Is Anybody There?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says Yahweh Sabaoth" Zach 4:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dio di Signore, nella Sua volontà è nostra pace!" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin 1759

Friday, November 19, 2010

Now If Archbishop Dolan Had Been the Current VP @ the USCCB. . . .

& Kicanas had won instead, I doubt the Non-Catholic Reporter would have handled it's coverage the same way.
But before I get to that, I have to say it has been fun to see how the "Catholycs" who promote a false "Spirit of Vatican II" & their Leftist buddies in the media, etc, are reacting to Archbishop Dolan's election. While Dolan isn't a hardliner like Archbishop Burke, he is much more a supporter of authentic Catholic teaching that Kicanas.
What got me on this train of thought was a post over at Fr. Z's blog: Archbp. Dolan elected – Liberals go bananas. It mentioned a lot of the usual suspects, NPR, Call to Action, several groups opposed to the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality for example. & talked about their reaction. But what stood out for me was the 1 gang that was missing, the heretics at the Non-Catholic Reporter. In the days to come, I am sure the columnists will all do their wailing & gnashing of teeth, but for now I am focusing on 2 articles, their editorial, Shake up in the bishops' conference , & a blog post by Thomas Fox, U.S. bishops' rejection of Bishop Kicanas has got to hurt.
As I read the articles, I couldn't help but thinking the bewailing of how things went wouldn't be happenning if Dolan had been VP & they chose Kicanas instead. I don't think the NonCR would be upset at all about the failure to follow precident. In fact I am willing they would be downright reveling in it.
In fact I doubt Fox would be concerned "that the bishops hurt a good man along the way." Nor do I think he would say that in their rejection of Archbishop Dolan that "they walked over a fellow bishop." In fact, I am willing to bet that he would applaud their courage to break with precidence & go with the type of leadership the Church needed.
Fox also makes it clear that he doesn't see being a Bishop as a ministry. All he sees it as is a job, a management level one, but a job. How else do you explain the following statement by Fox? "They probably did in a career as well." Career? CAREER???? Is he kidding? Sadly he isn't.
& this comment in a paper that has done more to undermine ethics & morality would be laughable if he wasn't serious: "they used a bad means to achieve what they hope will be a good end." I assume from the rest of the article what he means by "bad means" is that rather than following tradition/precidence & electing a Dolan type as VP to take over in 3 years they threw tradition out & elected Dolan now. This from the gang that has done more to undermine Tradition in the Catholic Church. Now they are up in arms because something that was merely traditional & had no basis in rule has been overturned.
I thought the liberal leftist "Catholyc" was all about doing away with tradition or precidence, not keeping it. While I don't think Dolan's election was quite the seismic shift some claim it is, this sure looks like a seismic shift to me. Albeit a temporary one. I don't see them suddenly calling for a return to orthodoxy any time soon.
Not surprizingly, the NonCR editorial is bemoaning the end of the Bernadin era. The describe Dolan's election as "the fulfillment of the late Pope John Paul II’s wish that the U.S. bishops’ conference’s influence be diminished and that the scope of its concerns be reduced." They bemoan the loss of a "progressive outlook." Of course, their idea of progressive is radical liberal & socialist. & like their counterparts (should I say fellow travellers?) in the secular world they see themselves as the center rather than what they really are, the radical left. & anything to their right, even if truly centrist is conservative at the best of the worst. Case in point, this line describing how they see the change: "In recent years, during which a moderate conference has become increasingly conservative,". & what do they see as the horrible concervative actions as opposed to being "conciliatory" to all? The see such things as dealing with in-house matters like liturgy & Catholic Identity & that "Episcopal activity in the public square has been focused almost exclusively on abortion, homosexuality and same-sex marriage," are bad.
Funny, but I thought that was a huge part of what they are supposed to do. Bishops are responsible for liturgy being done correctly. They are supposed to ensure that the Catholic Church remains Catholic & isn't just Catholic in name only. & as for the issues they criticize, Bishops teaching what the Catholic Church teaces is a huge part of their being shepherds of their dioceses. & since that means calling sin what it is, sin, they are causing division. Wait a minute, isn't that what Jesus said would happen when the truth was preached, that it would cause divisions? Jesus didn't call us to be conciliatory in the way the NonCR gang define it. They see it as telling everyone that what you do is OK (except uphold authentic Catholic teaching).
& this is only part of the attack in the editorial. Again like their fellow travelors, they see this election as a Tea-Party moment that is toxic. They see Burke's being brought to the Vatican as a means of isolating him & removing him from center stage. Funny, but it seems Archbishop (soon to be Cardinal) Burke has become even more highly visible as well as "vociferous". So, I am sure the Vatican wasn't trying to isolate or silence him. Just the opposite. & no, I am not making a prediction, but if Cardinal Burke is elected as the next Pope I would say his new assignment was to ensure he remained visble.
The call Burke a part of "the most unreasonable elements in the Catholic community." I guess that if by reasonable you buy into the relativistic garbage the NonCR et al are buying then Burke is unreasonable. But only to those who don't want a Bishop being a true Bishop. & of course they get some not so suble digs in against another unreasonable Bishop Joseph Martino. Their intimations of what the "real reason" he retired 12 years early are straight out of the National Enquirer.
The editorial ends with the NonCR basicly saying that they hope Dolan will fail. While they don't use those words they paint a picture of doom & gloom. & while there is some truth about the picture they paint, what they fail to mention is that they painted that picture in the 1st place & it is the agenda they pushed & continue to push is why the picture is what it is.
I have to admit the NonCR did get 1 thing right. They are correct about what lies ahead for Dolan, it won't be an easy path to glory, being a true shepherd rarely is. But then Jesus never promised an easy path either.
Like I said, do you think they would have said any of this had tjhings been reversed & Dolan was stepped over? I doubt it.
Speaking of the NonCR's gang of heretics, I happenned to notice the latest by Satan's favorite Blueberry Muffin, Joanie C who has recently been exposed by LarryD as super villian Cosmic Girl. It was another of her typical screeds that I have come to expect from this false prophet. I won't go into everything she says, but I do have 2 comments I want to make. She uses canon 212 as her jump off point. & is using it to justify dissent from authentic Catholicism.
She uses the example of someone who was upset about what a priest said in a recent homily. That priest shared what he had said to a newly ordained priest. “I told him to remember that his duty was to serve God, not the people.” OK, out of context, it may sound like the priest is saying that the priest can ignore the people. But i suspect that what this older priest meant is that in serving God as he should then he will serve the people as he should as a part of that. Of course the person in the pew that got upset didn't like the fact that the focus was put on God where it belongs. So he dashed off a letter with their 10 suggestions for new priests. The whole list could provide enough for Fr. Z, LarryD & myself with fuel for plenty of posts. The list is the typical "Catholyc" agenda of dissent & undermining authentic Catholicism.
I just want to look at the 1st suggestion as it is typical of the false "Spirit of Vatican II" gang. "
"Reread annually a summary of the second Vatican Council reforms.
What they need apparently is someone who will implement the Council, not resist it."
Did you get that? Don't read the documents, just a summary of those documents. & of course that summary will be in their idea of "Spirit of Vatican II" rather than faithfully presenting the letter of those documents.
As Fr. Trigillio has often said "The Spirit of Vatican II is found in the letter of Vatican II." & any true implimentation of the true "Spirit of Vatican II" (aka the Holy Spirit) will follow the letter of those documents. These people have been the ones who have resisted authentic implimentation of the Council.
Like I said, Joanie once again proves that she is a "false prophet" following a spirit that is definitely from NOT from God. What she says would be funny if she wasn't so serious & it wasn't doing the spiritual damage it was.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home Headlines

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Get this widget!
Visit the Widget Gallery