The following comes from a post by Archbishop Gomez, published on August 17 by the Angelus:
This week marks the start of the academic year for the many men who are preparing to be priests at our St. John’s Seminary and Juan Diego House.
It is a good moment for us to give thanks to God. In recent years, he has blessed his children here in the archdiocese with many fine new priests and new vocations.
This year we ordained nine new priests and seven transitional deacons who will become priests next year for Los Angeles; we also ordained two transitional deacons who will be serving in Uganda.
Right now, by the grace of God we have 93 seminarians preparing to be priests in Los Angeles. There are 67 at St. John’s, 25 at Juan Diego House and one studying at the Hispanic Seminary of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City. In total at St. John’s there are 114 men from Los Angeles and 11 other dioceses and two religious communities.
You cannot really “learn” to be a priest — it is not like any ordinary profession or occupation. Preparing for the priesthood takes training of the head and heart, the intellect and spirit. It is a spiritual work of forming the soul for a life to be lived in the company of Jesus Christ and in the service of his mission.
Training for the priesthood is like that in some ways. It begins with a decision to live in a totally new way, so that we can achieve a new goal, a new purpose for our lives. To reach that goal requires dedication, sacrifice and daily, patient practice aimed at self-mastery of body, mind and spirit.
In the case of the priest, this training takes the form of daily Mass and interior prayer, and spending “holy hours” with Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. It takes studying the Church’s teachings, theology and traditions; learning about human nature and people’s needs and the shape of the society we live in. It takes learning how to live with others in community. There is also practical “hands-on” experience gained through pastoral ministry and internships at parishes.
Like athletic training, priestly formation also requires “coaches,” “trainers” and mentors. This is the work of the seminary. We have always had a rich academic tradition and excellent faculty and staff. In these past few years, we are continuing to grow and strengthen our faculty and programs at St. John’ Seminary and Juan Diego House.
The “gold” we are seeking for our priests is this — a heart consecrated to God and a life that is conformed to Jesus Christ. The priest is a man of God filled with joy because he knows God’s love and mercy. He is a man who lives now for God alone, with a missionary passion to spread God’s love and mercy through the whole world.
May they be holy, zealous, loving and courageous priests with well-formed minds and hearts to serve God’s people in persona Christi capitis.
Two facts will be more important:
1. How many of these 95 will be ordained?
2. How many of those who are ordained will be practicing priests in 5 years? 10 years?
All the rest is frosting, but not cake.
Pray, don’t judge.
Nice article on vocations. Notice the Archbishop’s words that seminary formation includes learning tradition. This is the way forward. A proper formation CANNOT be the learning of tradition coupled with inculcating disobedience, hostility towards the Holy Father, antipathy towards bishops, denigration of the Ordinary Form.
Even now, you have to take a hostile swipe at your “enemies”, to show how little you know?
What a discredit to the causes you claim to espouse.
The enemy is disobedience and dissent. The enemy is the Devil who has duped even many of the folks here.
Indeed, the disobedience of those in positions of authority to the fullness of God’s law has resulted in a reprobate fruit. You cannot beat the sheep for the failures of the shepherds, jon. Much as you may want to to alleviate the need to place blame where blame belongs.
Just as St. Alphonsus admonishes parents to rear their children in all holiness, not being lazy and then blaming their children for rising up against their own hypocrisy and subsequent misuse of authority.
The Devil’s dupe is the one who pretends he can cry obedience while the truth is neglected by way of sophistry and pulling the obedience card. Shall we all cry, “Crucify Him,” because that is what those in authority are calling for in order to keep their places?
jon, it is the saddest thing in the world, to see religious authority misused by HYPOCRITES in power– to either read of it in history(such as when Christ was killed!)– or else, to see it happen in todays world! To see great and holy men like St. John of the Cross, for example, imprisoned and punished for “religious disobedience,” or to see a fine Jesuit of today, like Fr. Joseph Fessio, punished for “religious disobedience,” to his near-heretical, yet Church-approved religious order– is a HORROR, before God!! jon, our only God, is Christ!!
I think there was a request from “jon” to evidence his well-known hostility against traditional Catholics. I usually don’t respond to this person, but at least one occasion (there are many), is where he accused Anne Malley and the SSPX of “just being in it for the money”:
“…[T]he sedevacantist/SSPX lot desire that their numbers swell, they need to always be throwing shade at lawful (meaning those with legal standing in the Church which does not include our beloved SSPX) bishops and the Pope. Only when people feel animosity for them can the SSPX numbers rise. It’s all about chapel attendance, AMalley, it’s all about money and survival. Pitiful really.”
(cf. “Tim Kaine Gets a Standing Ovation”, July 27, 2016)
I would…
says this is a more-than-adequate example of a vicious calumny against the SSPX specifically and their very pious adherents, as I observe them to be extremely dedicated and respectful.
Whatever motivates “jon”, I hope he gets help for it, either spiritual or other. It approaches a monomania, and there seems to be some purpose behind it.
Totally wrong is George. Mine is not “hostility” against my fellow human beings, but rather mine is hostility against disobedience, dissent, and irreverence.
And I do stand behind my theory/haunch that your beloved SSPX’s vitriol against the legitimate hierarchy of the Church is money-based. As proof for my claim (which I am obligated to do as I am making a claim), I cite the report from Church Militant which states that: “It’s an indisputable fact confirmed to us by multiple sources that the SSPX has a habit of setting up shop in a diocese — without the permission of the local bishop — and then poaching the faithful away from diocesan-approved Traditional Latin Mass communities, taking souls away along with their financial…
support. Such acts can only cause antagonism and ambivalence, hardly endearing them to the local bishop. Such actions can only hinder any authentic reunification with Rome.”
You may read that story here: https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/sspx-hurts-advance-of-diocesan-latin-masses
So folks, mine is not hostility against tradition (as I am traditional myself), but rather mine is a warning against unsuspecting Catholics about these poachers.
In fact, jon’s “enemies” are (1) anyone with a countervailing opinion, and (2) the free exchange of fact and ideas, which discredit the many falsehoods he idolizes.
As insults go, this is kind of a lame one. jon has been standing up for the Catholic Faith here for years against cafeteria Catholics who try to hide behind the word “tradition” when not even knowing it’s meaning. jon, like all of us, is not always 100% correct, but the vitriolic responses to him are based on the pride of man not defense of the Faith. And yes, faithful Catholics really do not tolerate countervailing opinions or facts and ideas which lead people astray.
I don’t think Anonymous understands the concept of “Catholic Tradition!” Liberal, apostate, corrupt, immoral “Cafeteria Catholics DESPISE sacred Catholic Tradition, and seek to DESTROY it! Catholic Tradition is SACRED, handed down from the time of Christ! Just as Jewish Tradition has likewise been handed down, from their ancestors! In Christ’s day, the Roman captors of Israel, did not understand nor appreciate Jewish Tradition, which was sacred, to the Jews! “Cafeteria Catholics,” such as Rep. Nancy Pelosi, etc.— certainly do not “hide behind” Catholic Tradition!
Anonymous- jon’s religion is NOT the religion preached all over the world, to the Catholic Faithful, by Pope Francis, nor by his Vatican II predecessors! Whatever “religion” jon believes in and practices– is certainly not Pope Francis’ religion, at all! Nor Christ’s, either!
jon’s shtick is to vent his personal irrational hostility on (especially) traditional-minded Catholics; obviously the “Anonymous” is happy to share that with him.
Don’t wrap oneself in “defense of the Faith”, a scoundrel’s safe haven.
We should really ask these folks, namely LMaria and George, to prove their point here. Go ahead LMaria, prove your point that my religion is not the same the one preached by Christ, by Francis, and by Vatican II. Go ahead George and prove that I have an “irrational hostility” against traditional-minded Catholics. So, I’ll be expecting both of you to quote me with date/time of said quotation.
In fact, “Anonymous-jon’s” “enemies” are (1) anyone with a countervailing opinion, and (2) the free exchange of fact and ideas, which discredit the many falsehoods he/they espouse, that they are “the only true-blue Catholics”.
jon–maybe you should ask yourself, after reading your own posts– “is a follower of Christ hostile and super-neurotic about “obedience to petty rules,” expecting swift punishment, too, for “disobedience”— as in a heartless military boarding school, of long ago??” Would a God so good and loving, send His dear children to such a hostile, heartless place??
Disagreement with prudential judgments and other messages that do not bind in faith nor conscience is neither disobedience nor dissent. A respectful hearing should be given, and if truth is stated then it should be agreed with; but if error is found or questions qualify the truth that was stated, then Catholics may legitimately form their own different judgments.
“When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question.” (Donum Veritatis 24)
It does not serve the Truth well, Sawyer, to present merely a partial reading of the paragraph you cited. Ladies and gentlemen, I advise you to read on from the sentence quoted to you by Sawyer. The following sentence reads: “But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission.”
That sentence teaches that the Magisterium is indeed guided divinely when it teaches on matters of faith and morals, which would include the death penalty. DISSENT is NOT allowed anywhere in this document. NO WHERE.
People, it may…
serve you well to read in particular paragraph 23, which talks about the three levels of assent. The third level pertains to issues like the death penalty. So, read folks, read!
“But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission.” DV 24
Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33 ) . For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them. DV 27
“…there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith.
“The theologian will strive then to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him.”DV 29
Indeed, just to add to what has been said, if a theologian were to find himself/herself in an exceptional situation where a Magisterial teaching is difficult, he/she makes known his/her objection directly to the “Magisterial authorities”. (paragraph 30)
Note, that he/she is not to to the “mass media”, according to the same paragraph. And if the difficulty remains, he/she “has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.”
But nowhere is the option of trumpeting to the whole world your sin of dissent, and how the Magisterium got it “wrong.”
The rest of the paragraph wasn’t necessary to provide, jon, because nobody is claiming that the Magisterium is habitually mistaken nor that it doesn’t enjoy divine assistance in INTEGRAL exercises of its mission.
Your attempt to deflect attention away from what I did cite is noticeable: you want to distract from the fact that the Magisterium has admitted that its statements in the prudential order might not be free from deficiencies. When such statements are deficient, they do not need to be obeyed, as Cardinal Ratzinger recognized when he stated, “…it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment.” in the CDF letter.
So you are wrong again. Not surprising.
I’m afraid Sawyer persists in his error. The continued misinterpretation of the CDF Letter is a glaring example of his error folks, namely ascribing the very “may” to mean “is.” This is to say the CDF Letter is not giving permission to dissent, but is rather expressing the theoretical possibility of a diversity of opinion on the death penalty. Sawyer is VERY WRONG for dissent is not allowed in the Church. Donum Veritatis itself PROVES THIS for nowhere does it say that a theologian may dissent. NOWHERE! The document Sawyer himself has shown us, disproves his point!
But perhaps the strongest indication that Sawyer is wrong is this: If the Magisterium is permitting all to have a “debate,” a “legitimate diversity” of opinion…
on the death penalty, why would the same Magisterium then call of an END to the death penalty! The position of those who are mistaken always will run into contradictions like this.
Additionally, it is important TO QUOTE the remaining sentences, Sawyer, because the truth is not served well by your method of selectively choosing texts to prove your POV. If one reads the whole paragraph and indeed the whole document, the Magisterium is saying that even in the even of a disagreement, the theologian is obligated to discern the truth in the teachings of the Church.
One last bit about the CDF’s “Worthiness to Receive,” an objective reading of the text indicates that both uses of the verb “may” expresses a theoretical possibility.
1) “May still be permissible” indicates the possibility of permissibility contingent upon the existence of a “legitimate diversity of opinion”. The fact that the two sentences use the same verb shows their connection. Not all instances of war is permissible for instance (which is inferred by the phrase “repel an aggressor” and mentioned in the preceding sentence) hence the use of the word “may.”
2) The fact that the writer did not use “is” in either sentence (which would have supported Sawyer’s point) is telling. The writer used “may” which is…
commonly used to indicate a theoretical possibility.
Folks, literally, the position of the pro-death crowd hangs precariously on a thin, weak thread: the misreading of a simple word in a mere dicasterial document. Pathetic. The pro-death people are basically saying: “forget Lumen Gentium, forget JP2’s forceful homilies and speeches against the death penalty, forget Donum Veritatis, forget the Encylical “Evangelium Vitae”, forget the Catechism; we have instead this dicasteral letter to excuse our dissent.” WRONG! Support the CA bishops: Vote yes on 62, No on 66!
Sawyer, you seem really confused. You are taking something out of context and trying to apply it to something else. The possibility that a statement in the prudential order might be deficient does not give you permission to disobey it. I ask you to be much more careful in your words here. There are many people who read this website who are not very knowledgeable in the Faith and will take your statement as permission to disobey anything.
A theoretical possibility is a real possibility, not an impossibility. When the conditions for the realization of the possibility are present, the theoretical possibility becomes reality.
To argue that permission or legitimate diversity of opinion is theoretically possible but never actually realizable is to contradict oneself, for it is to claim that a theoretical possibility is really an impossibility disguised as a possibility.
To make such an illogical argument over five or six boxes of text without realizing you are being illogical is a sign of desperation, as if you hope to convince people that your sheer volume of words compensates for or distracts from deficient cogency.
Anonymous, the mere possibility of a deficiency in a prudential judgment by the Magisterium does not itself justify disagreement.
However, the possibility of a deficiency means that a deficiency might really be present. When such a deficiency is actually found or even when there are valid grounds for suspecting such a deficiency, then the Magisterium’s prudential judgment may legitimately be questioned and sometimes dismissed.
Note that this applies to prudential judgments, not to matters pertaining to dogmatic definitions.
The assertion that capital punishment is no longer justifiable due to modern, contingent historical circumstances is one such deficient prudential judgment.
Sawyer, by calling for the abolition of the death penalty, JP2, Benedict, and Francis have in effect indicated that IN OUR TIME the theoretical possibility of a legitimate diversity of opinion IS NOT REALIZABLE. Otherwise, these learned and prudent pontiffs would not have called for its abolition. Let me help you out here: the condition that will make a legitimate diversity of opinion realizable is when the penal system in the West deteriorates in such a way that it can no longer defend society against an unjust aggressor. This has not happened, as prison escapes have actually been going down. Your own opinion on the matter is patently not legitimate.
….again with the soft pedal attempt to reverse doctrine. Good on ya, jon, for your consistency.
Others, however, are consistent in upholding actual Catholic teaching.
No one has tried to reverse doctrine. We are not discussing doctrine. But thank you for showing Sawyer what I was warning him about.
Sawyer, you can try to justify your opposition to the Popes all you want. You are still wrong and they are right. I really think they know more about God and His Will than you do. To put it bluntly, you have doubts. So what? Why do you need to make your doubt public? Why do you feel the need to argue with people who are doing the right thing by listening to the Pope and not to a layman? If you were humble you would submit to the Popes, whether you agree with it or not. Human life is sacred. If you disagree with this, then you are a heretic. This is the core of the issue. If you disobey even a prudential judgement, you have the potential to disobey anything because your religious sense is not 100% in line with the Church. You…
jon, one must always be careful, to follow Christ, not make a god out of petty religious rules, made by possibly men who are religious hypocrites, with poor intentions! Christ was heavily reprimanded by the Jewish authorities– who were HYPOCRITES, yet kept all the Jewish laws on the books, faithfully. They reprimanded Christ for healing sick people on the Sabbath. He replied, “man was not made for the Sabbath, the Sabbath was made for man!” We must be careful, that our obedience is truly to Christ, and to no other god!
When a faithful Catholic follows the Holy Father and his bishops, that faithful Catholic CAN BE SURE that he is following Christ, for it is Peter and the apostles that Our Lord chose. And the Holy Father and the bishops have now succeeded in the office of Peter and the apostles.
jon, you are NOT a follower of the Holy Father! Can’t you see that? The Catholic religion as preached by Pope Francis, as well as his post-Conciliar predecessors— Pope Benedict (emeritis) and Pope St. John Paul II– is NOT the one you believe in!! Nor is it Christ’s religion, either! Christ did not promote a HOSTILE, Pharisaic religion of petty obedience to religious rules, with threats and hostility! Your religion is just “jon’s religion,” that’s all!
Right, so prove it LMaria. Quote me that shows that my religion is not the same one that the Popes and Our Lord have taught. I’ll wait for specific accurate quotes of mine noting the date and time. I will expect nothing less.
jon, others do not have to go around “proving” things to you! Look at your own posts! See for yourself! Your religion is Pharisaic! Like a hostile, radicalized Christian jihadist! And Christ, Pope Francis, and all the previous Popes— do not believe in that kind of “religion!”
Just for the record ladies and gentlemen: a person making a claim is always obligated to substantiate it. In this case, LMaria’s claim (that my religion is not in fact the same as the Pope’s as taught by Our Lord) has not been proven by her: there are no specific quotes anywhere. Therefore we have no choice but to discount her claim. Sorry.
jon, the only “claim” is what you attribute to yourself! No one is interested to “prove” who you are, and your religious beliefs– like a lawyer. The Church is NOT a nasty, mean military jihadist school, demanding “strict obedience” to heartless “rules,” or else you are going to be cruelly mocked, derided, and punished, and cast into Hell, for “disobedience,” — by “Pope jon!” jon, what would you do, if we had a “Cardinal Kasper,” for Pope, who sought to abolish all teachings of sexual morality (as in Germany) , to appease secular society? Bow before him? Or rebuke him–and bow only to Christ?
jon, surely you would not be crazy enough, to follow a “Judas Iscariot,” if he tried temporarily to lead the Church, in a battle with St. Peter, let’s say– surely you would not “obey” and support a “Judas!” All because you would crazily “justify” it, saying that “Judas” was one of the Chosen Twelve, of Christ, and therefore, by law, was to be obeyed! Judas Iscariot, by the way– used Jewish Law, to get his Master killed! Even religious laws can sometimes be twisted evilly!
jon, there is a great big group of theologians, who are challenging “Amoris Laetitia.” They are obedient to GOD– following their MORAL CONSCIENCE– whereas, many other clerics do not even seem to have a Moral Conscience! Many of the German prelates state that they have tried to do away with laws regarding Marriage and sexual morality, in Germany– simply because Christian Morality is not “relevant” to modern secular German society! Terrible, unfaithful German Catholic prelates!
Jesus speaks through the Pope. You can find theologians that disagree with anything and everything because they fall for the temptation of pride and they lack humility.
Jon, LM has just outed herself as a sedevacantist. Maybe not the first time. It really amazes me that people can convince themselves of such nonsense.
I spent a couple hours recently trying to intervene as a middle age Catholic tried to impose their view of things (mostly the lack of sinfulness in homosexual relationships) on a teenage Catholic who is accepting of the Church’s teaching because it is the Church’s teaching. Why do people feel the need to mess with other people? Is it narcissism? They wouldn’t dream of trying to talk a Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu etc out of the tenets of their religion. Why do they think it is OK to do it to people of their own religion?
Anonymous and Your Fellow “Catholic”– Sorry, but not all theologians are honest and morally right with God! And NO, of course not, I am NOT a “sedevacantist,” any more than both of you are! (I don’t think you know the meaning of that theological term, anyway!) You BOTH need to be nice to your fellow Catholics, as they try to be nice to both of you– and USE YOUR BRAINS, when writing posts– don’t act like babbling, squawking babies!!
YFC has just outed himself again as a mente-vecantist. No doubt that’s why we have to endure yet another absurd claim, the latest being Linda Maria being a Sedevecantist.
But boys will be boys, I suppose. Play on.
Linda Marie, even theologians who are honest and right with God can go off track. You can always trust the Pope. That is who God has given you to follow. Sorry if you feel I am not being nice to you. I think often times people aren’t nice to the Pope and the bishops. I don’t really know why writing Catholic doctrine makes me a babbling, squawking baby. CCC 881-882 I don’t think you are a sedevacantist.
Anonymous (or is it really jon??) you should USE YOUR BRAIN to write your posts! Why waste your time attacking good, sincere Catholics? They have no interest to attack YOU!! So– why do you do such a goofed-up thing? And YES– the Church is a big responsibility, isn’t it– that is why good, honest, mature Catholic theologians worry, to see a Pope write things that are highly morally and theologically questionable– such as the material in “Amoris Laetitia!” They have a big responsibility– but YOU do not— because you are just a layman, Anonymous!!
P.S. Anonymous we cannot think as a baby, like the blind followers of a man like Hitler– and blindly follow the Pope, like a baby refusing to grow up and take responsibility! That is a misunderstanding of the teaching of Papal infallibility! Follow Christ, and true Catholic teachings– before all else! Very excellent Churchmen like Cardinals Sarah and Burke, always write out careful, intelligent critiques, if they are concerned with something the Pope says or does. They have a big responsibility!
What did the Pope write that is highly morally and theologically questionable?
Linda Marie, if you are referring to the letter sent to the Cardinals by 45 theologians and clergymen: You have misunderstood. They do not accuse the Pope of being morally or theologically questionable. It was about people who might interpret the document wrongly.
Thank you, Linda Maria for your response.
Here is another beautiful response taken from Rorate Caeli
Long-Skirts said…
“Your Holiness, we offer you this spiritual treasure: 3,525 rosaries.”
“Your Holiness, we are the poor who have no money to count or material goods filling our homes…we can only count our roses of rosaries.”
Anonymous, Jesus can indeed speak through the pope. The pope, however, being a man with free will is entirely capable of telling him no, I’ll speak what I think is right. There’s a difference.
Time for Catholics to stop gobbling up the Protestant deformation of papal infallibility and understand what that actually means.
Obedience is also due to one’s parents, but not in matters of sin, anonymous. So saying, God told me to honor my parents so I committed murder will not fly. Not unless one is truly unaware that murder is wrong.
The Church and the Pope are infallible in matters of faith and morals.
Anonymous, you do not understand the teaching of the Church, on Papal infallibility! Our present Holy Father means well– but he also has publicly stated, that he PERSONALLY DISLIKES FORMAL THEOLOGY AND CHURCH TEACHINGS, RULES, AND LAWS– and that he DESIRES PERSONALLY– to SET ASIDE these things, and “MOVE THEM OUT OF HIS WAY”— for love of his people!! This is a cause of great concern! Catholics all REALLY DO NEED TO KNOW CORRECT CHURCH TEACHINGS!! That is why theologians are concerned! Especially on sexuality, and the family!
LOVE your posts, Ann Malley, and Catherine! Thanks!
The learning of obedience cannot be mingled with the error of false obedience being somehow good, jon. For if one is to follow Christ Jesus and proclaim the truth unto crucifixion for the salvation of the sheep, seminarians, most especially, will have to be taught and accept the challenge presented to them. Namely, the challenge of often being persecuted by those in lawful authority over them.
In context, jon, Our Lord was under the dominion of the High Priest. When pressed to lie, Our Lord refused as He cannot lie. An alter Christus should not lie either, not when the time comes.
In the words of St.Vincent de Paul: Humility is the truth, Lies are nothing but pride.
So, seriously, would you have the faithful and priests support…
…. the mortal sin of pride within leadership, the same that begs their destruction and ours under the pretext of serving God via obedience? Sorry, jon, but tradition teaches that during times of trial, it is necessary to suffer for the truth. Even that woeful calumny of being branded disobedient.
If you do not see, there is no sin, but if you do see and continue to prop up such evil as false obedience, then the sin remains.
Excellent posts, Ann Malley!
Leaked e-mails show George Soros paid $650K to influence bishops during Pope’s US visit | News | Lifesitenews
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-leaked-e-mails-show-george-soros-paid-to-influence-bishops-during
The few faithful bishops HAVE to SPEAK UP as courageously as Father Rutler has. Silence enables the dangerous quotes that will enable ISIS to murder even more Catholic priests.
The Muddled Catholic-Muslim “Dialogue”
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/03/21/the-muddled-catholic-muslim-dialogue/
A Catholic Priest Tells Christians to Stop Being So Naïve — Wake up to the Threat of Islamic Domination
https://www.thomasmore.org/catholic-priest-tells-christians-stop-naive-wake-threat-islamic-domination/
Catherine, thanks for posting the link to “lifesitenews”. Interesting. What we know is that Soros gave money to Pico and one other group to try to influence them, and tried to set up meetings with the Pope. It would be naive, however, to think that less progressive folks in the church community didn’t contribute to other causes with the intention of influencing the Pope and the U.S. church leaders. If they didn’t, they are naive about how things work. Its possible, in fact probable, that we are just not well funded and don’t know how to organize to influence the culture as well as the progressives.
Matthew 24:24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.
….and yet facilitators of evil would scourge faithful Catholics for acknowledging the scriptural forewarning.
Thank you, too, Catherine for those perfectly measured responses that bespeak a correspondence to God’s grace, not personal opinion or wishful thinking pinioned on perverting the truth and the true nature of authority.
Thanks be to God!
Additionally, today is the Memorial of the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the new calendar of the Church (the old calendar has today as the second class feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary). Methinks how much more fitting that the Memorial of the Queenship of Our Blessed Mother should be observed on this day, an octave (8 days) after the Solemnity of her Assumption—thereby connecting the two great Marian events: how very fitting and appropriate! Such a beautiful designation coming from the Second Vatican Council: a fitting “innovation” if you will. As Lumen Gentium teaches: “Mary was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen of the universe, that she might be the more fully conformed…
to her Son”. We have to thank the wisdom of the Council and the devotion of its Fathers for making such a wise and fitting placement for today’s feast.
Our Lady, Mother of priests, pray for these seminarians!
I like both calendars. LOVE the traditional Masses, devotions, and religious art, for the “Two Hearts,” the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary! I have a family member, who lives in a city, with a cathedral dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary– beautiful! I miss the Feast of Circumcision, on Jan. 1st, which was changed to the “Feast of Mary, Mother of God,” after the Council. In the pre-Conciliar era, everyone used to show up for Mass, on this Feast– as well as on all other Holy Days of Obligation! Today, many Catholics do not understand their Faith very well, and many do not know much about the calendar, for the Church Year! Very sad!
I do not like the Catholic bishops dispensing the Catholic Faithful from Mass attendance on Holy Days, because the Feast falls on a day near Sunday! It is so disappointing! Most devout Catholics look forward to these great Holy Days, and want to go to Mass! Also, I miss the Feast of Christ’s Ascension, being correctly placed on Ascension Thursday, and going to Mass, right on that day— not placing it on a Sunday, for convenience! And Good Friday should be a HUGE religious holy day, for our Church–as it once was! Catholics and their families should be taught, and obligated– to place God FIRST in their lives!
as it once was! Better to have Catholics and their families all going to Mass, involved in…
I don’t know how the last two lines, in my above post, got so mixed up– they do not belong, in my above post!
So, maybe it is actually a nice idea, that the post-Conciliar Church moved the Queenship of Mary Feast Day from the end of May, to Aug. 22 (in the Assumption Feast Day octave)— and moved the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, (placed on Aug. 22nd on the Church calendar, by Pope Pius XII)— back to the Sat. following the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus– so, we have the “Two Hearts” closer together, on the Church calendar!
Glad Jon the prelate finally noticed Aug 22nd as the Octave of the most ancient Marian feast, the Assumption. At last. Now he should be asking to return it to its original status.
O Justin K., the Solemnity of the Assumption has never been moved from its original status, which is as a Solemnity, corresponding to a first class feast in the old calendar. My comment was the fact that the old calendar did not have Memorial of the Queenship of the BVM within the octave. But thanks to the wisdom of the Fathers of V2, the Memorial of the Queenship is now in a more suitable date!
Moreover, one must ask, why are some of these folks so EAGER to place the burden of “obligation” and the pain of sin upon our Catholic brothers and sisters for whom going to Mass on Monday is a serious and legitimate hardship? I mean, here the bishops have made a generous, pastoral decision (which only they have the right and authority to…
do ) by removing the obligation to assist at Mass on a Monday and yet there are these folks who decry the kind heart of the Magisterium. I mean, by removing the obligation, it DOES NOT necessarily discourage going to Mass that day nor the devotion to Our Blessed Mother. O Justin’s claim is bunk. BUNK!
Our Lord was right about them: “For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men’ s shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them” (Matt 23:4).
If one was legitimately prevented from attending mass, jon, there is no sin in not attending mass on a Holy Day of Obligation. But this idea of abolishing laws or standards on the pretext of avoiding the imputation of sin is rich…. for when taken to far it illustrates liberal to a fault.
No guidance at all. Nothing to strive toward. No helps.
Like being reared in a household where all is permitted in accordance with whatever the individual feels they need,want, or will and will not do. That is a perversion, jon.
LOVE all the excellent posts, as always– of Ann Malley, and Catherine! Terrific!
jon, it is NOT A BURDEN, for devout Catholics around the world, in many different cultures– to celebrate their beloved, favorite Feast Days– which only come, once a year! NEVER A “BURDEN,” jon!! I bet many Catholics were so disappointed, when priests made the announcements, at Masses– that there would only be regular weekday Masses– and no special Feast Day, for this year! It is a wonderful thing, to look forward to special Masses, Novenas, (with some hopefully-answered prayers too!); religious processions, special music and foods, for love and devotion, to Our Lady!
So, did the Wordy One (jon the pious) attend Mass or practice any special devotion on Aug. 22nd, the Queenship of the Bl. Virgin/feast of the Immaculate Heart, or is he just verbosely lauding himself, as usual (the latter being one cult of adoration to which he fully devotes himself usually)?
That’s a good idea.
A better idea, in my book, is to make daily mass more convenient for those of us who can’t get to Mass at the crack of dawn but sincerely miss regular observance of all the Church calendar and of course, the Blessed Sacrament.
Actually a very good point: too many Mass schedules are not at times working people can attend (noon; 530pm).
Old St Mary’s in SF on California St. has a weekday 1205pm Mass. St Dominic’s has a 530pm weekday Mass.
[St. Ignatius at US has a weekday 1205pm “mass”, but I refuse to set foot in that church after they installed a mehrab (Muslim prayer niche, orienting one toward Mecca) in place of one of consecrated side altars, back in 2013. It is still there, “an unholy thing in the Holy place.”]
THX B 2 GOD!!!
Yes, but are they being trained to offer the TLM as well, Pope Benedict had wanted this to happen, priests offering the Novus Ordo and True Mass of All Times side by side??
side by side? How does that work?
Is the NO the False Mass of all times?
The 93 number should be clarified—they are not all for LA arch, as the article implies, but as it says later on, it includes other “client dioceses”(wording from St. John’s own website), which include but are not limited to: Fresno, Orange, San Bernardino, Monterey, other dioceses, and at least two orders, all who send their personnel to St. John’s for the 4 years theological education and the 5th year pre-ordination pastoral training year.
It is a sign of the hard work that Abp. Gomez has put into it that there is now enough trust in his leadership to get a slender but steady stream of vocations, after the Mahony decades: but remember, 7 or 8 priests annually ordained is the “new normal”, after the regular 10-15…
..or more..old-timer will tell you, many more in those years; and there were 1.6 million Catholics in 1966 in LA; now the arch alone has 11.2 million. (One. other diocese was split off: Orange after 1965)
correction LA arch has over 4.2 million Catholics, total population is over 11 million.
Hello! I would kindly like you to retread the article where it says, “…Right now, by the grace of God we have 93 seminarians preparing to be priests in Los Angeles. There are 67 at St. John’s, 25 at Juan Diego House and one studying at the Hispanic Seminary of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City. In total at St. John’s there are 114 men from Los Angeles and 11 other dioceses and two religious communities…”
Therefore, I would like to clarify your comment by reaffirming that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles currently has 93 seminarians. 67 of them are in Theology at Saint Johns Seminary. Saint John’s currently has a total of 114 men but 47 of them do not belong to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. 25 of them are in Philosophy at Juan…
Archbishop Jose Gomez is working wonders in Los Angeles. We have a great shepherd. St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo is a beautiful, serene place on top of a hill. The Church made a great investment in this infrastructure. Blessings to all the seminarians joining this noble vocation.
Gratias, The seminarians deserve proper formation. Examples teach more than words. The example in the video is not an example of “working wonders.” In reality, it is a great scandal. A “great shepherd” does not confuse the sheep by encouraging or promoting same sex unions. I didn’t know that you supported same sex unions and homosexual adoption too. Please explain the You Tube video link. What teaching message does this give to the new seminarians?
Gay couple and their son help present gifts at the altar to Archbishop Jose Gomez
https://youtu.be/3R70C2a2G8M
St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo, California, has suffered from a tragic series of immoral and criminal cases, such as pedophilia, and related evils, in the past, after Vatican II. I hope this has all been cleaned up! Very, very SCARY!!
This news would be most encouraging…except for what we know about St. John’s Seminary and the type of priests that it has produced over the years. Poorly formed and lukewarm at best….effeminate pushers of the homo-heresy at worst. May God bless these men and protect them from losing their souls at St. John’s….as my brother did.
“May God bless these men and protect them from losing their souls at St. John’s….as my brother did.”
I am so very sorry to read about your brother. May God bless you Thunder Dan, for your very truthful words.
Thunder Dan— I am so sorry for your poor brother! A long time ago, I read the tragic book, “Good-Bye, Good Men,” by Michael Rose, which tells the sordid details of past evils of post-Conciliar corruption in our Church, including in our seminaries such as St. John’s, in Camarillo. Very sad! Hope this seminary has been cleansed of its past evils! And I hope God can help your brother with his religious faith!
May they learn to be Wise and Holy Men, and also learn to defy the types of ‘anonymous’ (Paid?) Homosex Trolls that trash this board on such a regular basis.
There is much to hope for – but hope for the good without a watchful eye for the bad is how the Ephebophile Abuse scandal was allowed to harm so many Adolescent Boys.
If Christ himself came back to teach at St. John’s Seminary there are those on this site that would parse every word and find fault with something… This is a great opportunity for all of us to thank God that there are so many that are preparing for the priesthood. The scandals of the past are in the past. Today is for today. Most of us, myself included, do not even know the names of the classes/courses that a Seminarian must take over a seven year period, or the formation process to become a candidate for priesthood. Yet, we state how horrible the education must be. This is good opportunity to say “Thank you God”.
Bob One, the corruptions of the past are very serious crimes! That is why people get upset! Hopefully, the past corruption has now been amended, and St. John’s has been cleansed! If I were sending a son there, to study for the priesthood, I would be concerned, too! By the way— the course of study for seminarians is eight years, not seven!
Insanity prevails. You can thank the devil for that! He is currently winning and gaining ground; but will lose in the end!
There should be a homosexual screening process in all the seminaries. NO homosexuals should be allowed within the walls of the seminary. It would be better that if 91 of them were homosexuals, that only 2 heterosexuals remain to nurture holiness and celibacy. The seminary is the grounds for forming holy hearts, souls, minds, and bodies that will care for our souls tomorrow. For forming a love for the Blessed Trinity and Holy Family with a desire never ever to offend them. For forming saints in these later days of our times.
No, jon, the enemy is not “disobedience and dissent.” The enemy are the heresies of Vatican II, and the subsequent enabling liturgy and other practices which make a home for these heresies. The heresy is the elephant in the living room. These 93 men are being taught these heresies as a matter of “formation”, however, God can restore His Church if He chooses to. It may not come before a major chastisement. But some of these 93 men know better. They are going through the system and they are forced to read Karl Rahner and other heretics the modern Church calls “the transcendent Thomists,” but they know better and they will actually read Saint Thomas and figure out that Rahner and company did not “transcend” at all, but rather deformed…
I think there was a request from “jon” to evidence his well-known hostility against traditional Catholics. I usually don’t respond to this person, but at least one occasion (there are many), is where he accused Anne Malley and the SSPX of “just being in it for the money”:
“…[T]he sedevacantist/SSPX lot desire that their numbers swell, they need to always be throwing shade at lawful (meaning those with legal standing in the Church which does not include our beloved SSPX) bishops and the Pope. Only when people feel animosity for them can the SSPX numbers rise. It’s all about chapel attendance, AMalley, it’s all about money and survival. Pitiful really.”
(cf. “Tim Kaine Gets a Standing Ovation”, July 27, 2016)
I will stand behind my contention that the motive behind the dissent by many folks here is inspired by your beloved SSPX, as an attempt to draw folks into their illegal chapels (yes folks, the Church has its own “illegals” and folks in the Vatican have been trying to figure how to give them amnesty. It’s hilarious).
As proof, I direct you to a report from Church Militant last September which says: “It’s an indisputable fact confirmed to us by multiple sources that the SSPX has a habit of setting up shop in a diocese — without the permission of the local bishop — and then poaching the faithful away from diocesan-approved Traditional Latin Mass communities, taking souls away along with their financial support. Such acts can only…
“cause antagonism and ambivalence, hardly endearing them to the local bishop. Such actions can only hinder any authentic reunification with Rome.”
I wouldn’t put it past your beloved SSPX to have injected their own “cells” into the commentariat of this here blog.
Point well-noted, George (=jon-the-prelate’s evident hostility against trad Catholics).
Really, jon knows the SSPX are motivated merely for $$? P. Francis and Abp. Pozzo don’t think so. And then, if so, what is jon’s motivation? Must be $$.
He has some agenda, may be working semi-officially for some “religious” organization (re. his effort to suppress discourse: a common theme in many diocese orgs), and he has a lot of time on his hands, just to monitor Cal-Catholic.
But like you, responses to jon the prelate are futile: he’ll deny objective fact or even have the chutzpah to try to re-define words to exculpate himself. Utter nonsense.
WRONG. Check my comment above proving that my allegation is well-founded.