“Participants in the World Youth Day 2011 Cultural Program must be recognized and endorsed by the bishops and episcopal conferences of their respective countries,” read a July 25 statement from the event’s organizers."
There had been “some confusion” about Voris’ affiliation with World Youth Day, organizers said, further noting that “Real Catholic TV” and Michael Voris’ catechetical session “No Bull in Madrid” have not received endorsements from the group’s local bishop—Archbishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit—or the U.S. bishops’ conference.
Aaaah. Now I get it.Every World Youth Day, there is some group of promiscuous people who pass out condoms. That must be part of approve World Youth Day programming.
I guess too, we can assume everything written in the National Catholic Reporter has received their endorsements?
Who do they think they're kidding?
This isn't about catechesis.
This is what Bishops do to people who expose their misfeasance, malfeasance and abuse.
They are “not in any way recognized or approved” by the official event. The Pontifical Council for the Laity selects and invites only bishops from around the world to conduct catechesis sessions at World Youth Day, the statement explained.
That's right. Bishops like Cardinal O'Malley who signed an abortion contract who was so ignorant of Catholic teaching, he had to call in Catholic bioethics experts to advise him as to whether he can hire people to kill other people and give them rides to their executions - that is who conducts Catechesis.
A bishop who thinks a priest leading a ministry known for hooking up sex partners, filled with older promiscuous men reaching out to emotionally disturbed at risk children estranged from their families who are sexually confused, is a wonderful priest who has his support, THAT is what world youth day is looking for to lead catechesis.
Given the state of catechesis in Boston, one only has to imagine who is on the credentials committee.
34 comments:
From http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/world-youth-day-organizers-say-michael-voris-catechesis-not-approved/
Voris questioned why the announcement about his event had been made.
“We never said we were part of the official World Youth Day. I guess I’m puzzled as to why the announcement was issued,” he said in a July 25 interview with CNA.
He described himself as “a Catholic in good standing” with a theology degree from the Angelicum in Rome.
“Nothing that we have ever said has been challenged with regard to Church teaching,” he said.
From http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/world-youth-day-organizers-say-michael-voris-catechesis-not-approved/ (continued)
“I understand that some people don’t like the style,” Voris said, observing that this criticism can apply to any person.
“We’re just faithful Catholics who want to add to the voice of the Church and amplify the voice of the Church.”
Voris wondered if there was “something else at work,” since he has not seen any signs of confusion about his organization’s lack of affiliation with World Youth Day. The media producer added that he is willing to discuss his event with organizers.
The event in Madrid will address “hot-button topics” related to sex, Voris explained.
He said the “No Bull in Madrid” event is being held during World Youth Day because that is where there are large numbers of Catholic youth who are affected by today's over-sexed culture. Two late evening sessions will be held August 17 and 19 at the Melia Castilla Hotel and Convention Center.
He reported that a priest helping Real Catholic TV had contacted World Youth Day organizers several months ago to see how they could sign up to be a participant. The inquiry never advanced to the stage of seeking episcopal approval because there was no space for new groups.
Asked about his organization’s relationship to his local bishop, Archbishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit, Voris said he does not know what the relationship is because he has not been able to meet with him.
Voris said he has personally made six attempts to schedule a meeting with him. So far he has been unable to meet with the archbishop, which he blamed on interference from archdiocesan "bureaucracy."
Who wants to make a bet that Voris gets threatened with excommunication? They have to shut him up and what better way to do so.
Veronica
Well they can't accuse him of being a pedolfile & transfer him!
I thought that announcement was just plain weird. It also gave Mark Shea another chance to castigate Voris.
...and as the catechesis in the Church? It's a joke. Our church does crafts with the younger kids (through 6th grade, and from 7th up they play games, eat junk food, and are generally entertained.
IMO World Youth Day is just another entertainment - and not a very good one.
On second thought, excommunication wouldn't work. What would they excommunicate him for? Holding to the pre-VII Faith?
What would work better is to smear him with some trumped up nonsense a la John Corapi and then employ the ever so useful bloggers, whom we will not name, to get everyone riled and armed for battle. Within a few weeks, he will be history.
Veronica
His Vortex commentary on the same:
http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV?feature=mhee#p/u/0/ySzRqDIJXgY
The Priest and the Ministry of the Word
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
"...I share with you, the single deepest lesson I learned. The laity need priests who teach them God's truth and nothing but the truth. Sadly they are not always getting that truth. ***The miracle I think that it's a miracle of grace that our laity have by and large remained so faithful to the Church. In spite of the sometimes atrocious nonsense they are being taught in religious education programs in lectures, in the sermons, in the conferences they hear. In the columns in diocesan papers they read, behind all of which stands this anguishing need which can be met in the Church only by the priests. They must know the truth. Otherwise in God's Church who else will know it?
We might ask is there some single and simple formula for the priest to identify what is Catholic Truth and what though perhaps though very learned is either untrue or dubiously true or only someone's fervid speculation? Yes, ***the acid test more than ever today is whether what is written or said conforms to or is in contradiction to the teaching of the Vicar of Christ. Those who agree with him are teaching the truth and they should be listened to. Everyone else, I repeat everyone else is to be ignored
In the years to come the Faith which Christ came into the world to give the world will remain intact, and the Church He founded will be strong, where and to the extent that priests have been aware of their responsibility as spokesmen for Christ in the modern world. All other elements of the Church, and there are many, are useful or even necessary. But in the last analysis, or from another viewpoint, in the first instance ***the Church stands or falls in any place or among any people on one condition that the truth of Christ's revelation is being proclaimed. And the first divinely appointed proclaimer's of this truth are priests.
The Church's future is in their hands or better is on their lips. And with Saint Paul, they should say “Woe to us if we do not proclaim the Gospel, the Full Gospel of Jesus Christ".
Mark Shea really hits Voris hard, he says people who watch Voris' videos are 'Talk Radio Listeners'
...
Sean O'Malley has many more pictures up of his travels and lunches.
Jasper
Yes, with Mark Shea being the citadel of erudition.
"Mark Shea really hits Voris hard, he says people who watch Voris' videos are 'Talk Radio Listeners'"
Oh? Like the kind that listen to Catholic Answers Live and hang onto every word he and his cronies (the "Great Apologists") say and write?
Veronica
Will somebody please tell me why
Shea is criticizing Voris as hard as he is? I don't agree with everything Voris says (such as his take on "Amazing Grace"). But this is ridiculous.
BTW, what's wrong w/talk radio? What's wrong w/people giving their opinions? Has Shea never heard of the First Amendment? Or is he one of those clericalists who thinks that the bishops' response is the ultimate last word?
"Mark Shea being the citadel of erudition."
Mark Shea's citadel of erudition is a portable toilet.
Word verification: hydri.
I'm not making this up.
Voris apparently shows all the ex-protestants at EWTN and the unfaithful at the USSCB where Catechesis might be wanting. They don't like it. The tide is turning.
"The tide is turning."
Oh, Maria! Pray that it is so!
Veronica
"Will somebody please tell me why
Shea is criticizing Voris as hard as he is?"
Because Voris isn't one of the "boys" and dares to think different. Shea and his ilk have to speak the party line else they won't eat.
Veronica
for those who wonder about the collaboration of bishops, who unite to condemn faithful catholics, know this they certainly close ranks. The Canadian bishops I understand sent a letter to many parishes that Voris is not to be welcomed in Canada. Now who is it that lacks charity? They cannot deny Him, Voris that is, because of two very salient points not mentioned . They are all the Popes since Vatican 2 have reiterated the teachings of the Church have not changed and the vat2 document on the participation of the laity. Since Voris always quotes the Catechism how can he be wrong. Is not Shea now orthodox and his comments must be seen in that context. They have so many of them an almost ignorant hatred for Catholic Dogma
Three hearts:
But, the homosexual agenda has free rein at America Magazine. Certain sins that reserved the wrath of God? Now those sins comprise "theology" at America Magazine and Jesuit schools. They have "forums" about their sins and call these sins "theology".
As we know, the agenda finds its home on the altar of God at St. Cecelia's. I was at Blessed Sacrament Church in Chevy Chase Maryland a couple of weeks ago. An Indian priest berated the faithful, from the altar of God, for not being more accepting of homosexuality. And we are all hate mongers. One would truly have to be spiritually dead, dumb and blind not to understand just how deeply the enemy has infiltrated our Church in the last forty years. Yet, the USCCB would have us believe that it is Michael Voris who has lost his way. Can anyone, honestly , remember the last time a priest gave us the unvarnished Truth in a homily? Well, I can't. Maybe I am the only one. I go to Masses and listen to homiletic drivel about Joan Chittister and Nouwen and Teddy Kennedy. But, Michael Voris, he is WAY out of line. Who does he think he is trying to confuse people w/ the Truth. I'll stop now.
:)
Anon 5:40
How very sad! Had the Indian priest stood there and started promoting the Catechism of the Council of Trent, he'd be a goner for sure.
Henri Nouwen? My pastor loves him and has recommended reading his books to me. I will say no more.
Veronica
I have hesited weighing in on this - but, here goes:
I believe I mentioned on another thread that I went to see Mr. Voris at a weekend retreat at Mother of the Redeemer Farm in Bloomington, Indiana a couple of weekends ago.
He is a very smart, funny, humble and ingratiating man. Most there (not all were there for Mr. Voris, there was an ordination taking place that Sunday) were impressed with his knowledge of the goings on in Mother Church today - as well as his knowledge of the faith in general.
Do you want to know why the USCCB and Canadian bishops dislike him?
Because he described "Spirit of Vatican II" bishops like the dissenting Archbishop Rembert Weakland (an advocate of homosexual acts who feels that the Church needs to "change her teachings" on this immoral evil - and even wrote this in a book) former archbishop of Milaukee - and is titled as "Archbishop Emeritus" for that diocese - as part of the "rot" negatively affecting the Church the last 40+ years.
Then, he went on to describe bishops like Cardinal Burke and Archbishop Chaput as "loyal sons" of the Church - who promote authentic Catholicism unabashedly (and with all charity, I might add) - who are a part of the "New Springtime of evangelization" that Blessed Pope John Paul II spoke of.
These latter two bishops mentioned are vilified and berated as not supporting Vatican II by the likes of supposedly "Catholic" publications like NCReporter, America, Commonweal and U.S. "Catholic."
In other words, Mr. Voris calls 'em as he sees 'em as to the goings on in Mother Church and this bothers many underlings of the episcopacy - as well as many *in* the episcopacy.
Why does he do this? Good grief, we must, must, must understand that the vast majority of pew-sitting Catholics have no idea of the "rot" that is in the Church! (keep in mind, folks, the Jesus Himself - along with Sts. Peter, John and Paul - said that there will be "false propehts" among us (see Mt. 7:15-20).
So, when he sheds the light on these things (in the spirit of St. Paul, no less, [see Eph. 5:10-11, and 1 Tim. 5:20]) this bothers those who have been charged to save souls and teach the faith - but *have no desire to do so*!
I have never heard Mr. Voris say one thing contrary to what Holy Mother Church teaches......not one.
You may not like his approach - and we can all have our own opinions about that - but, as far as I can tell, you cannot fault him for his content.
[rant over, sorry for the length, Carol]
Catechist Kevin
Beautifully said Kevin.
Ephesians 5:10-11
New International Version (NIV)
10 and find out what pleases the Lord. 11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.
1 Tim. 5:20
Them that sin reprove before all: that the rest also may have fear.
How would they ever get promoted if they proclaimed the truth, lol?
Thank you, Kevin!
Isn't that what I said in a lot less words?
Veronica
"Because Voris isn't one of the 'boys' and dares to think different. Shea and his ilk have to speak the party line else they won't eat."
Veronica
Anon of 7/29 at 5:40, would you please tell me at comments@restore-dc-catholicism.com the details of that episode at Blessed Sacrament (date, time of Mass)? There is a new pastor there now, one whom I know to be solid. We might be able to correct that problem, if Father Potts hasn't already done so. Thanks.
CONTINUED
THE GREAT BAPTISM OF DESIRE HOAX : FROM THE MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY, CATHOLIC ANSWERS,USCCB,PONTIFICAL UNIVERSITIES AND SEMINARIES TO NUMEROUS OTHERS TODAY
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/great-baptism-of-desire-hoax-from-most.html#links
USCCB CLARIFICATION IN HERESY?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/05/usccb-clarification-in-heresy.html#links
USCCB CONTINUES TO MOCK CATHOLIC FAITH WHILE CDF COMMENT IS AWAITED : FEENEYISM IS THE OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE MAGISTERIUM
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/08/usccb-continues-to-mock-catholic-faith.html#links
VENERABLE POPE PIUS XII SAID ALL NON CATHOLICS NEED TO ENTER THE CHURCH WITH NO EXCEPTION TO AVOID HELL
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/venerable-pope-pius-xii-said-all-non.html
Thursday, July 28, 2011
WHAT I BELIEVE AS A CATHOLIC AND WHICH IS THE OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BEFORE AND AFTER VATICAN COUNCIL II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-i-believe-as-catholic-and-which-is.html#links
-Lionel Andrades
E-mail:lionelandrades10@gmail.com
Thanks for posting the true faith of No Salvation outside the Church, Lionel.
Only one caution: "Most Holy Family Monastery" is a sedevacantist group. They are not subject to the Holy Father, whom they have judged to be a heretic, and will thereby be lost, according to the very doctrines they purport to uphold.
SEDEVACANTISTS REJECT COUNCIL OF TRENT BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND ASSUME IT IS NOT HYPOTHETICAL
Council of Trent does not say if the Baptism of Desire is de facto or de jure known to us.
First they wrote off the baptism of desire of Trent, then they assume it is real and not hypothetical for us, and then, anyone who affirms the baptism of desire is called a heretic.
For centuries the Church knew that the baptism of desire was not known to us in particular cases it was accepted in principle only. It could only be accepted in principle; it was not repeatable like the baptism of water. We could not administer the baptism of desire and so it did not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. (Cantate Domino, Council of Trent 1441).
The Most Holy Family Monastery, New York sedevacantists for whom a defacto-known- to- us- in- the- present- times- baptism of desire is central to their media apostolate, accuse Catholics of being in heresy since they affirm the baptism of desire. The sedevacantists conclude this must contradict the dogma Cantate Domino.
It is true to reject an ex cathedra dogma is a mortal sin and there are Catholics who have rejected the dogma Cantate Domino, extra ecclesiam nulla salus either through ignorance or misinformation or fear of persecution. So the Dimond brothers are correct on this aspect of the truth.
However when one affirms the baptism of desire, it is not a rejection of Cantate Domino, since the baptism of desire is always a concept for us. It is hypothetical. It can only be de facto for God. We do not know a single case in the present times or in the past. No one says there were four baptism of desire cases in Rome last month, or three in New York last year.
Since we do not know of a single case how can it contradict the dogma which says everyone must be an explicit member of the Catholic Church for salvation?
CONTINUED
continued
The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance cases are implicit and so we do not know any such person saved implicitly.
The Council of Trent mentions the baptism of desire but does not claim that it is defacto, explicitly known to us as the MHFM would imply, infer and then assume.
So Peter and Michael Dimond reject the Council of Trent on the baptism of desire while all over their website they are emphasizing Catholic Tradition. They then assume the baptism of desire is explicitly known to us and then conclude that there are so many Catholics who are in heresy.
1) The MHFM do not make the explicit-implicit, defacto-dejure, distinction.
2) They assume Vatican Council II on the issue of extra ecclesiam nulla salus contradicts Cantate Domino since for them invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) is de facto and not in the de jure category.
This was the error made by Cardinal Richard Cushing, Archbishop of Boston along with the Jesuits there. It was picked up by the secular media and supported by dissenters. The sedevacantists have also, perhaps, unknowingly, made the same false assumption. They are using the false propaganda.
The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has not been retracted by the Vatican. There is no Church document which makes this claim.
Since the baptism of desire is not de facto known to us there is no text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Cantate Domino.
Fr.Leonard Feeney held the same position as Cantate Domino so how could be excommunicated for heresy as the secular propaganda continues.
Since there is no baptism of desire that we know of Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct in saying there is no baptism of desire (that we know of).
The problem still exists of Catholics denying Cantate Domino by claiming that Vatican Council II or the Fr.Leonard Feeney Case has changed this teaching.When done intentionally this is a sin.
There are others who interpret the Catechism as a break from Tradition and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. When done intentionally it is a rejection of the dogma and heresy.
A Catholic who has been informed many times and still rejects Cantate Domino on his website or on a public forum is in public mortal sin. A person in public mortal sin is not to receive the Eucharist until he has received absolution at the Confessional and removed the public scandal.
One cannot for example promote abortion or have an abortion because of financial or other worldly interests. One cannot commit a mortal sin, e.g deny an ex cathedra dogma, to protect ones life style, job, reputation or other worldly interests.
According to Veritatis Splendor a mortal sin is a mortal sin and the external act indicates the internal intention. This is very different from some of the misinterpretations of mortal sin based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
According to Canon Law a priest in mortal sin is not to offer Mass in that condition. Similarly a lay man in public mortal sin should not commit a sacrilege.
-Lionel Andrades
COUNCIL OF TRENT DOES NOT SAY IF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS DEFACTO OR DE JURE KNOWN TO US
The Council of Trent mentions the baptism of desire but does not say if it is de facto or de jure known to us. Just about everyone, from the Most Holy Family Monastery to the Urbaniana, Angelicum, Gregorian and other Pontifical Universities in Rome assume, its is de facto known to us in the present times.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Canon IV-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."-Council of Trent
American sedevacantists imply the Baptism of desire is de facto known to us in the present times.
Those who believe in this latter idea (that baptism of desire can apply to Jews or Muslims, etc.) would have to immediately abandon it upon seeing any of the infallible definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation. If not, they are definitely heretics who have been automatically excommunicated from the Church. One could not reasonably believe that members of non-Catholic religions being saved is compatible with Outside the Church There is No Salvation.- page 167, The Dogma that there is No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and without the Catholic Faith and refuting baptism of desire from the website of the Most Holy Family Monastery,NY
-Lionel Andrades
E-mail:lionelandrades10@gmail.com
WILL GERRY MATATICS LEAVE SEDEVACANTISM ?
Gerry Matatics has communicated to us that he is in full agreement on sedevacantism and the salvation dogma. That is to say, Gerry holds the sedevacantist position and also agrees that is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that the Catholic Faith and the Sacrament of Baptism are absolutely necessary for salvation with no exceptions for “baptism of desire”- from the website of the Most Holy Family Monastery.
I Lionel Andrades wish to communicate to all that I too am ‘in full agreement with the salvation dogma’. I agree to the ‘infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that Catholic Faith and the Sacrament of Baptism are absolutely necessary for salvation’, and there are no ‘ exceptions for ’ a de facto, known to us in the present times, “baptism of desire”.
However I am a member of the Catholic Church,faithful to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor popes and I am not a sedevacantist
In 2005 apologist Gerry Matatics , Founder and President, Biblical Foundations International did not know there was an alternative.
Now I am saying that the baptism of desire in its very nature is not an exception to the dogma, since it cannot be defacto known to us ever ; we do not know anyone on earth saved with the baptism of desire ,invincible ignorance etc.
De facto every adult with no exception needs to enter the Catholic Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
De jure in principle, as a possibility known only to God, a non Catholic can be saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance in the manner God wants.We do not know any de facto cases. So it does not contradict the dogma Cantate Domino.
Peter and Michael Dimond call people heretics: for the MHFM baptism of desire is de facto knowable and contradicts Cantate Domino
Commonsense says the baptism of desire in its nature is always known only in principle, de jure, so how can it contradict Pope John Paul II, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and numerous others charged as heretics and apostates ?
Peter and Michael Dimond, sedevacantists of the Most Holy Family Monastery, NY are calling people heretics on their website. Since they believe that the baptism of desire is de facto and known personally and so contradicts Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, the ex cathedra dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The baptism of desire is not like the baptism of water which is real, de facto, tangible, visible and repeatable. Everybody needs it for salvation and there are no exceptions. The baptism of desire is not an exception, to everybody needing the baptism of water. Since the baptism of desire is known only to God .It is not de facto and real for us.
The baptism of desire does not contradict the dogma as the MHFM state in their book on this subject and in comments all over their website.
Those who believe in this latter idea (that baptism of desire can apply to Jews or Muslims, etc.) would have to immediately abandon it upon seeing any of the infallible definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation. If not, they are definitely heretics who have been automatically excommunicated from the Church. One could not reasonably believe that members of non-Catholic religions being saved is compatible with Outside the Church There is No Salvation.- page 167, The Dogma that there is No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and without the Catholic Faith and refuting baptism of desire
They have been informed. These posts have been sent to them. If they persist would it not be calumny and scandal? A mortal sin?
SEDEVACANTISTS SLIP ON BOD UNDERSTANDING AND CRITICIZE POPE JOHN PAUL II
It’s a common error on the website of Peter and Michael Dimond. They assume that the Baptism of desire is de facto known to us in the present times. They make this error and criticize the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX). Here they assume that Pope John Paul II was wrong.
Pope John Paul II was correct there are those saved explicitly and others implicitly through Jesus and the Church.
Subject: Hi-EWTN exposed?
Hi,
Who are you ? How can you say all of these things about the church and the Pope and EWTN? It is all so shocking? Why are you saying these things?
Judy
MHFM: … Here’s just one heresy from … John Paul II. This statement denies defined Catholic dogma. Again, this is just one of many:
John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (#10), Dec. 7, 1990: “The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, dogmatic Athanasian Creed, 1439: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity… But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence ,dogmatic Athanasian Creed is saying that everyone with no exception needs to be an explicit member of the Church to go to Heaven.
Pope John Paul too is saying that the ‘universality of salvation is granted to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church’. This is the same message as the Council of Florence.
Those saved explicitly refer to de facto cases that we can know of. Those saved implicitly refer to de jure cases that we can only accept in principle and can only know as a concept.
Since one is de facto and the other de jure it does not contradict the Principle on Non Contradiction.
So there is no contradiction between the statements of Pope John Paul II and Pope Eugene IV.
Post a Comment