In a recent article for First Things, George Weigel provided excellent insights into the neo-conservative Catholic mind as he bemoaned the allegedly soon-to-occur regularization of the Society of St. Pius X; claiming that doing so “would immeasurably damage the New Evangelization.”
From his lips to God’s ears!
At this, let’s review some of the highlights of Professor Weigel’s masterclass on neo-conservatism.
Lesson #1: Neo-conservatism leads to a darkened intellect
George Weigel looks at the half-a-century old “New Evangelization” – with its empty seminaries, bankrupt dioceses, and pastorless parishes – and insists that the good times must be allowed to roll on!
How is it that an otherwise intelligent man cannot see that this little experiment known as the “New Evangelization” has been a massive failure on every conceivable front?
The answer is simple; his view is informed almost exclusively, not by a sensus Catholicus, but rather by a sensus concilius, and make no mistake, they are as different as night and day – the former being founded in truth; the latter on a series of cleverly disguised lies published on official Vatican II letterhead.
The result of having accepted the conciliar deception is a darkened intellect that is no longer capable of recognizing things as they are; to the point where that which is poisonous appears good for food. (Sound familiar?)
Lesson #2: Neo-conservatism requires hypocrisy
Weigel’s article demonstrates, far better than any so-called “traditionalist” ever could, just how confused, conflicted and inconsistent “conciliarists” such as himself truly are.
He writes:
“Helping those who have broken away from the Catholic Church come back into full communion is a noble endeavor.”
Right, as if the idea of “partial communion” is anything other than a conciliar invention that grew directly out of the ecumaniacal fervor that inspired the entire affair.
He continues:
“But such reconciliations cannot be conducted as if they were the ecclesiastical equivalent of labor negotiations: You give a bit here, we’ll give a bit there. For the only Church unity worthy of the name is unity within the full symphony of Catholic truth.”
Oh, this is rich!
Apparently it hasn’t occurred to Weigel that the text of Vatican Council II that he treats as holy writ is precisely the product of just such negotiations.
As Cardinal Walter “the serene theologian” Kasper acknowledged:
“In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction.” (L’Osservatore Romano, April 12, 2013)
Maybe I missed it, but I’m unaware of Weigel ever criticizing the conciliar text for its failure to present “the full symphony of Catholic truth” without compromise.
Lesson #3: Neo-conservatism has a “rigidity” problem of its own
Far from criticizing the conciliar text, Weigel is undeterred in his support of it, writing:
“While the Lefebvrists’ complaints about the post-Vatican II liturgy are often thought to be at the heart of their schism, the more fundamental break-points involve the Council’s teaching on the fundamental human right of religious freedom and the Council’s embrace of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue—including the conciliar affirmation that there are elements of truth and holiness in other Christian communities, and indeed in non-Christian faiths.”
Here, Weigel shows just how “old school” he really is; insisting that the SSPX is in schism even as those in Rome no longer do so. (This, I suppose, is what passes for “tradition” in “New Evangelization” circles.)
What’s more, Weigel knows that he is out of step with the Rome of today, and this is the cause of his angst.
“Now, according to Archbishop Guido Pozzo, a senior Vatican official involved in discussions with the Lefebvrists, it may be possible to heal the breach Archbishop Lefebvre created by conceding that the teachings of Vatican II do not all have the same doctrinal weight.
On this scenario, the Lefebvrists would be given a pass on the Council’s affirmation of religious freedom, ecumenism, and interreligious dialogue, and would return to full communion through the mechanism of a “personal prelature,” the same structure that governs Opus Dei.
This is a very, very bad idea.”
How did George Weigel – famed biographer and spiritual son of John Paul the Great Ecumenist whose pontificate “struck deep roots in the previously unknown, utterly new, awareness of the Church that came about thanks to the Second Vatican Council” (cf Redemptor Hominis 3) – end up at odds with the current Captains of Newchurch?
In truth, tension between successive generations of neo-conservative coniliarists was inevitable from day one.
You see, the conciliar religion is essentially another Protestant sect (albeit a unique one), and a fundamental hallmark of Protestantism is that its positions constantly evolve; at times, leaving certain of their members behind to either pine away for the good ol’ days or to form yet another branch.
George Weigel belongs to what we might call the “rigid” neo-conservative branch; the members of which consider the text of the Council to be tantamount to non-negotiable dogmatic formulae, which brings us to the good professor’s next revelation.
Lesson #4: Neo-conservatism treats the entirety of Vatican II as dogmatic
While they are wont, in their criticism of progressives, to repeat after Cardinal Ratzinger who denounced those who would treat the Council as a “super-dogma,” this is precisely what they themselves do.
Weigel writes:
“Vatican II did indeed speak of a ‘hierarchy of truths’ within the one Catholic and apostolic faith. But that does not mean that some of what the Council taught is more-or-less true (which would mean that some of Vatican II is more-or-less false, or at least more-or-less dubious).”
As anyone whose roots run deeper than the 1960’s knows (i.e., those who embrace the “Faith that comes to us from the Apostles” as opposed to the “Playbook that comes to us from the Council”), some of Vatican II is indeed more-or-less false!
For the Weigels of the world, however, there simply is no way whatsoever that Vatican II taught anything that is demonstrably false, and this in spite of their willingness to repeat after the popes (again, in their criticism of progressives) that the Council was not an infallible exercise; choosing as it did to refrain from defining doctrine and remaining merely pastoral.
Weigel explains the neo-conservative position thus:
“To speak of a ‘hierarchy of truths’ simply means that some of the truths the Catholic Church teaches are closer to the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ crucified and risen than are other truths the Church teaches.
The Church teaches the truth of the Virgin Birth and the truth of Mary’s Immaculate Conception; both doctrines are true, but the Virgin Birth is closer to the Paschal Mystery than is the Immaculate Conception.
Similarly, Vatican II taught that divine revelation is real and that religious freedom is a fundamental human right. The reality of divine revelation is a truth closer to the center of the faith than is the truth that religious freedom is a right of persons that should be recognized in law; but both are true.”
NB: “Religious freedom” as proposed by the Council can be likened to the Immaculate Conception as solemnly declared, pronounced, and defined ex cathedra by Pope Pius IX!
Thank you, Professor Weigel, for this stunning admission!
Even if only inadvertently, he is telling us that neo-conservatism is built upon the belief that everything in the conciliar text is tantamount to non-negotiable dogmatic formulae.
Sure, some if it is “closer to the Paschal Mystery,” but at the end of the day, it’s all dogma.
Lesson #5: Neo-conservatism is on the ecumenical train to nowhere
Professor Weigel has already established for us that the neo-conservative considers the Council’s treatment of religious liberty in Dignitatis Humanae to be similar in doctrinal weight to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as defined in Ineffabilis Deus.
If that isn’t reason enough to be grateful for his candor, Weigel went on to admit that he and his ilk also rank the Council’s treatment of ecumenism in Unitatis Redintegratio right up there as well!
He writes:
“To restore SSPX clergy to full communion with Rome while letting them cross their fingers behind their backs on religious freedom (and ecumenism) when they make the profession of faith and take the oath of fidelity would, by a bizarre ultra-traditionalist route, enshrine a ‘right to dissent’ within the Church. And that would make for shipwreck.”
I suspect that if pressed, Weigel would seek to downplay the idea that the conciliar text on religious liberty and ecumenism admits of no more doubt than the infallibly defined dogma of the Immaculate Conception, but he wrote what he wrote for a reason:
It is this view of Vatican II that lies at the very heart of neo-conservatism.
For good measure, Weigel even graciously offered yet another analogy that should help us, his students, come to understand the essence of neo-conservatism:
“Such a ‘right’ of ‘faithful dissent’ has long been claimed by Catholic progressives, not least with respect to Humanae Vitae, Paul VI’s encyclical on the appropriate means of regulating fertility, and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, John Paul II’s apostolic letter reaffirming that the Church’s authority to ordain extends only to men.”
Get that?
As far as the esteemed Professor of Catholic Neo-Conservatism is concerned, the conciliar novelties concerning religious liberty and ecumenism can no more be opposed by a faithful Catholic than the Church’s inability to ordain women to the priesthood.
In other words, he’s letting us know that he and his kind believe that “traditionalists” (aka Catholics) who take seriously the doctrines of the faith as consistently proposed by popes and councils past, over the course of many centuries, are no better than a bunch of lesbians in clerical Halloween consumes!
My friends, we all owe a debt of gratitude (if not tuition) to George Weigel for teaching us everything we need to know about the true nature of Catholic neo-conservatism:
It’s unrealistic, hypocritical, rigid, dogmatic and ecumenical.
Oh, yeah, and ultimately Protestant.
“Vatican II taught that divine revelation is real and that religious freedom is a fundamental human right” So Weigel thinks “human right’ exist independent of the duty to worship the true God? Why he thinks “human right” is important to save souls?
Yes, apparently he believes that “human rights” trump the rights of God and like the rest of them, have thrown into the trash heap the actual dogmatic teachings of the Church which run to the contrary.
For more on the nonsense of “full communion,” see:
Gnostic Twaddle: ‘Full Communion’ and Other Cosmic Connections http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2011-0205-ferrara-gnostic-twaddle.htm
“It’s unrealistic, hypocritical, rigid, dogmatic and ecumenical. ”
I would add that it is also very American, Constitutional, Enlightened, Revolutionary etc. etc.
Dig deep and you’ll find all the errors of Americanism, Darwinism, Copernicism etc.
All bastard stepchildren of Protestantism. Only made possible by the Protestant mindset, which having no anchor, must tolerate all anchors, except that true Cornerstone and Rock.
It is also collective guilt. The guilty will never admit the colossal mistake they made with Vatican II, and careers and lost souls thanks to Vatican II.
Think about it… if Vatican II was so extraordinarily erroneous, then that means that were you involved in any way with it, that you are therefore guilty of complicity in it, and have to account for all the damage done by it. Many cannot do this save for being thrown off their high horse akin to St. Paul and brought down low.
It doesn’t matter how crazy they sound and how obvious the failure, like the leftist Marxists, they will stubbornly hold out to the bitter end in order to deny their complicity. It’s not an easy thing to face yourself. It’s just as horrible as the mother who has aborted her children must also come to face the fact that she is a murderer. A truly terrible feeling that shakes you to the core. But Vatican II is worse, because souls have been led to Hell as a logical result of its orientation goals.
As a relatively new “shopper” at akaCatholic, I get the sense that this Louie Verrecchio really doesn’t give a whiff who he ticks off. And yet, his coverage of all things Catholic is just so… well… Catholic.
I’m becoming a pretty big fan. It’s what the Church needs in this crazy age.
“Muslims, along with us, adore the one true God” That is demonstrably false. There, I said it.
Also, who would bother with “full communion” when one can enjoy all the freebies that come with “partial communion”. Talk about having less stress in one’s life–and what exactly is the quid pro quo of “full” communion anyhow? They conciliarists can never answer that one. ‘Communion is communion’ by any rational definition so why the quibbling over ‘partial versus full’. It’s no different than someone selecting octane 87 versus someone filling their tank with octane 93 at the gas pump–in the end it all gets you there.
So too….who would bother with all the headaches and hassles of a “full marriage” when one can enjoy the carefree lifestyle of a “partial marriage”.
Heresy begets heresy and Weigel is a clueless tool.
As long as the council of vatican 2 and its ensuing church are regarded as Catholic, this argument will never end. Either it wasnt Catholic and you fully reject it, or it was Catholic and you fully accept it. Neither the “pope” nor ANY of his “cardinals” will ever tell you that the tenets which the 2nd council taught are up for debate; standing for or against these tenets leads Catholics to ENTIRELY different sides of the moral spectrum….and our ONE Catholic Church cannot do this; its either THIS or THAT, not both.
And this brings us back to the old crux of the matter….how is it possible in a Catholic sense to disobey a valid pope on matters of faith and morals that have been universally disseminated (for over 50 years now) to the world? This isnt about a pope making a mistake about something that hasnt even been settled yet (for those who would bring up the tired John xxii beatific vision argument)….this is an ENTIRELY different matter.
For the same reasons a Catholic can disobey valid Popes who for more than the VII time period either disseminated Geocentrism as a formal heresy before the 1800s, or disobey the modernist leaning ones who slowly and slowly gave way to the condemned heresy of heliocentrism when the enlightened march of anti-Papist science said the Fathers and Tradition of Catholicism was wrong, culminating in Vatican II where Cardinal Ratzinger admitted the Church’s ‘error’ on Galileo meant that that Church had to make nice with the world and this was the mindset of the periti entering into the VII Council. Though oddly enough Ratzinger admitted Science couldn’t prove heliocentrism, and John Paul II, intending to exonerate Galileo and offer more apologies for the ‘mistakes’ of that old Traditional Church, was informed of the same, that he could not reverse the canonical trial against Galileo, so instead he appealed to Relativity, the same as Ratzinger, to claim the truth in this case was irrelevant, Science couldn’t prove the Church wrong due to the current consensus of Relativity, but everyone made ‘mistakes’ so let’s all get along.
So either the Holy Spirit was asleep at the wheel from 33 AD to circa 1800s, or fell asleep post 1800s to 2017 where the current occupant now openly says Darwinism is very nice.
The crux of the matter being that a long line of Popes have erred for awhile, even as God spins the Sun in the sky against a static Earth as He demonstrated in Fatima in line with the Inquisitional rulings against Galileo for Formal Heresy against the consensus of the Fathers on a matter of Scripture and therefore under the category of the Faith and Scriptural Infallibility and the Infallibility of the Father’s consensus as defined by Dogmatic Councils.
Today, the majority of Catholics, including many who would number themselves SSPXers or Sedevacantists all subscribe to a formally condemned heresy of Copernicus’, and of these many no doubt also reject the Creation Account in Genesis in favour of Darwinism. Darwin being the bastard stepchild of Copernicus. But they would have a legitimate excuse, the same as the post 1800s Papacies because it can be demonstrated that this was due to:
a) Invincible Ignorance thus making it Material Heresy which does not lose membership with the Church.
b) The topic is not a matter of faith necessary for salvation. That is, a Christian need’t know the complications of science to understand the Church’s defence and upholding of Geocentrism any more than he need to know Biology to understand the Church’s defence of the Book of Genesis and Creation, or that he need to know archaeology in order to defend the reality of the Exodus or the Davidic Kingdom against sceptics. So they have an excuse.
What this demonstrates is that true Popes can err and are not magical supermen. Letting this error continue led up to culminating in Vatican II by further caving in to the march of modernist science until the modernists of 1960 lost so much faith in the Church as an institution that in order to clear up this mistake against Galileo, the Church had to learn from the modern world.
So either the Sede argument that Popes can automatically cease to be members without any formal investigation on complex matters is wrong, or the Church packed up awhile ago according to their criteria, meaning it couldn’t be the True Faith.
Saying that, it’s entirely possible that the VII line of Popes could be found to be anti-Popes, but it’d have to be due to a very different criteria. And as far as I can see, the only one I can see that applying to is Francis. I can believe Benedict XVI, John Paul II, Paul VI and John XXIII are invincibly confused material heretics, which doesn’t lose them membership and thus means they retain the Papacy, no different than the Papacies who all to various extents began folding against the Enlightenment’s Triumph and Myth of Heliocentrism.
Francis on the other hand, betrays his true nature with his refusal to answer the dubia and all his background manoeuvring on matters so extremely simple as marriage and adultery that even the common VII-educated only-go-to-Mass-on-Easter Catholic can tell something doesn’t sound right. Francis wouldn’t last 5 minutes under pressure from a canonical lawyer. Oh! If only the likes of St. Robert Bellarmine were around. It’s no wonder Francis hates the Theologians. He’s either that manifest a heretic or he’s the most idiotic man to ever occupy the Shoes of the Fisherman. Or as supposed prophecies dictate, a Pope under the control of Satan.
God may establish the Papacy just as He established the Temple and Kingdom of Judah. Those foolish Jews also believed that God’s promises meant the Temple and Judah would be safe and absolutely nothing would happen no matter how bad they were. But God can and does suspend His own rules for a time when He wishes to punish us and also sends Prophets in advance. Maybe just maybe when John XXIII shook in his shoes upon reading the 3rd Secret of Fatima and declaring that it didn’t concern “my Papacy”, that God was preparing such a terrible thing to befall us? The 3rd Secret must in some way concern the Papacy. That’s why all of the buried it. That’s why all of them more and more committed themselves to running circles around consecrating Russia. Only the Pope can do it. Well why doesn’t he? Because they’re not Popes? Because they don’t want to be that suffering Pope? Because they don’t want to be that Satanically controlled Pope? Who knows? But just as God can remove that ‘peg’ from one and give it to another who He declares will hold it firmly in place, could God not by His Justice and Wisdom remove the peg for awhile or allow evil to control the legitimate reigns of authority for a time?
This is why Louie and others harp upon the 3rd Secret, the Consecration of Russia, the spinning Sun in the sky against a fixed Earth as the Church rightly teaches, and the mystery behind the Papacies, particularly now under our present peculiar situation.
You only need to make it as complicated as you can handle. Pick your battles. We didn’t cause the crisis; Paul VI did. The most important thing is to regognise the times in which we live and hold fast to all tradition.
Mainly this means reject Vatican II, the Novus ordo and the synthetic new rite of Holy Orders that Paul VI made up in 1968.
So go to the SSPX, who have not tampered with sacraments, worship or doctrine, and I keep an open mind regarding the Geocentrist position. I think it’s right, but I don’t hang my hat on it.
I wish there was an edit for a few grammatical nuances that need fixing…
Protestant converts (who must comprise most of our converts) bring zeal and scripture knowledge to Catholicism, but it seems also likely that they bring that openness to “development” in doctrine or practices, just because that is a Protestant mindset. “God is still speaking” is a Protestant mantra. How much truth is in that, to Protestant converts. Do they still believe that to be the case? If so, no wonder they are open to VII changes, and all changes since. This may be true even if there is not full awareness that this is the case. One man’s “development” is another man’s heresy.
To me it’s just evident we have not minor divisions but major fractures. In effect we are two churches, with two rites and two belief sets. We can be happy in this as long as we are happy to be schizophrenic or have multiple personality syndrome. The two opposing personalities each have a life, and try to forget the other one exists. A boat with two captains fighting over the wheel. If they arrive anywhere they are likely to be off-course. There can really only be one captain at that wheel. We are limping along trying to have two.
For anyone here who may be so inclined and has not already read Dr Franco Adessa’s The Apocalypse, you can find it at padrepioandchiesaviva.com ( sorry don’t remember how to do the automatic link …old age I’m afraid) …Dr Adessa has written forty eight pages breaking down the Book of the Apocalypse in a manner that helps put all that The Holy Roman Catholic Church is going through, as well as world events from past to present with great clarity. After reading his explanations I find it impossible to beleive that anyone could disregard Our Lady of Fatima’s warnings , as well as Her humble request for The Consecration Of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart. If you are further inclined, Monsignor Luigi Villa covers the unread Third Secret of Fatima as well.
This is from today’s Mass before the Introit “The Pope’s commands and admonitions require reverent acceptance. The closer men are to the mind and will of the Vicar of Christ, the closer they are to Christ Himself.” Does that mean the closer we to the mind and will of Pope Francis, the closer we are to Christ Himself.
Hey Weigel: How can you effectively say that the “Lefebvrists” don’t have the right to reject VII’s teaching on religious liberty? Don’t they have the fundamental human right to this belief under the umbrella of religious liberty? Furthermore, aren’t you violating one of the “dogmas” of the Supercouncil and stepping on one of their human rights?
Hence the paradox of this false teaching.
No modernist or relativist has an answer to that paradox. Its at this point when you point out their internal contradiction that they will resort to some sort of ad hominem attack.
I would say that a “Neo-Catholic” always compromises the hard truths of Faith and morals so as to conform to various degrees with the requirements of the prevailing secular ideologies in a society. A “Neo-Catholic” does not risk his life, his property, his professional or academic career to defend or uphold the truths of the Faith; he seeks to compromise to the extent necessary to continue to be accepted as a role-player in the atheistic, anti-Catholic state that he resides. Perhaps he would exercise some dubious “mental reservations”. In any case, he conducts himself such with the full support of the institutions of the Church. It was likely the prelates in the Church that paved the way for the self-identified Catholic layman to work with anti-Catholic state and interstate secular institutions whilst publicly claiming himself to be acting permissibly as a Catholic.
God bless the work, Johnno. The vast majority of baptised Catholics have been misled or intimidated into acquiescence by the worldwide disinformation campaigns posing as “education”, “science”, etc., vis-à-vis the Earth, the origins of man. True factual knowledge and critical reasoning is not permitted but one must accept various false unproven premises that go against experience, reason and Revelation. One must bow to the false religion of anti-Creation set of beliefs and pretend they are proven facts.
There is no “right” to adhere to falsehood, nor to promote same. However, temporal authorities do not have a licit right to interfere with persons who are not causing objective material harm to other persons or the common good by their false religious beliefs. false religion does not involve positive rights. The point is that persons or states don’t have a moral right to force the True Faith on anyone. This has been twisted into a false notion of an almost absolute “freedom of religion”, as if one has the moral right to profess false religion.
Yes, it’s better to call Neos something else; namely, CatholiCucks, as they’re the equivalent of cuckservatives. Related on Vdare:
Cuckservatism: The Cuckoo In The Conservative Movement’s Nest, by Alexander Hart
Neo- Catholics, like neo -conservatives in the political world, are reprehensible. The esteemed Mr. Weigel is to smart by half.
I find it helpful to imagine how the Maccabeans might have thought of themselves when they were fighting against Antiochus: They must have considered themselves the True Israel, those who would not submit to worldly authority at any cost, even to the point of having to abandon their temple worship and their feasts and fleeing into the wilderness.
.
1 Maccabees 1:53 …they drove Israel into hiding in every place of refuge they had.
.
Certainly not every Israelite fled into the wilderness, I am sure some Quislings were left behind sucking up to the new big man in town. Ultimately the Maccabeans were victorious, yet they had to flee and go into hiding.
.
I wonder who actually is the True Israel today? Is it the institutional Church that regularly despises and insults God by worshiping along with pagans and their idols, and every heretic sect? – making false promises that everybody and their goldfish go to heaven?
.
Or is it today not as the prophets of old like Jeremiah and Isaiah and Ezekiel, and their followers, who regularly criticized their clerical class of false teachers, and avoided falsehood in worship?
.
Jesus answered those who claimed authority as the successors of Abraham : “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing what Abraham did.” This seems to indicate actions do count in the exercise of authority. Catholics act like trained monkeys ready to happily make excuses for bad clergy and false teachers – this must stop. The True Israel is exiled to the wilderness while the pagans literally occupy our temples.
.
The so-called Catholic bishops of the Vatican II sect base there claim to authority on Apostolic Succession, which can not be strictly proven, and yet they regularly disobey God and deny Jesus Christ, as Francis did in Cairo lately, claiming that he was searching for Truth and Peace along with the Muslims, yet denying by his silence Jesus Christ, Who is the only path to Truth and is the Prince of Peace.
.
I don’t think that it is wrong to question the authority of those Vatican II vandal bishops claiming to speak for God, yet fail to obey Him by their silence.
.
Is Weigel a Jewish infiltrator?
Weigel’s Master’s thesis is titled “Karl Rahner’s Theology of the Incarnation in Light of his Philosophy of Transcendental Anthropology” so he was heavily influenced by theologians who directly influenced Vatican II. Rahner taught non-Christian religions can be salvific, through his “anonymous Christian” theory, which is 100% the opposite of, say, Pope Gregory XVI teaching in his encyclical Mirari Vos chapter 13 for instance. Rahner’s new theology is the source of many of the innovations of Vatican II that opposed earlier Catholic teachings. He taught that it is possible Christians could learn from other religions or even atheists because, he claimed, God’s grace is and can be operative in them. So Weigel’s mother’s milk is the theology of Vatican II, which is why he opposed the lifting of the “excommunications” of the SSPX bishops, and we he’s against them now. Do you really think someone like him, whose whole career has been spent supporting the Vatican II heresies, is going to empty his own rice bowl?
Michael F Poulin
Weigel also is a big Neocon in the political sense. Along with the late Fr. Neuhaus, another Neocon, he was a rabid supporter of the Iraq War from the getgo — despite strong opposition to the war from his beloved JPII and Benedict 16 because the war violated every plank of Catholic Just War doctrine. Millions now are dead and ancient Christian communities that had survived Islam for 1,400 years have been destroyed. If Weigel had any dignity, he would retire to a monastery and do penance for the rest of his life.
Welcome Zac. May you gain wisdom here.
Most of the bishops, priests, “Catholic theologians” and Catholic teachers want baptised, believing and practising Catholics to convert to “anonymous Christianity”.
I think people like Mr Weigel, who are respected by and given roles to play as public “Catholic” academics, commentators, negotiators, in, the atheistic state or public systems of discourse, are “controlled opposition”. They are the ones the enemy state and corporate powers denote as the Catholic representatives with whom they deal. They happily and permanently accept their “loss” in each “debate” systematically-plotted for public consumption in respect of each grave moral issue, forget about that one and move on to “oppose” the next even more evil thing that the NWO world government machine imposes on people. All very “civilised”. Collusion, or manipulation of some kind.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“Let us, priests or future priests of the Lord, live in the active presence of the omnipresent and all-powerful God. May we be able to see in the Eucharist, God, Creator and Redeemer, the Jesus of the crib, the Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus Prophet, Priest and King, teaching His future priests and ordaining them before ascending the Cross, the Jesus Who rises from the dead, Who ascends to Heaven and sends the Spirit of Love to found His Church, His Spouse, His Mystical Body and draw its members to Heaven!
May we acquire a missionary spirit, transmitting this Divine Fire to souls by the example of a living faith which returns everything to God and to Jesus Christ, enlightening souls on the infinite wisdom of God, His goodness, His mercy, accustoming souls to humility before God, to adore His will, to totally depend upon Him, associating souls with the conquest of the reign of Our Lord, of His Sacred Heart and of the reign of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.”
Archbishop Lefebvre to a priest offering his first Mass:
“And you will not only be the light of these souls; you will also give them life – the life of Our Lord. Not only His light, but His own life, the supernatural life of grace, grace which you will give them in the sacraments and especially in the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Communion – sacraments which we need almost every day to sustain us in the spiritual life. You will make them understand that they need these sacraments, this life, this divine life. Today, alas, it is so hard to lift oneself up to these spiritual realities, as we are caught up in the material world, the materialistic world which wants to know only earthly joys and closes its eyes to eternal realities.
It is hard to understand that the supernatural life, the divine life of Our Lord in us, is the one thing necessary. It is what will get us to heaven. We should be already in eternity, at this moment. Our soul is eternal and imperishable and therefore we must bathe our soul in the life of Our Lord, in the supernatural life and make it truly full of eternal life. The day God calls us and tells us that our life here below is over, that life will continue, as it says so well in the Preface of the Requiem Mass, “Life is not taken away but changed.” God does not extinguish our life. It goes on, with a change. It changes, yes, in incidental ways, but it does not end; it goes on, if we have been careful to imbue it with the eternal life of Our Lord Jesus Christ. So this is what you will do; you will build this bridge between the life of God, the life of Our Lord, and these souls who will come to you, searching for true life.
And finally you will set an example. As Our Lord said, you are not only the salt of the earth, you are not only the light of the world, but you act in such a way that the world may give glory to God when they see your works: “…and seeing your good works they will glorify the Father Who is in heaven.”
You will set this example, therefore, and exemplify the virtues of Our Lord by gentleness, goodness and perseverance in the priestly life, in the apostolate. And you will do good for souls, for all who come to you. This should be your ideal.
I am sure you already understand this, and I am sure that you realize that what I have been talking about is nothing more than an extension of your Mass. Live your Mass every day, every second of your life, prolong it through the course of the day, that is, prolong the teaching you give us in the words of the Epistle and Gospel, the words of Our Lord. Prolong this life of sacrifice which you will make present, in a few moments, on the altar, by the presence of Our Lord, who is prolonging His Sacrifice of the Cross and showing us His love. Here it is: you will love souls, you will give yourself to souls, you will sacrifice yourself for souls, for love, for love of God and love of your neighbor. This is the whole Sacrifice of the Mass. You will give yourself to souls as you give Communion. You will give Christ to souls through knowledge of Him, Christ in His life. This is your Holy Mass, this is the Communion you will give, this is the Christ you will give to souls. Thus your whole priestly life is a continuous Mass. You are a priest. You have begun your first Mass. But your Mass must never end. Your whole life now will be a continual Mass. May God give you the grace to live your Mass and encourage all around you to do the same, and to understand that our whole lives should be a Mass, an oblation which is complete and continuous, a continuous sacrifice of ourselves for love of God and love of our neighbor.”
It goes without saying but anyway….any proponent of the zionist v2 council is a proponent of the Jews. This should be common sense in 2017.
JPII loved Vat2. Weigel loves JPII. No mystery here.
The error involved here is so big, and so incremental, that it is difficult to grasp: it is the SSPX that is in full communion with the Church because it never left it. It is the new sect of Vatican II that abandoned the apostolic Church of Christ to the spirit of rebellion and modernism in the 1960s. And the anti-pope is its leader.
Weigel has always displayed a creative penchant for “flexibility” in matters where he is directly confronted by Truth, Doctrine, and Dogma.
In short, he is the modern “Catholic” beta male who is educated beyond his intelligence and gutless.
Weigel can be accused of many things but at least he is obedient and loyal to who he thinks is the Pope.
The “New Evangelization” is the abandonment of Catholicism and the adoption of Naturalism or in reality, the Freemason Revolution, the Protestant Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Talmudic Jewish Revolution against Christ, against His Kingship in Heaven and on earth, and the attempt to deify man. In other words, the adoption of Naturalism in its varied and diabolic machinations designed to send all souls to eternal damnation.
The Conciliar Church can be compared to the Catholic Church by comparing Catholic Law with Modern (naturalistic) law:
An excerpt written by Father Denis Fahy, C. S. Sp:
My words are within the brackets.
“Catholic Law vs. Modern Law [i.e., Naturalism or the rejection of God’s Supreme Authority over men and nations; the Social Reign of Christ the King.]
Catholic law is based on God. Modern law is based on man.
Catholic law looks at things from the angle of man’s supreme and last end – that is to say, God in Three Divine Persons.
Modern law looks at things from that of man as his own self-sufficing end.
Catholic law begins by taking account of the dependence upon God of every created thing, and especially of every community and every State.
Modern law bases the union of wills on which a community is founded, merely on the will of each of the component individuals, independent of the Divine Will [and that is why it is ever-changing according to the passions of man rather than the Truth Who is God].
Catholic law is the establishing of the reign of God by His own right over the individual and over society.
Modern law is the practical negation of Catholic truth and of all divine truth. It is the official establishment sanctioned by law, of laicism, atheism, and all other errors.
In short, Catholic law is justice: it is the power and authority which spring from justice put at the service of truth, which alone can save men and nations.
In short, Modern law is the authority and power of false justice put at the service of man to degrade legally-and, therefore, “legitimately”-intelligence and wills, communities and societies making a deified man, that is to say, of man considered as the beginning and the end of all things. [This is why the true Catholic Church condemned the false idea of “religious liberty” and “freedom of speech” as understood in modern law [naturalistic, i.e., anti-God law].”
“The world must conform to Our Lord, not He to it”. -Father Denis Fahey
Compare the definitions of Catholic Law with the actions of those of authority within the Conciliar Church and it is easy to see they have abandoned Catholic Law and replaced it with Modern (Naturalistic) Law both within the teachings and practices of the Church and in their dealings in the world.
The “New Evangelization” is solemn nonsense and immeasurably damaged from the get-go. We need that old time proselytism.
Obedience to the likes of Bergoglio and JP II is a bug, not a feature.
The difference is so stark and apparent. How can anyone confuse the modernist v2NO sect in Rome with Holy Mother Church, founded by Christ Himself. It boggles my mind how any tradition minded Catholic still does not see that it is blasphemy to call Bergolio the Vicar of Christ. He may be a vicar of someone, but its not Christ.
Bergoglio is vicar of Juan Peron
.
When one reads the speeches of Juan Peron, you notice the language and phrases are the same as Bergoglio:
Here is an example of a speech from 20 August, 1948
“In Congress a few days ago, some of our legislators have asked what Perónismis. Perónism is humanism in action; Perónism is a new political doctrine, which rejects all the ills of the politics of previous times; in the social sphere it is a theory which establishes a little equal ity among men, which grants them similar opportunities and assures them of a future so that in this land there may be no one who lacks what he needs for a living, even though it may be necessary that those who are wildly squandering what they possess may be deprived of the right to do so, for the benefit of those who have nothing at all; in the economic sphere its aim is that every Argentine should pull his weight for the Argentines and that economic policy which maintained that this was a permanent and perfect school of capitalist exploitation should be replaced by a doctrine of social economy under which the distribution of our wealth, which we force the earth to yield up to us and which furthermore we are elab orating, may be shared out fairly among all those who have contributed by their efforts to amass it.
That is Perónism. And Perónism is not learned, nor just talked about: one feels it or else disagrees. Perónism is a question of the heart rather than of the head. Fortunately I am not one of those Presidents who live a life apart, but on the contrary I live among my people, just as I have always lived; so that I share all the ups and downs, all their successes an all their disappointments with my working class people. I feel an intimate satisfaction when I see a workman who is well dressed or taking his family to the theatre. I feel just as satisfied as I would feel if I were that workman myself. That is Perónism. “
Louie, the quality of your work inspires us. And the follow up comments. Dr Franco Adessa has seized the baton, the torch from Fr Luigi Villa and he canes them daily at the Dome of Rome. He will and has suffered much.
One has to burst out laughing at some of this Weigel drivel. Seriously can this man be tolerated, let alone taken seriously. Given the Carl Rahner formation, does it surprise anyone he’s got to dialogue it to death.
Just a short time now the 100th year anniversary in Our Ladys Fatima month.
At least She knows what happening and how its going to unfold. Our Lady of Fatima, ora pro nobis.
Tom, there is nothing new under the sun. There have always been and will always be those who either choose to be blind or their hearts are so hardened that the truth is not capable of penetrating them. Think especially of the Jews who knew the teachings of their prophets and yet, killed them, and of course, especially their crucifying our Lord, Jesus the Christ.
Pray daily for those who for whatever reason are blind. We know all souls are precious to God.
Your statement is hilarious and perfectly said. You are sharp to point out so clearly the gifts of “this Louie Verrecchio.”
As Akita said, “Welcome!” Your insights and humor fit right in.
May I assist you, my dear Theresa?
–
http://www.padrepioandchiesaviva.com/uploads/Apocalypse_acc_to_FLV.pdf
–
I still think that the better “3rd Secret” proposal is on Tradition in Action’s website. What do you think?
“….to the point where that which is poisonous appears good for food. (Sound familiar?)”
–
Wow, Louie. What an excellent point you make here!
I get the problem with ecumenism, I think, but I don’t get the religious liberty problem. Does it have to do with the individual, or a state? Is there an article or document from a pope where it is clearly explained?
I always took it to mean that we all must be able to conclude what we are capable of. I see how it’s problematic, but, for instance, as a recent returning catholic, I am so shocked at francis, that I am doubting the legitimacy of the VII.
Now, do I have the “right” to believe that VII was a phony council, whose claims need not be followed, because that’s the best I can do in discerning the truth?Must I follow them to be a “catholic?”
I see the problem:
“It is my Catholic belief that I hold freely, that there should be no religious freedom..” haha! Kind of a pretzel….
I saw him talk at St John the Apostle in McLean before the election. He was positively disdainful of trump. Complete turn off to me. I just read an article he wrote in which he proudly admits he didnt vote for either candidate….
I don’t get this religious liberty or freedom of speech thing. Anywhere to get descriptions of it?
Really great article, thank you!
Dear prettyboy,
About “religious freedom:”
An excerpt from a Seton home schooling lesson plan from what I have taught my children:
“The term “religious freedom” is more complex than it may perhaps seem.
TRUE religious freedom is not the “freedom” to choose any religion or worship in whatever manner one desires. In understanding this critical matter, one must distinguish between “free choice” and “true freedom.” True freedom lies in freely choosing that which is pleasing to God. While a person has the “free choice” or “free will” to choose a religion, even a false religion, he is not “truly free” to choose a false religion. No one is “free” or has the “right” to choose a false religion or worship false gods, as false religions and false worship are not pleasing to God. The first commandment explicitly prohibits false worship. God has revealed to man the true religion by establishing His Church, the Catholic Church, and God expects all men to be of good will, accept His grace, and thus “come to the knowledge of the truth.”
–
It took me a long time to wrap my brain around that concept because of all of the brainwashing from the false teachings of Vatican 2. Hang in there and keep on reading Louie. You will come out of the “V2 matrix” with the help of God and your Rosary in hand! (… and Louie’s tutorials.)
May God grant you all the graces you need to learn His Perfect Truths!
I replied to you below, but basically “religious freedom” breaks the 1st commandment. “I am the Lord Thy God. Thou shalt not have false gods before Me.”
It is a COMMANDMENT of God’s (and the very FIRST one) that we worship Him the way He wants (or commands) to be worshipped.
Since it is the first of His 10 commandments, this means that it is also the most important one. So if we don’t get this one right, it’s not looking too good for us….
Also, religious freedom is one of the tenets of freemasonry.
So, how is it that our Catholic bishops asked us in 2013 (during Obama’s reign of terror) to fast and pray for “religious freedom” in America? I could not believe the master stroke of deception that God allowed satan — that devout Catholics were fasting and praying for a masonic tenet! Amazing deception, wouldn’t you say?
See: The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, by Fr. Matthias Gaudron. First chapter here: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2609