In keeping with the theme of recent posts, I offer for consideration yet another observation on the modus operandi of the “new evangelists.”
For reasons we will discuss later, the “new evangelists” have an unnerving fascination with the religious “insights” of non-Catholics, citing them as references in their homilies, articles and books, and quoting them freely as if to hold them up as experts worthy of the faithful’s admiration.
Previously, for example, we considered the American bishops’ penchant for quoting John Adams, a Founding Father of the United States who wrote that the Catholic Church is the “whore of Babylon” and a deceiver of people “simple and ignorant;” a man who also happens to enjoy a place of honor in that abominable “Patriotic Rosary” that the USCCB has been pleased to promote.
Returning to Fr. Barron and his Real Clear Religion piece, we already considered how he turned to the Orthodox schismatic Fyodor Dostoyevsky for the exclamation point to his entire essay. Unmentioned, however, was his earlier reference to the “great meditations” of “the Irish philosopher Iris Murdoch [who] strenuously insists that the authentic good legitimately imposes itself on the human will and is not a creation of that will.”
Not only was Murdoch a heretic, she also happens to have been, according to at least one biographer, an adulterer and a lesbian. So much for the imposing force of the authentic good.
Even Pope Benedict couldn’t help but scavenge the landfill of religious “wisdom” bequeathed to the world via the legacies of those who rejected the one true faith.
Case in point, in his audience of February 14, 2013, His Holiness said, in part:
While the Lord continues to raise up examples of radical conversion, like Pavel Florensky, Etty Hillesum and Dorothy Day, he also constantly challenges those who have been raised in the faith to deeper conversion.
The first two examples of “radical conversion” that were allegedly “raised up” by the Lord Himself are a Russian Orthodox who (like Dostoyevsky) denied the authority vested in the Vicar of Christ, and a Jew who denied Our Lord Jesus Christ and therefore the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who sent Him. Both of these shining examples of “radical conversion” died outside of the Catholic Church.
These are but a handful of many such examples, and they cause one to wonder why the “new evangelists” are keen to so anoint such individuals as Adams, Dostoyevsky, Florensky, et al.
Does not the Catholic Church have a nearly inexhaustible treasure trove of wisdom supplied by the Saints, Popes and Doctors of the Church from which to draw? Is not this storehouse of religious insight sufficiently rich in content that our churchmen need never hold up for esteem any heathen, heretic or Jew, lest the faithful mistake them as examples of faith worthy of emulation?
Let us speculate as to the reason why the “new evangelists” so often quote them just the same.
In the case of certain name-dropping homilists, one sometimes gets the sense that it’s a shallow attempt to impress their captive audience with evidence of just how well-read they are. At other times, one detects the undue influence of a suspect homiletic resource on an over-worked priest who did a little cut-and-paste.
Unfortunately, however, this doesn’t even come close to explaining this dreadful tendency among the real movers and shakers of the “New Evangelization,” like Fr. Barron and recent popes.
No, for them the problem runs much, much deeper.
You see, it is the very ethos of the “New Evangelization” to view the non-Catholic world, not so much as that which stands in need of conversion (i.e., through the lens of the Church’s mission as it was given by Jesus Christ), but as a marketplace for religious interaction wherein, according to Pope John Paul II, “dialogue is not simply an exchange of ideas; in some way it is always an exchange of gifts.” (Ut Unum Sint 28)
In light of this particular vision, we must admit that the “New Evangelization,” although the Apostles and Martyrs wouldn’t recognize it as particularly “evangelical,” is properly named inasmuch as it is indeed rather new.
How new? Once again, let us turn to Pope John Paul II, the man who coined the phrase “New Evangelization” in the first place:
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, which John XXIII convened and opened and which was later successfully concluded and perseveringly put into effect by Paul VI, whose activity I was myself able to watch from close at hand. (The inaugural Encyclical of the Pontificate of John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis 3)
Yes, an awareness that is utterly new and quite unknown to the Catholic Church indeed!
We must understand that the impetus for what passes as “mission” according to the “new evangelist” isn’t the saving of souls; no, that was the case prior to Vatican II, back when our churchmen operated under the unshakable conviction that the Holy Catholic Church is the solitary community of salvation, she who alone is in possession of the fullness of Divine treasure.
In other words, pre-conciliar churchmen were moved to evangelize by the reality that the Church has been charged with bringing to the world something that it desperately needs; the very Redemption won by Christ, and ultimately, eternal life.
The “new evangelist” by contrast is moved to “evangelize” by a 180 degree inversion of reality; one that sees the non-Catholic world as having something to give to the Church, something that she desperately needs.
And what might the Catholic Church according to this impoverished ecclesiology stand to gain through “an exchange of gifts” with the non-Catholic world? Nothing less than life itself!
Thinking of the next Pope: He must be a man who, from the contemplation and adoration of Jesus Christ, helps the Church to go out to the existential peripheries, that helps her to be the fruitful mother, who gains life from the sweet and comforting joy of evangelizing. – Cardinal Bergoglio addressing the General Congregations prior to the papal conclave that elected him pope
All of this being the case, I suppose it’s little wonder that the “new evangelists” delight in bathing in an honorable light of men and women who have rejected Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Bride, the Church.
God help them, and God help us!
Novelty being the hall mark of all which the fathers and doctors of the church condemned, it follows that advocating novelties in every aspect of ecclesial teching and life must be the modus operandi of the modernists, since they seek to conform everything to life, since they believe that life is truth. We catholics believer that the Truth, Jesus Christ, is eternal Life, which is quite a contrarian view of reality.
This error of the modernists is so widespread, that anyone who criticizes “life” on the basis of Truth will be derided as a ideologue or rigorist, who is unstable in mind, and who espouses an unliveable form of life
Dear Louie:
Gosh, I have to say that if there is any hope of my salvation, it is, in large part, do to the influence of Dostoevsky whose novels are profoundly Christian and are shot through with profound insights into culture and psychology. CS Lewis, Dorothy Sayers, TS Elliot are among the other reprobates that have helped my unbelief. I never took confession for granted after reading Kierkegaard Preparation for Confession. Many of these thinkers were on the way to Rome but hesitated for some reason or other. I read that TS Elliot did not swim the Tiber because “he had exhausted his capacity for conversion by becoming English.” LOL. Some think CS Lewis simply could not become Roman because of residual prejudice from growing up as a Protestant in Belfast. I am not sure about Doestoevsky. As part of the Church revival in Russia, however, he was part of a movement that included those like Soloviev who denied that the Russian Church had ever separated herself from the Universal Church and whose fruits, admittedly modest, include the Russian Catholic Church.
Pope Benedict made a distinction somewhere that about a sincere Christian being raised in a Protestant or Orthodox milieu today- something about that in our day these sincere Christians cannot be called heretics in the same way as those who rebelled at the time of the Great Schism or of the Protestant revolt. This does nothing to undermine the reality of the primacy of the Chair of Peter. It means that we deal with these Christians differently. We still desire that we are all one and we still hold that that entails a return to Catholic unity.
And you know, come to think about it. While the fullness of the faith comes to us from the Apostles and is preserved by the magisterium, we can be blind to it and sometimes it is the dog outside the church that shows us the pearls that we possess. In addition, the doctrines of baptism by desire and similar teachings nuance the no salvation extra ecclesiam so that a baptized Christian not in union with Rome is recognized to be a child of God involved in building up the kingdom.
Moreover, many of these non Catholics are much closer to orthodox and classic Catholicism than the current teaching church which often is a sort of gnostic, feminist, therapeutic mishmash.
Mt. 12:30 does say that he who is not with me is against me. But Luke chapter nine says the opposite and says it in the context that exactly suggests reference to those in incompete union with the Church: 47
at Iesus videns cogitationes cordis illorum adprehendens puerum statuit eum secus se 48 et ait illis quicumque susceperit puerum istum in nomine meo me recipit et quicumque me recipit recipit eum qui me misit nam qui minor est inter omnes vos hic maior est 49 respondens autem Iohannes dixit praeceptor vidimus quendam in nomine tuo eicientem daemonia et prohibuimus eum quia non sequitur nobiscum 50 et ait ad illum Iesus nolite prohibere qui enim non est adversum vos pro vobis est
God bless!
Publius
Ahhhh, it’s Jean Guitton all over again.
When people write to us at ChurchMilitant.TV asking us about Fr. Barron and his “Catholicism” series, this is how we respond:
It’s difficult to understand why Fr. Barron’s efforts would be described as a “faith formation series.” The “Catholicism” series is, without question, a celebration of Catholic art and history and, to a degree, an education in “what Catholics believe and why.” Fr. Barron’s overall approach, however, seems to lack any sense of urgency about whether one ought to be Catholic at all. In that sense, the series is very “ecumenical” and very unlikely to move anyone who is not already Catholic to consider entering the Catholic Church. This “ecumenical” sense is reinforced by the numerous references to non-Catholic (even non-Christian) philosophers and thinkers, much as we saw in the recent YouCat catechism. There is nothing here to challenge an unbeliever, but quite a bit to reinforce one who already believes. It is surprising how seldom the word “Catholic” appears within individual episodes themselves. It is also surprising to hear how often Fr. Barron refers to “Jesus’ message of non-violence.”
So we don’t recommend “Catholicism” as a “faith formation series.” It is definitely educational, and the visual insights into what the Catholic Faith has inspired over the centuries are, indeed, stunning. But the series isn’t “evangelization” in any meaningful sense. Unbelievers may come away more enlightened and more informed, believers may come away confirmed in their belief, but no one is likely to be moved to conversion. The Catholic Faith did, obviously, inspire magnificent art, architecture, literature and music. Jesus was, obviously, a great teacher with moral insights that are universally applicable. It just isn’t obvious, in Fr. Barron’s approach, that Jesus was God and, therefore, considerably more compelling than, say, Gandhi. There isn’t much here to explain why people would be willing to suffer martyrdom for their Faith.
I’m pretty sure we’re on the same page as Louie here!
Linda:
Is that for me?
If so,ouch.
Publius
This hair splitting over the meaning of essentially similar words, such as preach, convert, evangelise, is but a sign of the current confusion, and lack of understanding of the reason for the Church’s existence .
The Catholic Church, The One True Church, was instituted by Christ to bring the good news of His Death and Resurrection, so that Mankind might be saved, Matthew 28 : 19,20, or as Mark puts it to “preach the Gospel” 16 : 15. Now that latter, is a fairly clear instruction on the part of Christ. There is no hint here of having a chatty exchange of ideas over a coffee.
When the first missionaries came to my country circa 2nd century, and found us all running around, painted blue and waving our spears, they knew and understood quite well what they were up to, and managed quite successfully, to convert my ancestors – without the help of any future Vat II insights into “evangelisation”. .
I’m in general agreement with the thrust of your website’s message (the need to reaffirm the Social Kingship of Christ, the need to reclaim neglected traditionally- held practices and discipline, etc.); however, here and in earlier posts I can’t help but notice that your interpretation of certain actions (in this case, the use of non-Catholics as role models by the “new evangelizers”) is not the most charitable possible.
For example, might the use of non-Catholics in Fr. Barron’s or Benedict XVI’s texts, rather then conveying a belief that Catholics qua Catholics lack something which they must get outside of Catholicism, instead reveal a concern for “reaching out” to the world by acknowledging what good there is in it ? St. Paul, after all, found that the Athenians, for all their debauchery and idolatry, had one thing which merited commendation, namely that they had a shrine to the unknown god. And it was from this basis that he began his ministry in Athens. In the same way, BXVI or Fr. Barron might be using the non-Catholic “idols” of the day as a “starting point”. I know you will reply that, sadly, in practice this “dialogue” with the world tends to never get beyond this so-called starting point — and I might agree with that — but nevertheless, the strategy in which some non-catholic wisdom might be used *as a starting point* to pique the interest of non-Catholics is in itself not necessarily unsound, and thus should not be condemned as such.
Terry Carroll
You say you do not recommend it as a “faith formation series,” so within what category do you recommend the “Catholicism” series? I have certainly heard churchmilitant extole its supposed virtues. Just curious.
I think, quite frankly, that lots of people would be moved to conversion who are looking for a good time —to the charismatic renewal, highly represented visually in the work, and better yet, pentecostalism
dear Publius,
yes, in a way, but really toward the general thrust of Mr. V.’s post here. I beg your understanding that I am a convert from a protestant sect {it’s 25+ years now,} and as most of my friends here know, am hypersensitive to the dangers of the road you describe.
Well, at least we know you are not a feeneyite. {Not that there’s anything wrong with that.} smiley face
Wonder if you would be interested in these :
http://www.sspxasia.com/sermons/
{it’s SSPX,in case you’re allergic}
Peace be to you.
Thinking of the next Pope: He must be a man who, from the contemplation and adoration of Jesus Christ, helps the Church to go out to the existential peripheries, that helps her to be the fruitful mother, who gains life from the sweet and comforting joy of evangelizing.
—
## That’s because, by sharing the Life of Christ, we gain more of it than we had. It’s a profoundly New Testamental & Christian insight. Our share in the Faith is not lessened by being given away – it is increased. Those words of the future Pope are perfectly sound. It is a paradox that by sharing what God has given us, we gain more of what we share rather than losing what we had – but a paradox is a truth, not a contradiction.
—
As for the rest of the post, that was depressing.
As to Father Barron – let’s not throw out the baby with the bath-water. He is at least trying to do what everyone should be doing – spreading the Faith. That doesn’t redeem or correct the inadequacies in what he says; but perhaps the way to correct them, is to get in touch with him. I think the US Church is very well-off to have someone like him doing what he is doing – we don’t have that in the UK. There are always comboxes under his videos to write in – I’ve done so myself, more than once.
It is, sad to say, very difficult to take the “New Evangelisation” – why the adjective ? Why not call it what it needs to be: evangelisation ? – seriously. JP2 first used the phrase in (IIRC) 1995 – and that was before pan-religionist nonsense had become as common as it now is in the Church. How is that not apostasy ? If it is not, what must one do to count as apostate ? I really don’t know. Being Catholic is becoming a non-stop session of having one mind messed with – so many things that the Church forbade under pain of severe punishment, especially excommunication, is now encouraged, approved of, required. This is the equivalent of having the Church call white black and black white – and I think even St. Ignatius Loyola (remember his great claim to fame as a Founder ?) would draw the line. We are being required to call white black and black white, by the Popes, in matter of dogma & liturgical practice. How can a Church as deeply sick as the CC now is, with such a fouled-up sense of identity, possibly be fit to evangelise ? And what is the good of talking about evangelism, when many Catholics are deeply demoralised, thoroughly confused, repelled, or otherwise unattracted by Catholicism ? Thousands left because of the paedophilia abominations and the heinous behaviour of the institutional Church – and we are supposed to evangelise ??? So what “good news”, what euangelion is the Church going to tell ?
Louie, I totally agree with you. It’s MOST incomprehensible, that Catholic Media is praising (promoting) heretics………..as if it was true, that there was wisdom to their heresy. Regardless what the conciliar Popes, especially, JPII proudly preached…….’there’s more that unites us, then divides us’……(something in this regard). And the parrots at EWTN repeat this till TODAY! Especially, Catholic Answers…….brrrrrr!
For years, I used to send email after email, regarding such.
……please stop praising the heretics……. preach, teach and praise at all times and on all topics Catholicism ONLY!
……please, play on the radio before and after your show, Catholic Hymns, Psalms, Ave Maria, Salve Regina, Gregorian Chants………to make sure that the listeners know it’s a Catholic radio station. These poor professional Catholics, want to be so ‘cool’, so ‘popular’, so much like the likings of the ‘secular media’………it’s almost laughable, what a difference few decades of Protestantism…….does, as if centuries of protecting, defending even at a cost of life of true Catholicism was a ‘fable’, and could change according to the whims of times. The likings of the world, for sure have the windows of the Church wide open. There’s a parade of every stripe………each to it’s own…..for ‘who is there to judge them’?
In Communist Poland we had 3 stations on the radio (50’s, 60’s)…….one station was all Catholic…..when you listened to it, without a doubt you knew it was Catholic.
…..please, get rid of Protestant Bibles, books, pamphlets of every stripe, ridiculous pictures of Jesus playing tennis, soccer, football with your son or daughter………. from your Catholic book stores, from the Catholic thrift shops. These nice old Catholic ladies, do not like me……especially, because they know, that I attend Latin Mass, which they conveniently pretend, they no longer remember…….Ave Maria!
……. The lamenting is endless……..
On the other hand…….I confess, I have read almost all books of Dostoyevsky, Leo Tolstoy……..I completely understand and love their style of writing……..they know the human heart, the human sufferings, the good and evil inside the soul of God’s creature……… the wisdom and faith of the very simple peasant people, which they know comes from God. Yes, everyday I pray for the conversion of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary……..conversion to the one true faith.
The WONDER of all wonders……….the TREASURE, the WISDOM of SAINTS, the wisdom of faithful simple Catholics. What a gift from God, to be a true Catholic!
Amen, Halina!
@Linda No idea what you are talking about regarding positive things said about Fr. Barron or the “Catholicism” series. What I posted above is what we have sent out since the series was first released. We have a specific project under way to go through the entire “Catholicism” series and point out the numerous places where it is either erroneous or “soft” on Catholicism. Someone has already gained a Plenary Indulgence watching the entire series and produced a preliminary draft. There’s a a lot more wrong with Fr. Barron than his assertion that it is reasonable to hope that Hell is empty. As is often said, there’s never just one cockroach. Actually, we don’t recommend Fr. Barron’s “Catholicism” series for ANYTHING. It’s kind of a Catholic version of Kenneth Clarks’s “Civilization,” which makes it valuable as a documentary but certainly not as a “faith formation series” used by adult education and RCIA classes all over the world.
as a convert I can say that ‘churchmen…holding up for esteem any heathen, heretic or Jew… as examples of faith worthy of emulation’, is like war of attrition against one’s God given faith. we don’t need Catholics preaching the world or this or that non-Catholic whatever. As a convert you’ve already been there, done that, bought the T-shirt and thrown it in the trash to reach the nearest religious landfill. publius, your logic is Haggis, if Catholics don’t have faith in treasures of the Church, why should anyone else. People who preach an ’emollient of comprimise’, are lying to themselves and lying to me/us/you.
like the priest at an NO mass, the shepherds, teachers etc. of the Church spend way too much breath and ink turning their backs on God.
last year 90,000 English Catholics left their Faith. according to today’s vortex the figures for thUS are equally pathetic. As for the homeland of this Pope, like this pope, they’re all heading the protest ‘churches’ for their blessings.
p.s. IS the Catholic obsession with C. S. Lewis?
Louie, great post. I think if anyone ‘needs’ to look outside the Faith FOR their faith, thye’ve slipped off the narrow path.
that was supposed to be ‘what’ is this catholic obsession with Lewis.
p.s. terry. are you really from churchmilitanttv?
Interesting reference to Jean Guitton, Linda. Which aspect of this enigmatic
and contradictory man are you referring to?
-In 1992 Guitton said: “When I read the documents relative to Modernism, as
it was defined by Saint Pius X, and when I compare them to the documents of
the II Vatican Council, I cannot help being bewildered. For what was
condemned as heresy in 1906 was proclaimed as what is and should be from now on the doctrine and method of the Church. In other words, the modernists of 1906 were, somewhat, precursors to me.”
-Speaking about modernists condemned before VaticanII Orlando Fedeli
relates: “Father Lagrange [not Garrigou-Lagrange] was friend of all these
condemned modernists, as well as of those to whom escaping from
condemnation as modernist heretics was a close thing. Guitton wrote a
biography of Father Lagrange by John Paul II’s request. By the way, it was in
this very book about Father Lagrange that Guitton stated that the doctrines
condemned as being modernist by Saint Pius X were approved, taught and
proclaimed — by the II Vatican Council. On top of that, Pope John Paul II, who
had ordered this biography from Guitton, did not criticize this frightening
statement about the Modernism in the Vatican II.
-In a 1995 interview Guitton said: “It is my opinion that the present day Pope
speaks too much about man. If I were Pope, I would speak about God. John
Paul dedicates so many speeches to human rights and democracy… He should think about the day when he will leave this world and be judged by God. And, as for his successor? White, black, or yellow, I wish that a man would come who would not fear public opinion and would speak to men about God.”
-In 1999 James Kirkup had this to say in an obituary for Guitton: “He had
profound reverence for Teihard de Chardin. … He was a fervent ecumenicist,
and had early adopted the second Viscount Halifax’s concept of a “corporate
union” of the divided churches. … He believed that all the Church’s present
troubles, since the Second Vatican Council, were caused by the extinction of the mysterious and mystical aspects of liturgical prayer. It is no wonder that he had sympathy and admiration for traditionalists like Monsignor Lefebvre who rejected the modernised form of the Catholic liturgy and defied suspension and excommunication. Guitton also blamed the Church’s new attitudes for the proliferation of sects.”
Linda said: Ahhhh, it’s Jean Guitton all over again.
P.S. This useful article points out the differences between Liberals, Modernists and Progressivists in the Catholic Church.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f004ht_Liberal_Modernist_Progressive.htm
Louie writes: “quoting [non-Catholics] freely as if to hold them up as experts worthy of the faithful’s admiration”.
In their discussions with, or about, unbelievers and non-Catholics, I get the impression from certain clerics that the teaching Church is having two quite separate conversations. I will illustrate this with an example (emphases added).
In a General Audience of August 30, 2006, Benedict XVI makes the following remarks about “the First Gospel”:
1) “The first canonical Gospel, which goes under his [Matthew’s] name”; and,
2) “[L]et us remember that the tradition of the ancient Church agrees in attributing to Matthew the paternity of the First Gospel.”
By contrast, in his Letter to a Non-Believer, of 9/11/2013, Francis is careful to make this recommendation to Eugenio Scalfari:
“It is necessary, therefore, to look at Jesus from the point of view of the actual circumstances of his existence, as narrated by the oldest of the Gospels, Saint Mark.”
On what basis does Francis make this assertion about the actual first Gospel? Is this simply the latest secular academic finding, or is it something that has been confirmed by the teaching Church? If the latter, why, only seven years previously, did Benedict telling his audience something different, and more importantly why does Francis not refer to that fact and explain the change in teaching to the faithful?
Guitton had a ‘profound reverence for Teilhard de Chardin’, who’s Catholicism could summed by this:
http://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/trust-ye-not-in-princes/
and yet still have sympathy and admiration for traditionalists – that’s quite a chasm to cross.
dear Mar,
peace be to you and
in response to you, if dear Saluto will allow, simply what he stated just above, in three sentences, much better than I ever could.
dear Saluto, please offer one Ave, if possible, for my four adult children.
yeah, Terry Carroll, are you really from churchmilitant?
oh, please, following you for years, which BTW I have now ceased to do, it would be at the very least disconnected of you to deny that you lauded the series early on. I, but this is just me, wish you would NOT give the series further critique-
“The only good pope is one who faithfully adheres to the ‘whole of Catholic Teaching and Tradition’ and never wearies of feeding the Lord’s flock with the same while defending them with great vigor and vigilance from the predator wolves ever on the prowl”. (I received these wise words not long ago, from a Soldier of Christ). This very well might be applied to the so-called ‘new evangelization’. Protestants think of themselves as Christians and call themselves by that name, but they cannot be Christian who reject so many of Christ’s teachings.
THE SAME IS FOR LIBERAL CATHOLICS WHO CANNOT BE BOTH LIBERAL AND CATHOLIC. A CHRISTIAN CAN ONLY BE CATHOLIC AND A CATHOLIC CAN ONLY BE ORTHODOX AND TRADITIONAL……..case closed!
Luther, from the beginning of his revolt, also attached the Mass: “When the Mass is overthrown, I think that we will see the overthrow of the papacy! Because it is on the Mass, as on a rock, that the papacy rests entirely with its monasteries, its bishops, its colleges, its altars, its ministries, its doctrine……..All of this will collapse when that sacrilegious and abominable Mass collapses.”
We recognize the influence of Luther and of Protestantism in the ‘Novus Ordo Missae’ of PAUL VI………Miserere!
Only the ‘blind’ and ‘deaf’ and the ‘proud’ will deny the prophetic words of Luther……..for the moment let the enemy celebrate, let the Modernists and their followers guard these grave errors in the name of the ‘new evangelization’…….a little while yet……..in God’s time they will all be scattered, with no mountain to hide behind…….no hole in the ground to seek shelter……..God Will Not Be Mocked? The Mother of God Will Not Be Mocked? The Message of Fatima has not been fulfilled, disobedience to Mother of God is equal, to disobedience of God!
Faithful to the teaching of the Council on the unity of Christians, as Archbp. of Cracow, Karol Wojtyła had already affirmed that the Church remained divided by the various schisms of her history, and ‘that it is imperative to work to restore the LOST UNITY.’……The new ecumenism no longer advocates a return to the Catholic Church. JPII, in fact, spoke to the Protestants and Orthodox in the language of the ‘false ecumenism’……….and so does ‘the new evangelization’………Miserere!
John Paul II has led pagan assemblies in Assisi (1986), Kyoto (1987), Rome (1988), Warsaw (1989), Bari (1990), Malta (1991), and Assisi (2002)……….how about the Synagogue, the Mosque…….
Pope Pius XI in “Mortalium Animos, 1928’………points out (to the conciliar popes) that Saint John the Apostle…….”strictly forbade any close social contact with those who professed, mutilated and corrupt form of Christ’s teaching.”
A cry of anguish from St. Dominic: “My God, my God, what is to become of poor sinners?”
The Revolution has today touched the Church of Jesus Christ and the See of Peter, since the conciliar popes are themselves preaching their designs. Yves Marsaudon (Freemason) wrote during the evil Council: “If there still exist some isolated isled in the line of the Inquisition, they will be forcibly drowned in the rising sea of ‘ecumenism’ and ‘liberalism’, of which one of the most tangible results will be the lowering of spiritual barriers which still divide the world. With all our hearts we wish success to the ‘REVOLUTION’ OF JOHN XXIII.” (L. Marsaudon: ‘L’oecumenisme vu par un franc macon de tradition’ p.42).
“In these times of obscurity and apostasy, God has certainly not allowed all the defenders of the Faith to remain silent and for Tradition to be hidden under a bushel.”…….Archbp. Marcel Lefebvre.
Terry Carroll– My FIRST HAND experience with ChurchMilitantTV is that Michael Voris and company are strictly and vehemently opposed to SSPX. Michael Voris is excellent at exposing the ills in the Church, but offers no real solutions. SSPX is a solution they wish to ignore and discourage. Can you set the record straight on this. Thanks.
And now for something completely different, from the church of Francis:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/10581481/Nun-gives-birth-to-baby-named-after-Pope.html
Yes, we are living in trying times.
@anyone who cares
terrycarroll@churchmilitant.tv
I have been responding to emails since before Barron’s “Catholicism” series was published. I have never said anything other than what I posted above. The “Catholicism” series is not a total disaster, there are lots of pretty pictures and much Catholic fluff, but we don’t recommend it to ANYONE as part of a “faith formation series” such as adult education or RCIA.
If you feel the need to accuse me of lying about my association with ChurchMilitant.TV, I’m really glad you don’t watch us any more. Accusing others of misrepresenting themselves isn’t very fertile soil for Truth.
In this response, terry carroll, I am only speaking for myself. First, I did not see anyone here , myself if I may say so- included, accuse anyone at all of lying or misrepresentation –but merely requesting confirmation.
You have overracted here, IMO. Perhaps the request was not made formally enough for you, for this I apologize if it offended.
You’ve earlier stated you don’t recommend said series for RCIA & the like. I get that.
So, we definitely have at the very least a huge difference in approach. It appears that churchmlitanttv is OK with applauding, albeit partially, something that they can see is not solid in its entirety – by your own admission. Many have that approach.
From where I stand, either a work is solid in Catholic orthodoxy, or it is not. If it is not, I never present it, period. The risk is just too great to take. To determine this, I do not rely on my own judgement-I run it past proven authorities.
Louie:
This is not pertinent to your post above, but it is to the regular topic you raise of Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis humanae. I’m currently 370 pages into Roberto de Mattei’s extremely important book “The Second Vatican Council (an unwritten story).” Just to give tiny bit of credit where it is due, let me quote from the section about the debate on Dignitatis humanae: <> (Pg. 370)
And another quote on what a catastrophe this document caused in Spain: <<The concordat between the Holy See and the Spanish state had been signed on August 27, 1953, by the Pro-Secretary of State, Bishop Tardini, and by the Spanish head of state, Francisco Franco Bahomonde. It began "In the name of the Most Holy Trinity," and in article 1 defined "the Catholic, apostolic, Roman religion" as "the one religion of the Spanish nation." The Spanish state acknowledged that the Catholic Church had the "character of a perfect society" (art. 2), recognized the international juridical personality of the Holy See, of the state, of Vatican City (art. 3), and then went on to regulate in minute detail in thirty-six articles the agreements between the Holy See and Spain. IT WOULD BE OVERTURNED AFTER THE COUNCIL." (Emphasis mine)
In the debate preceding the approval of the document, the archbishop of the Spanish military vicariate, Alonso Munoyerro, warned about this very danger.
And in the United States, has Dignitatis Humanae saved American Catholics from the monstrous Obama administration? Truly horrifying.
Dear Mr. Verrecchio, please keep writing like this. It takes courage to be honest. May you be given the strength to speak lucidly so as to open the eyes of those who have unfortunately been blinded by those ought to know better.
Somehow what I tried to quote above before the portion where it says “(Pg. 370)” didn’t make it into my post. Let me try again: <> (de Mattei, pg. 370)
Publius,
Have you read “The Idiot” by Dostoyevsky? It contains a few pages of a hate filled rant by the main character of the novel against the Catholic religion, even going so far as to claim that it is responsible for atheism in the world! Clearly a non-Catholic author can provide many interesting insights on life, history and the world, but he will always inevitable swerve from the Truth at some point in his opus. Why reference heretics as a source of truth and enlightenment (especially priests!) when we have so many saints and honourable Catholic writers and historians who have provided the world with so much wisdom?
BTW, for any readers of this post who might be inclined towards a positive view of Mr. Barron, let me remind them that this man is A HELL DENYING APOSTATE, who leads souls not to green pastures but to the wide open way that leads to perdition with the poison that “we have a reasonable hope that there are no souls in hell [!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]”
Mr Verrechio, thank you and God Bless for exposing the wicked doctrine of this evil man.
**************************
Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Matthew 7:13-15
Fr. Barron also teaches another made-up-by-him heresy. He renamed actual grace “efficacious grace”, and stated that efficacious grace ‘turns into’ sanctifying grace; with some mental gymnastics, he reached the very false conclusion that, therefore, everyone is in the state of sanctifying grace — everyone! Voila! No need for conversion to the one holy Catholic Church, no need for the Sacraments (which, according to St. Ambrose, are necessary for salvation), no need for the Gate of Heaven, Our Lady Immaculate.
I, too, have had a serious problem with the Global Television Network’s constant references to C.S. Lewis and other non-Catholics. Protestants have NOTHING to say to me, thank you very much.
“The only good pope is one who faithfully adheres to the ‘whole of Catholic Teaching and Tradition’ and never wearies of feeding the Lord’s flock with the same while defending them with great vigor and vigilance from the predator wolves ever on the prowl”.
–
I will use this as my bar from now on.
–
I think it odd, really odd, the Catholic love affair with ‘adulterous’ ‘Christians’ – and by adulterous I mean those who won’t submit to the Bridegroom and become a member of His true Bride, (or unfortunately are encouraged by the likes of recent Popes). Those like Lewis are like voyeurs, glimpsing and stealing bits and pieces whilst continuing to call himself a faithful son of the Church of England. Why is this guy admirable? Screwtape was the work of someone with more than a passing familiarity with deceit, and the Narnia stuff are steeped in astrological magical thinking.
–
“Exorcism”, a little booklet by Fr Jeremy Davis:
‘Rebellion against God: blasphemy, atheism; attacks on Christ, on His divinity, his ressurrection, His word, His saving power; attacks on the Church, on her authority and unity, on the Sacraments.
–
Sins against the Light: when grace is given and there is no response; when grace is received and then there is unfaithfulness. Europe as a whole is now in the state of apostasy and only by a genuine personal decision for Christ and the Church can someone separate himself from it. Fr Jeremy Davis. ‘Exorcism’.
–
[As for those pagans we’ve become all too enamoured of] For 20 years a catechist in Ghana instructed countless converts from animism. After their reception into the Church, they all had to undergo a hard time of counter-attacks, mainly interior, from water spirits and household gods and other pagan demons. Only two had given in and gone back to the false peace of paganism.’
Fr Jeremy Davis has served as a diocesan exorist in England since 1986.
Will say Ave’s for your children, Linda. God Bless.
–
While calling your logic haggis was a bit provocative, Publius, (haggis is usually really bland, whereas your post wasn’t, God bless), we have no need to be looking outside of the Truth for the Truth.
–
thanks for passing on the quote, Halina.
“Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
how and why could this ever have become open to misinterpretation?
p.s. Terry, I asked, because you speak here as a representative of Church Militant TV, so I thought it fair enough to ask if you have the right to be doing so.
God bless.
Me too!
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/01/opinion-call-for-unity.html
Another big W (as in WIN).
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/01/pontifical-mass-with-most-rev-slattery.html#.UtzNN_s1i9I.
First pontifical High Mass in 50 years!
(My sources tell me it is the first.).
Archbishop Lefebvre, ora pro nobis.
@S.Armaticus
at the Shrine of the Infant of Prague in Prague, OK!
OK = Oklahoma:)
Even when non-Catholic sources are cited as “insights” for truth, whatever “insight” they have ultimately is within the Catholic Church anyway. In this sense, I can see one reason for citing to them: To show non-Catholics that the best and brightest non-Catholics have to offer is ultimately found in Catholicism. This is what St. Paul appeared to be doing with the Greeks; what St. Thomas does with Aristotle; and what Benedict XVI implied in Regesnburg (sp?) that got him in some hot water.
@S.Armaticus.
yeah, I got that. do people in OK not like the punning? what does 🙂 mean?
OK. you learn something every day.