I've been busy over the last few months which derailed spiritual routine. I hate when that happens because I find myself sailing solo way, way out before I put my engines on full throttle to get back to intimacy with Christ and His Angels and Saints.
I've been itching to find time to listen to Fr Ripperger. This one on negativity came across my Facebook feed and I listened to it this morning as I was doing chores.
I listen to his conferences over and over. I'll be in the middle of something and remember something pertinent he said, find the video and listen to his wisdom. He is one of the people who keep me anchored in deep waters.
I was thinking this morning about how intellectually and spiritually bankrupt the catechesis is in the Novus Ordo world. I'm lucky to have found a solid Novus Ordo parish that is going beyond the drivel, but I have friends, solid Catholics, who take the position it's all the same, so they glue themselves to a pew where the priests are invested in keeping people from examination of conscience and the absolution of their sins. Places that give you no tools for advancement in the spiritual life.
I do not get it. Do they think they have reached the pinnacle and have no need for any more knowledge or virtue? Because to me, it seems like they do not thirst. They go about their business and don't even recognize they are their own rudder. They don't have the awareness to even know what they are missing.
There is no way that a Mass with priest disinterested in the state of souls in attendance gives the same Grace. Yes, the same amount of Grace is in the Properties of Divinity. But we, with our imperfections and limitations need the engagement of the intellect to get the fullness of Its benefits and put Them into practice as the source for right judgment. And every day of every week, something new crosses the radar that we need help with outside of ourselves.
It is not possible for Grace to flow into ourselves and families and community in the same amount when we don't have the catechesis. You can't give what you don't have--so our production into our family and world is on slow drip. That is some of the cause of the catastrophic intensity of diabolical disorientation now at play.
I do take exception to one thing he said in this talk, though its possible he was saying the same thing and just not expounding upon it. When speaking about Pope Francis, he mentions that we only need to pay attention to it to the extent it affects our ability to govern our children and family and it will work itself out. This is true, but I would love to hear him talk on this subject alone. From my perspective, many priests are underestimating this phenomenon.
When the Church was careless with priest sexual predator, we had some control over exposure and damage to our own family. Most culprits were simply homosexuals looking for a booty call, missing the booty call, or had some other form of attachment to homosexual lust that was manifesting itself in what they were saying and teaching in the parish. It was impossible to know the extent of what the attachment was, but when we hear and see it, we are off like bride's pajamas.The exact same thing holds true now, Fr. Martin being the current public poster boy of this vice. When this manifests itself in a parish, we can pick up our family and go elsewhere. Now that the pope has elevated feeding this poison from the Chair of Peter, we 1) lose control on the ability to keep it out of the family; and 2) the Holy Father has completely undermined the credibility of Church teaching and changed the reference point from Truth to the tingle in the pants and the direction of concupiscience. This is impossible to overcome.
So we cannot govern our family at all until it's silenced. He has placed the devil as the source to listen to, and just like the situation with the pedophiles, we don't just leave the management of it to the Church because justice demands we do something to stop the rapes. And if we find out a priest is a sexual predator, we do it every time. So every time the pope opens his mouth, or appoints someone and gives them the agenda and talking points, we have to be right there. If the frequency is daily, the onus for that is on the Holy Father.
I would love to know his thoughts!
5 comments:
You sound like a spiritually aware person. I agree with your commentary here. But I am perplexed as to why you are using such incorrect terminology in one particular instance.
You call it "pedophilia", when the sexual abuse of boys and young men by priests is nothing of the kind, and this is understood now. It is properly called "pederasty", the sexual abuse of young boys or young men by adult males. This is not, most certainly not, pedophilia. Pederasty has a long history with homosexuals, and is part and parcel of the gay community, which is why you will never hear an individual or group condemn it. Condemn what they most enjoy? Never.
Our church is filled to the brim with homosexuals, right up to the top, now elevated to the loftiest positions. They are sodomites who enjoy corrupting boys and young men. They are men who put corrupt hands on vulnerable boys to corrupt THEM, and they relish this. They then turn around later that morning and preach a homily and propose to distribute Holy Communion to Mass attendees. With those same hands.
The John Jay Study, the reputable study commissioned by the church itself to study the sexual abuse scandal, revealed that 81% of the victims of priests were MALES, post-adolescent males specifically, between the ages of about 11 to 16 years of age. That is not pedophilia, that is homosexual predation on boys and young men.
These boys will suffer a lifetime of confusion, many turning to homosexuality in their confusion, and we have to assume some will go on to abuse boys and young men in the same pattern, and how many will go to Hell, only God knows.
We are "encouraged" to use the term "pedophile", because it enables homosexuals to continue their sexual abuse of boys and young men, while being protected by the polite term which excuses them of any responsibility for this diabolical behavior, which has ruined the lives of so many boys and men. It is a terrible thing to be sexually corrupted too young. It is a heinous thing for it to be a sexual corruption by someone of the same sex. It is satanic for a boy to be sexually corrupted by a male priest, who represents GOD to that boy.
Please, let's use the correct term, so that we, are not only accurate, but also do not help to provide politically correct cover for these scourges on the Body of Christ, and our Catholic Church. We owe these boys and men at least that.
God bless.
TTCOctober 22, 2017 at 3:40 PM
Completely agree. You are spot on. I meant to convey that apart from pedophiles, most of the problems stemmed from priests who had some attachment to homosexual lust--i.e., had a homosexual adult lover or were celibate but self-loathing that celibacy because they wanted a lover, and sexually active homosexuals who used children/ young men who were post puberty because they were easier to manipulate into silence and they got an extra boot out of robbing them of their virginity--real sickos--and the majority doing the most damage are actually celibate. I'll re-read my post, thank you for letting me know I didn't get that point across correctly.
You're not receiving as much Grace at the protestant/freemason Norvus Ordo Mass either. Find a Latin Mass parish.
Not at all, thank you for your patient response.
Vocabulary is manipulated in our day. It's like the word gender, which almost everybody has accepted as a replacement for the word sex. We play into their hands when we allow such a substitution. The word pedophile is used in place of homosexual predator, which lets them off the hook and is politically correct. That way no homosexuals are offended. But they need to be held accountable. They really aren't pedophiles.
I'm sorry that you have been to some NO Masses in which there was abuse and Protestantizing. But don't think all NO Masses are being abused. You may only have witnessed these in the churches you've attended. Please don't group all NO Masses as unorthodox as you cannot fully judge without having attended every Mass in every diocese with every priest. I have been going to almost-daily Mass for over 50 years and I can tell you flat out that I have been to extremely holy and reverent NO Masses since Vatican II was pronounced. The sacrament is just as valid in either (which hopefully we can concede upon). I also think it is way over the line to call ANY Mass “Protestant/Freemason”. You may not like the NO Mass, but you should never talk that disrespefully about the place where God transcends into the bread and wine during concentration. You also must remember that the grace offered objectively through the sacrament (whether NO or TLM) does not always benefit us subjectively (ex opere operantis). How much we benefit from the Mass has much to do with our dispositions. This can apply towards attending any holy Mass (again, NO or TLM). While the Eucharist is certainly a very important part of the Mass, we must not confuse our reception of the Eucharist with the Mass itself, as they are not the same. And, we ought not to get too worked up about liturgical matters because, after all, we are still receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus into our souls, and that is ultimately the most important. (I know it can be hard to sit though a Mass that is not as you wish it could be, but, maybe this could be an opportunity of suffering for the poor souls in Purgatory?) We must be careful not to become so exclusive in our ideas of what "holy" is or in the idea that "my Mass is better than yours," for Jesus would not like that kind of attitude. Unfortunately, I have also been to TLM where the people who attend think of themselves as a separate type of Catholic; like a church within a church. They were so mean-spirited and so hyper-critical that I could not go back. Do I group all Latin Masses said as being like this? NO! Because there will always be different groups of people with different Masses. I think the worst outcome of VII is that it made the Catholic Church so political. Prior to its inauguration there was only one type of Catholic, now we have neo-conservatives, liberals, nu-church, sedevacantists, traddies etc. Before we had only the schismatics who had left the Church. But, now we see groups of priests who defy the Hierarchies & Popes elected. Many latch on to TLM as a means of driving home their divisive mandates & emphasis that none outside their clique is Catholic; that they are the ones holding on to the True Faith & the rest of us will be lost. I guess what my real point to this reply is that, naturally, not all Masses are going to be the same. But we cannot be the person who decides what is or isn't "holy" and "reverent." Only God can decide what He considers acceptable. The Biblical Jewish religion slaughtered animals in homage to God. It was considered holy and pleasing to the Lord. Do we do that now? No, the rubrics and rules are different. But God still finds it pleasing to Him. I could go on with this comment, but seeing as it is so long, I will draw it to a close. Although I agree that things have changed since the institution of Vatican II, I will disagree in saying what you considering to be holy and reverent is not what everyone feels. There are different ways of worship -- all of which are pleasing to God the Father if done with the right intentions of giving honor and glory to Him. We cannot be the ultimate authority or judge on what is "right and just." I pray you find a holy Mass that helps you grow spiritually -- because that is the main goal: To grow in holiness and virtue. It's just that everyone's path to that is different. God bless you on this earthly journey.
Post a Comment