I've often thought of writing a letter of warning to the local bishop, but since he's been infected by that poisonous worldly spirit that so blinds the mind it would be a futile act.  Since he was just recently installed here, he did a local news interview.  It was nothing but smiles and glee.  During the interview he stated that the diocese was in "great shape."  This was a display of a profound, impenetrable blindness to true spiritual good.  I would liken this blindness to that which befell the Jєωs at the first coming of Jesus Christ.  One cannot even begin to comprehend the irrationality of such blindness.  If I were to write a letter to such a man, it would simply be unintelligible.    

Caminus said:

"... This is a kind of spirit that changes "St. John's Catholic Church" into "St. John's Catholic Church and Community Center" thereby reorienting religion itself without ever affirming even one heretical proposition.

What you're describing is actually the Church under Benedict XV-Pius XI-Pius XII, assuming NFP is not a heresy.  That is when a sort of "socialistic" Catholicism began to take root, with a distinct anti-reactionary, pro-democratic tenor.  In some places, namely America, the Church was already even ecuмenical ( but it has almost always been that way here, as the American Church was the precursor to Vatican II ).  

Vatican II expanded on that and taught heresies: that other religions are the means of salvation, that the Church only subsists in the Catholic Church, that humans have the natural right to religious freedom.  More heresies were taught later.

Vatican II expanded on that and taught heresies: that other religions are the means of salvation, that the Church only subsists in the Catholic Church, that humans have the natural right to religious freedom.  More heresies were taught later.

Vatican II was a lot more subtle on the first point; it said that elements of the (Catholic) Church exist in other religions, elements that can be salvific.  So, for instance, it's actually true that false religions can have valid baptism, which can be salvific (e.g., in the case of a child of Protestants who's baptized and dies before reaching the age of reason).  According to V2, these "elements" properly belong to the Church.  That "elements" terminology sounds very gnostic and was lifted from the writings of Yves Congar.

As for the subsistence ecclesiology and religious liberty, those are the natural consequences of EENS-denial.  EENS-denial is THE FUNDAMENTAL V2 heresy--something to which Traditional Catholics have become completely "blinded".

 :rolleyes:

Caminus,

You are right on as usual. It is the frog in pot analogy. It's so overused because it is true. Things that are accepted today in NO Churches would have horrified these SAME people 50 years ago. Their Catholic sensibility was weakened bit by bit until female dancers carrying incense at the Mahony fest is either accepted or at the least disliked but accepted. This process of erosion only goes in one direction. It is sad.

I've seen older Catholics who grew up Pre-VCII and who are socially and morally conservative slowly accept ridiculous multiculturalism such as members of some Indian tribe leading the way of the cross with the lead Indian ( sporting pony tail) putting his twist on the way of the cross. Their reaction? Well, I don't have anything wrong with Indians do you? I suppose it is ok if they say it.

They have been trained by fear to not question anything if a minority group is involved. It has been treated as a sacrilege and equated to burning crosses in our culture for 40 years and counting. Thus these scoundrels introduce all sorts of ridiculous novelty preying on the good nature and charity of Catholics to give them cover.

Today's Catholic has lost a critical thinking. WHY exactly are Indian tribes being asked to say the way of the cross? Why not the priest? Why not the traditional readings? Why do they need to be altered to reflect the "experiences" of different cultures?

These liberals are demonic in their subtle brainwash. After all, they will exclaim, how dare you question these oppressed peoples? You are a racist and un-Catholic. All the while they damn well know that the underhanded goal of it all is to reinforce white guilt, push the idea of novelty as progressive and good, imply the traditional way of the cross is flawed and intolerant, and inject the idea that race has a place everywhere and we should see through a racial prism.

And this isn't even getting to the horrendous Masses, group penance services, lib conferences, etc.

Getting back to the original article, it is much needed in our day and age.

The most critical flaw in the Pre-VCII Church was the near idolization of the Pope and clergy. At the time it seemed benign and was even mistaken for merely a strong reverential respect and loyalty that was admirable. The error was diguised because the Popes and a vast majority of the clergy of the time were orthodox and at times heroic.

Then came the liberal/ modernist infestation of the clergy. This misguided idolization of them was then used against the faithful to SILENCE them as all sorts of error and sacrilege took place.

So today we have Bishop and Cardinal and Priest wolves in sheeps' clothing and we have a lot of Neo-Caths quietly and privately disapproving, but scrupulously believing it would be a sin to call out the actions of these clergy for what they are. A perfect trick of the devil.

We have priests and Bishops desecrating their offices yet the only sin is if a Catholic actually speaks out against them. It is then the lay Catholic who is supposedly "descrating" the office by pointing out the Emporer has no clothes!

Obviously we are not talking about rash judgment of interior disposition as the article points out. But some would go so far as to ban any legitimate and just criticism of the most heinous sacrilege and poison because the purveyor of poison is wearing a collar.

Silence in this case is not a sign of a healthy respect for the clergy but of cowardice and neglect of duty.

In the military, do you honor the rank of a general if you keep silent as he abuses his authority? The proposition is ridiculous when used in any other context. These snakes use " respect for priests " in order to do their dirty work and silence us out of fear in the process. It really is dispicable. One wonders how concerned they are for the dignity of the priesthood as they daily work to destroy the very same priesthood by their actions.