasi-traditionalist.” But I did find it interesting that this person does not cite examples. Indeed it would be hard to do so since we adhere to Catholic tradition firmly.
Perhaps this commenter’s issue has to do with the fact that we do not presume to judge the holy father’s intentions. It would be good if that person would clarify. I would indeed be quite happy to hear.
Imagine having to read Pope Saint Pius X through Pope Leo XII or having to read Pope Leo XIII through Pope Blessed Pius IX.
It took a revolution to achieve such a devolution.
Our Pope is our Cross
And he bringeth chaos.
Dear KAT The modernists who controlled Vatican Two changed the definition of the Catholic Church to please the heretical protestants who objected to the classical Catholic Definition of the Catholic Church as taught in Mystic Corporis:
“If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ — which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church — we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression “the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ” — an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers.”
In a way similar to how Louis Bouyer denied transubstantiation by inventing “real presences” in Pope Paul VI’s Lord’s Supper Rite, the modernist Jacobinists, and their Girondist collaborationists, denied the classic Traditional Teaching about the Catholic Church by blowing-up the restrictive and negative definition of Mystici Corporis and identifying those who are definitely outside the church as somehow being in partial union with it.
Doctrinal definitions, once definitive,restrictive, and clear, have become inclusive, lax, and vague.
You are courageous, and will continue to get a lot of flack for it.
But Christ talked directly against error, he did not praise error (including other religions), and he talked often about the reality and likelihood of hell. So did the apostles, the prophets, and the saints.
To chose an APPROACH different from Christ is arrogance indeed! And the Church will bleed until it returns to the communication approach of our Lord.
God Bless Louie and all the others brothers and sisters in Christ willing to echo the truth regardless the consequences or fear of political correctness.
We need to cry out the truth or the stones around us will.
Pope Francis, the Catholic Church, and Homosexuality
Kat- Read Scripture…2 Cor 6: 14-16, Ephesians 6, Matthew 18 etc. We are NOT in any “communion” with unbelievers. Sheep and goats. Light and dark. Christ and Baal. The whole “sword quote”…please read it in context. Our Lord was the one who told them to bring the swords to begin with. Our Lord also took a whip to the tax collectors. He also said He did not come to bring peace but the sword. And Saint Paul in Ephesians 6 tells us to put on the armor of God including the “sword of the Spirit” which is the Word of God. We are in a war for souls…our own and others. Peace only came after Our Lord did violence to Himself and to the Kingdom of Hell. We need to quit the emo and speak the truth. God bless~
I agree with Mr. Verrecchio on one level. I believe that it is good for the faithful to *respectfully* make known critical feedback, as in Canon Law itself states (212.2 & .3). That means not only respect for the office, but also for the person. There are, however, many pitfalls to this, especially in our internet age. One pitfall is that you can fall into becoming a cranky malcontent. Soon it is less about seeking real improvement and reform, and more about finding stuff to complain about. Another pitfall is that we ignore the power of spiritual weapons, and favor instead blog and Facebook as instruments of change. A further pitfall is that your criticism is like “drive-by”. Many may not have the info and background you have, and therefore they seem to be blindsided by strong critique, without the personal resources to keep the Faith and understand them. So they lose faith. One may say that the Pope is being just as reckless. It is hardly the answer to be reckless in answer to recklessness. So beware of the bystanders who won’t get your point, but just get the point that the Pope is bad. And then when the bad Popes says something good, they may think that good thing is bad because the Pope is bad. Really, this is the level most people are at.
Now in addition to all these facets we can look at personality and temperament. We can credit some of these miscommunications to misunderstanding temperament. I simply propose it as a food for thought, especially if you know you are conflicting with a good Catholic who you think just doesn’t see the picture clearly. A good write-up I found is here:
And lastly, I would warn Mr. Verrecchio, as Mr. Keating may be trying to do, that a risk in your trajectory is braking communion or going sedevacantist. I see this also in Mr. Voris, in his John Wayne -style manliness, focused on militancy, which seems to discount passive resistance. Certain Roman in flavor, but not the only Catholic flavor out there. But this militant flavor wants orders, black and white, and strong hierarchy. This is all fine, but I just mention it because some people take it to its natural conclusion which is to think the Church doesn’t match up. We see this with a lot of heretics. Think St. Hippolytus. So by all means critique with respect, but watch out how cozy you get with the tendencies in your style. I give the same warning to those who may become too soft, too relaxed, too accepting, etc.
Let us all pray for one another, and please be holy, truly holy, and all will be well.
If people’s faith are so weak that they A) think that any correction of a Pope universalizes’ him completely B) read a blog that promotes the true faith which includes protecting and defending it even against it’s mostly fallible leader than those people lack true faith as well as intellect and free will. I am tired of playing to the weakest and lowest common denominator…forgetting that every baptized Catholic has the power of the living God within them and are not cowering, dumb animals that shirk against the smallest thing. I refuse to live in fear for other people’s souls if they happen to read something wrong instead, holding back truth’s and fighting the fight. I trust the HS to guard them and grow them up. God bless~
Perhaps Mr. Keating should view your development with the hermeneutic of continuity! Keep up your writing, Mr. Verrecchio. It is so heartening to see that there are still manly men out there who are willing to fight, whatever the consequences.
I’m adding you to my list of present-day heroes, which already contains several names, among them Joseph Sobran (recently deceased) and David Warren, both of whom lost their jobs as journalists because they did not conceal their Catholic Faith and did not water down the truth.
Well, “firmly holding to Catholic tradition” CA, how is it you all are so
queer for evolution and the “big bang” , both which demean the Holy Writ and
Keat Keating is an extremely intelligent, informed, and Godly man. Verrecchio is way out of his leauge. Your empty arguments lack intellect and compassion (as do the majority of your beliefs). The Catholic Church is the true, universal church founded by Jesus Christ himself. We do not openly attack, attempt to convert, or pass judgment upon Fundamentalists, despite your active attack on the Roman Catholic Church. I’ll see you all in Purgatory.