The second Thursday of October meant Bishop Patrick J. McGrath’s annual “State of the Church” Address before those gathered at the Catholic Professionals monthly breakfast meeting at Three Flames Restaurant in San Jose.
Before an attentive crowd, the Bishop outlined some of the events that have happened in the Diocese of San Jose (DSJ) since he last spoke to the group in September 2016.
Here are two of them:
- The Diocese ordained two priests last June – Father Khoa Vu and Father Gabriel Lee.
- And DSJ moved its seven seminarians from Saint Patrick’s University and Seminary in Menlo Park to University of Saint Mary of the Lake in Mundelein, Ill. The Bishop said the move to Mundelein, as the seminary is known, was 18 months in the making.
“They are dedicated to the principles of the Second Vatican II,” he said. “And those of course are the principles of the Diocese of San Jose as well. They are off to a good training of our priests.”
Full story at The Valley Catholic.
Sounds as if St. Patrick’s must be too Catholic for ’em. A good sign…about St. Patric’s.
I think St. Patrick’s is having accreditation problems. The Sulpician order left last year.
https://cal-catholic.com/dispute-over-seminary-leadership-led-to-orders-departure/
Don’t you have any more up to date information?
Meaning the continued destruction of Catholic identity in the name of tolerance and diversity.
If Bishop McGrath is dedicated to the principles of the Second Vatican Council, I truly wish he would state what he thinks those principles are.
I’m sure he’s sending them there to learn Latin and Gregorian chant (which the V II documents say has pride of place). /sarc
Also does Card. Cupich a favor (by sending 7 seminarians and their tuition). Bp. McGrath wants to curry favor with the right people in the US Church.
Archbp. Cordileone? Eh.
I speak from first-hand experience: the state of the Church in the Diocese of San Jose is abysmal, heretical, phony, left-wing and worsening.
Another case of having to pray for the Bishops of the Church!!
St. Patrick’s is the real deal in tradition especially with Father Schultze at the helm. PRAISE BE TO GOD!!!
This is an excellent decision by the good Bishop! CCD readers may recall St Patrick’s went through a period of tumult in recent years. Mundelin has a strong and excellent preparation program for priests. Bishop Robert Barron was the president at Mundelin for many years and put a very strong program in place.
And much of it was supposedly reversed when Barron went to LA. It is no secret among priests that as diocesan seminaries get more orthodox, progressive bishops have to send their guys farther afield to the few remaining ’80s-style seminaries. I was told Mundalein has seminarians from 40 dioceses, proving my point.
San Jose only has 7 major seminarians? I have never heard of a large urban diocese having so few seminarians. No wonder they import so many priests.
Good question, Fr. Michael. Too few U.S. young men going into the priesthood. What are we to do about it? What can be done to make the priesthood an attractive vocation? What do other denominations do to attract ministers and pastors that we might emulate? I haven’t seen a credible survey on the subject, but I’m going to guess that most of the myths are just that, myths. Altar boys only? What percent of Priests were altar boys? What are the college majors of most seminarians? Where do most grow up, what is their age, etc.? If we have no data, were just one more person with an opinion.
We keep our schools open at all costs even If the doicese must support
And most of the seminarians, thank God for ’em, are from Korean, Vietnamese or other countries. Or we would have none.
A good portion of Californian Catholics practice contraception and some even have abortions. Less children, less priests. Add to that those who do not have a problem with sodomy, whether heterosexually or homosexually. That is how Europe has destroyed itself. It is destroying our Social Security system also as it takes about three young workers to support one person on S.S. Wake up guys!
The question iis WHAT ARE THE PRINCIPLES OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUINCIL ?
i thought that was odd, too.
Agree Fr Michael. By their fruits (of the DSJ) you will know them. This is just another example of the implosion going on today in the V2 Church. The frightening forecast for V2 members in the future is the difficulty of finding a V2 minister to come to their spiritual needs on their death beds. On the contrary, those Roman Catholic parishes holding fast to Roman Catholic tradition are growing in numbers and of Holy Roman Catholic Priests , Sisters, and Brothers. Pray the Rosary to find God’s Holy Will for you. God bless you on your journey home.
Are you kidding? “V2 Members”?? What’s that? The great majority of Catholics worldwide? This spirit of division being fostered by dissenters is demonic. The Devil loves division and loves to foster it.
God’s Holy Will is not to join the sedevacantists but to stay in His One True Church.
Do you know that there are over 400 schismatic Catholic denominations?
One of those “principles of the Second Vatican Council” is ecumenism that, I believe, was condemned by Pope Leo XIII.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to it as the Second Vatican Anti-Council.
Do not blame the present St. Patrick’s Seminary for the “tumults” of the past. Something had to give. It is now under the direct oversight of the archdiocese, not an outside priestly order. Bishop McGrath’s move toward a more “Vatican II” seminary education (read that as “Spirit of Vatican II”) only highlights the good solid orthodox position in which St. Patrick’s Seminary is heading. Vatican II never advocated some of the stuff that the nebulous “Spirit of” embraces.
The seminarians from the neighboring diocese may have been shipped to Chicago but there are others coming in from dioceses (further away than Chicago) who want their men to be well formed as Cathoic priests.
The Spirit of Vatican II supporters are…
…supporters are very worried. They tend to squawk like a herd of disrupted geese, muttering ad hominem attacks against individuals. They are only outing themselves as to their progressive goals.
I dare say, I don’t think you’ve even read any of the documents of V2 in its entirety on your own. It is my contention, having debated a number of folks in this here blog, that first-hand knowledge of any of the documents of the Council among the habitués of this same blog is NIL!
State of the Church in the Diocese of San Jose? Click below: Catholic school students are making voodoo worry dolls to give to patients.
This semester, their first project was to create worry dolls that will be given to patients and their families at the Lucille Packard Children’s Hospital in Palo Alto. Each folk doll will have a note attached with the Mayan legend explaining that the worry doll, when placed under the pillow of someone who is unable to sleep, will carry his or her burden of worry.
https://tvc.dsj.org/2017/10/23/saint-frances-cabrini-students-show-compassion-through-art/
It seems like the other parts of the project are ok.
Catholic school children making talismans should not be going on.
That really is serious.
I would contact the teacher first.
It’s obviously a well meaning person who does not understand what they are doing.
Best alternative practice: give your worries to God or Mary.
Thanks for making this known.
What the…?
I know the pastor there. He is an orthodox and conscientious priest. Time to give a call and let him know something got by him.
How does it end up the diocesan paper without anybody going “What’s wrong with this picture?”
Ever wonder why there is such a strong SSPX or independent traditional Catholic chapel presence in the Diocese of San Jose? Or, for example, previously Spokane, where Cupich was? Or Los Angeles, where Mahony was for decades? Or how people are being driven to the CMRI chapel or other independent Latin chapels in San Diego, now thanks to McElroy?
You can’t be serious, if you don’t know the answer.
Why don’t they go to valid Latin Masses? We are supposed to pray for fortitude and for the bishop.
But you make a good point. Everything that a bishop does matters.
I was reading Cardinal Cupich’s reflection on All Souls Day. Everything was fine until he mentioned how he explained Purgatory to teenagers who wanted to explain it to their friends. Then it got really confusing.
https://www.chicagocatholic.com/cardinal-blase-j.-cupich/-/article/2017/10/11/preparing-for-the-day-we-pray-for-the-dead
What a dope. Let’s see, the “principles” of VII, hmmm: equating homosexual sex with man-woman married sex, in fact, seeing homosexual “couples” as normal, at all (such as letting their perversion touch even the adoption of children); ignoring the scandal caused by providing sacraments to practicing homosexuals and to abortion enabler-politicians; ignoring contraception, fornication, divorced/remarried/no annulment receipt of communion; continuing to make the Mass a mockery; all that stuff.
Look B. McGrath, pretty soon your NewChurch will be empty, with Catholics crowded into Traditional parishes. Fool.
Right. So SChris, quote for us the relevant document and citation from any of the documents of Vatican II that promotes “equating homosexual sex with man-woman married sex, in fact, seeing homosexual “couples” as normal, at all (such as letting their perversion touch even the adoption of children); ignoring the scandal caused by providing sacraments to practicing homosexuals and to abortion enabler-politicians; ignoring contraception, fornication, divorced/remarried/no annulment receipt of communion; continuing to make the Mass a mockery; all that stuff.”
Like many of the folks here, you really must admit that you haven’t even read any of the documents from the Council, in its entirety, on your own. This harping of V2 sounds so…
That’s a classic straw man argument (“quote for us..from Vatican II”): DSJ completely contradicts Vatican II all the time.
St Christopher was stating the facts of doctrinal “drift” in DSJ, a diocese that Fr. Jon Pedigo once proudly declaimed was “the most-gay-friendly diocese in the nation:”
https://www.metroactive.com/metro/11.18.09/cover-0946.html
In fact, at St Francis Cabrini parish gay”married” couples openly present themselves at parish events. At St Clare’s Parish, one of the parish council members is proudly out and proud and states he is married to a guy on their website (oh: they took that page down, but I printed it out first, or jon would deny it existed). But everyone tee-hees about it in the parish…
Vatican II is an ecumenical council of the Holy Catholic Church. It did not equate homosexual sex with man-woman married sex. I cannot think of any of the documents of Vatican II that even mentioned homosexuality. There was nothing about communion for abortion enabling-politicians either. If these are the kinds of lies that are taught by “Traditional parishes,” run, don’t walk.
You missed the point, hopefully in good faith:
Diocese of SJ often uses the “Spirit of Vatican II” rhetoric as a subterfuge to completely contradict V2—esp. Gaudium et Spes, #47-52 on Catholic marriage and the traditional family.
If Anonymous2 is presenting articles 47-52 of Gaudium et spes as proof of something amiss about Vatican II, then he/she has failed miserably. There is NOTHING deficient about this passage. In fact, article 47 sets out to prove CLEARLY what the Catholic doctrine is: “Therefore, by presenting certain key points of Church doctrine in A CLEARER LIGHT, this sacred synod wishes to offer guidance and support to those Christians and other men who are trying to preserve the holiness and to foster the natural dignity of the married state and its superlative value.”
Those who wish to discredit Vatican II by pointing out how certain people misuse it –like SChris or his defenders like A2–are sounding disingenuous OR they have to do a better…
job articulating their position.
“jon” missed the point entirely—hopefully in good faith.
V2’s Gaudium et Spes 47-52 promotes traditional Catholic marriage and the family as we previously always knew it to be.
The Diocese of San Jose is gravely deficient in defending marriage between a man and a woman and the traditional Catholic family. The circiterism “The Spirit of Vatican II” permits DSJ to apply generous “new interpretations”, applicable to two men, or two women, as several situations noted above at several San Jose parishes, pretending to be ‘married,’ and obtaining open approval. Fr. Jon Pedigo, whom jon likely knows very well, very well, has called the DSJ “the most gay-friendly diocese in the nation.” That is a complete…
..contradiction to GS 47-52.
I think a group of wonderful traditional Catholics in the San Jose diocese should all band together and send a letter to the Papal Nuncio in Washington D.C.
I would but am not in that diocese. We have to speak up, no sitting on hands!!
After all, he is the Holy Father’s rep here in the United States.
And while you’re add it …..read what they are doing at St. Francis Cabrini school in San Jose, oh my goodness!
Let the Papal Nuncio know about that too.
The V2 Council was the beginning of a new protestant reformation much like the now V2 honored and revered Martin Luther excommunicated Catholic Priest. Likewise the liberal clergy driving the V2 Council and its 50 year evolution and aftermath are probably defacto excommunicated. The fruits of V2 are clearly destruction of millions of souls lost, religious exodus, devoid sacraments, seminaries, convents, schools, and hospitals closed.
“jon,” your debating skills are limited. Nothing said about VII documents, but the “principles” so often quoted by miscreant bishops like McGrath to implement their anti-Catholic agendas. There are many problems with VII documents, most notably their ambiguities; all of this is widely discussed, including by Benedict XVI and others.
But, the Vatican cares little for this, as Francis merrily goes along seeming to waive the eligibility of people to receive the sacraments. He and his minions simply do not care for the way that Catholicism has been developed and practiced for some 2000 years. His NewChurch will fail.
Right. So go right ahead SChris and quote for us an ambiguous passage or passages from any of the documents from Vatican II that is often “misquoted by miscreant bishops like McGrath” and please show us how the same passages is problematic. In a debate a person making a claim–(that’s you in this case)–is obliged to PROVE HIS point when called upon.
jon never proves his point. The original criticisms were that McGrath said the diocese supports the principles of VII. There are no such things. There are documents and teachings. Appealing to “principles” instead of documents or teachings is a sneaky way of trying to push things that aren’t supported by Tradition nor by VII. It’s the old appeal to the “spirit” of VII, but with a term that sounds like it’s more grounded. In fact, since there are no “principles” of VII, an appeal to such has no meaning, which entails that it can be used to support anything no matter how stupid or opposed to the faith.
But since the term “principles of Vatican II” has no real meaning, you are interpreting it to mean something that you are afraid it means. You don’t really know what it means. I don’t know what it means. Only the Bishop can really say what he meant by it.
“jon,” you don’t want to debate me. To answer your silly straw man — take a look at many, many of the blog/articles/books written on the issues of Vatican II ambiguity; even you can find them: https://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/79-history/370-ambiguity-and-vatican-ii.html; and “Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II,” by Michael Davies (TAN Books, 1990). Many, many others exist.
In fact, ambiguity was sought after in drafting much of the Vatican II pastoral canon. And, for things not said, barely Catholic bishops like McGrath simply make it up “in the spirit of Vatican II.” Don’t be a dope.
Thank you for naming your sources.
Obviously they have influenced you.
I learned a long time ago to stick to official Church sources.
Just because someone thinks something, does not mean it is true.
I bet if you asked McGrath to explain or summarize the DOCUMENTS of VII he would stumble and stammer and fall back on hackneyed generalizations. Ultimately he would probably appeal to things like openness, diversity, inclusion, equality and so forth. In other words, McGrath and his diocese are committed to left-wing ideology, not to VII. That’s what he means when he uses the code phrase “principles of VII”; it is a dog whistle that his is a liberal diocese. San Jose is the most homosexual-friendly diocese in the country. Anyone who lives here knows it and has experienced it.
There’s hope. Here is a quote from something from Mundelein:
“Meanwhile, modernism, pretending to be dead, come back around again in the fancy new dress of post-modernism…we are deceived into voluntarily laying aside our best weapons of logic and evidence, thereby ensuring unawares modernism’s triumph over us. If we adopt this suicidal course of action, the consequences for the Church in the next generation will be catastrophic. Christianity will be reduced to just another voice in a cacophony of competing voices…” (Chicago Studies Spring 17)
How do you guys find these weird websites?
It’s just a blog by a lay Catholic who read a book.
He does not know anything about Vatican II. He probably wasn’t even alive.
Not to dis his research (research has its place) but …
Vatican II was an ecumenical Council of the Holy Catholic Church just like the Council of Trent.
Its documents were promulgated by the Pope.
It doesn’t matter who disagreed with something before the council ended or even after.
They are Church Teaching.