Putting my prediction on record now: +Strickland's dismissal will be announced within 90 days of Monday June 26th, while at the same time +Stika will still retain his position in Knoxville.
Meanwhile, everybody who watched the Arecibo affair with +Frenandez unfold: "oh hey cool - we got a sequel!"
Update June 27th: I have once again been proven wrong (that part's typically not surprising, at least)
No, no, when +Strickland is sacked it will have nothing to do whatsoever with his strident tweets nor with his protests against the heroic and virtuous charity organization known as the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (of whom I have little doubt some or all of our beloved cardinals feel more kinship with than with their confrere in Tyler, TX). No, no, heavens no. You see, when +Strickland is sacked, it's because he's a poor bookkeeper. Right. That's the ticket. Nothing to see here. Move along.
well, according to this one priest that's the "primary" reason. I think it's about time something was done in response to his stupid tweets including his rejection of the "program" of Francis (which is simply the Gospel), as well as more generally his alignment with reactionary extremism in the USA.
I didn't mention synodality, and neither did Strickland in the tweet I referenced. I am speaking more broadly about the vision and theology of Francis, which is in every aspect informed by the Gospel. as for your description of synodality, it is not representative of reality. real synodality, walking together in prayer and listening to each other and to the Holy Spirit, is indeed based on the Gospel and the Scriptures.
of course not! synodality is absolutely key to the vision of Francis. where I disagree is about what synodality is and whether it is being done effectively in the current synod.
you are badly mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. the early Christians effectively engaged in rudimentary, voluntary communism. they held everything in common and gave to each according to his or her need. some of those in the community who kept private property were killed by God. as for synods, it is absurd to think that you can follow what a synod says without first doing a synod.
Friend, you have no idea what scriptures I do or do not know, but seeing how you misrepresent the story of Ananias and Sapphira I wonder who is badly mistaken here.
But one thing that I do know is that “Synodality” is nothing that the Orthodox nor the Syro-Malabar nor the early church would recognize. We’re not doing a synod, it’s a total crock. I reject it utterly, Francis or no Francis.
I wonder why would we venture to call it "rudimentary, voluntary communism" when we could use even more words and call it "a rudimentary Catholic Worker movement" or use fewer words and call it "rudimentary monasticism" (these all sound equally silly to me, like debating whether it is correct to call a wolf a rudimentary large chihuahua; there is already a name for it, which is "a wolf", and we need not be self-congratulatory for having created dog pedigrees.)
The first seven Ecumenical Councils had those who disagreed with the decisions of those Councils. Yet they accomplished (without edicts from the bishop of Rome alone) proclaiming what is the orthodox Faith of the Church.
There were those who dissented and were truly heretics, some participants were confused by the linguistic differences amd.formula does in explaining the teaching proposed and received by most of the Church.
But it was these Councils that synodically, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit "nailed down" the essential truths of the Faith.
The pope did not impose these and in some cases was not asked to ratify the decisions of these Councils.
Unfortunately, the form of synodality at those Councils is not what is being touted as synodality today. They are two very different "creatures."
The decisions of those Sacred Synods were not based on broad consultations and opinions of every conceivable group or various individuals to set their teachings. It was the many bishops and other ecclesiastics that argued, discussed pulled beards and condemned each other who finally set down the truth.
Laity, and lower clergy "received" the teaching, some rejected them. The non Chalcedonian Churches and and some of the Syriac Churches are evidence of this.
Bottom line, it was the bishops of those Councils (not some broad consultations of everyone in creation) that proclaimed and annunciated the orthodox Faith.
The synodality of the seven Ecumenical Councils of the mainly undivided Church have very little in common with the SoS today.
your comment is mostly correct. when I said synodality was practiced early, I was referring to the New Testament, though of course later examples are also forms of synodality. the Jerusalem council for example seemingly had some "lay participation" (though as yet there were not clear lines between laity and clergy), believers who attended and even spoke at the council. it certainly included the elders of the Church as well as the apostles. so yes, there is historical precedent even for ordinary believers to be consulted and to speak.
I am glad that you're still able to bury your head in the sand enough to think that synodality is anything other than a mess. I don't think the Holy Spirit will allow the church to actually fall into error, but that doesn't mean he won't allow a pointless synod that leads many souls astray, given that the synod is not an organ of the magisterium, nor of governance.
I think the Holy Spirit allows the Church to fall into error all the time, otherwise our history wouldn't be so full of course-correcting! change is always needed, as the Church travels through time towards the fullness of understanding. tradition is always treason, as Latin phonetics suggest.
What reality? Your version of reality that is divorced from the truth of the Gospel? That is not reality, that is smoke and mirrors of the father of lies.
Wow, the Holy Spirit allowing the Church to be swallowed by the Father of lies. Some Holy Spirit. Or do you confuse the Holy Spirit with the father of lies that seem to be the spirit animating the higher echelons of the Church
What an extraordinary statement. First, the quotation that you're presumably alluding to, "Traduttore, traditore" doesn't mean that traditions are treason (betrayal), but that translation (from one language to another) can't help but betray the original. Second, to claim that tradition is treason means throwing out, among other things, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Timothy 1: 13. I think you'd better reconsider your position here.
Of course synodality is "a mess," Veritatem Quaero. As you'll recall, Francis issued his "make a mess" directive at the outset of his papacy, thereby implicitly giving the Germans license to attack doctrine in the name of "reform" that was actually "DEform." They took him at his word and ran with it. Now they and other heretics (whom Francis promoted and continues to promote) have gone so far as to threaten his own authority. Until he himself repents of his prideful efforts to remake the Church in his own image & likeness--efforts that the Germans were more than willing to support when it suited their purposes--he is as at least as culpable as they are for the doctrinal errors they advocate.
I agree with you that he has allowed heresy to spread unchecked within the church. The guarantee of infallibility isn't that the pope will always do a good job of governing the church and rooting out heresy, it's that when he teaches definitively he won't fall into error. And Francis barely even teaches coherently, let alone definitively.
I disagree. I think he has been very clear in stating the truth but not at all effective in enforcing what he says. Unless he starts excommunicating people, some of whom he put into their positions, this mess is going to continue. I pray for him daily and I hope you do too.
You can have synodality or you can have the all-singing, all-dancing Roman papacy. The latter of which, contrary to popular belief, got a booster shot at Vatican II.
Roman synodality is indistinguishable from a Soviet party Congress, right down to the repeated assurances that the people have a voice. The guy at the top is all that matters.
You still have Roman synodality. Orchestrated by the papal court and going according to its dictates. Starting with who is invited and who is not, and who writes up the reports. Nothing has changed from the Latin synods of the 20th Century save populist window-dressing. They are never going to be allowed to challenge, let alone modify, papal power.
Pope Francis assures us that he is a man of the church,. Nevertheless, some of his actions and appointments seem to be questioning the Deposit of Faith. I think this is what Bishop Strickland is getting at.
our faith is in a person, Jesus of Nazareth, not a deposit. deposit makes it sound more like a bank account. but yes, the faith is not static or unable to develop and change, so I have no problem with Francis allowing people to question and think about these things.
The deposit of faith is what Jesus left us and entrusted to the church. Jesus is God, so he did not make a mistake in leaving out something in the deposit of faith. Through the church, we can develop our understanding of the deposit of faith, but it will not change. Jesus got it right.
it's not a question of "Jesus making a mistake". it's a question of the Church through time coming to a fuller understanding of Jesus.
"This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her."
I mean what I said. why do you have to come and butt into other peoples' conversations with about fifty comments at once? one would have been enough to reveal your utter lack of understanding. unfortunately, there is nothing of substance in any of your comments for me to reply to.
my issue is not that you're commenting, it's that you're simultaneously replying to almost every comment I have made to everyone else. try picking your battles maybe?
As time goes by, I find (by fits and starts, slowly giving up the habit of biting sarcasm myself) that I prefer an author's yes to mean yes and his no to mean no, rather than his yes to really mean no and his no to really mean yes.
I am not surprised. It has been coming for a long time. As the article said he has gone through financial officers and diocesan staff; clergy who serve in other parishes outside the Tyler diocese and the 2 Catholic schools in Tyler have gone through at least 4 principals each in the time I was a member of this diocese(10 years). I’ll concede he has quite a few seminarians, but not necessarily the money to fund all of them to go.
Why does Rome want to alienate observers of the Catholic faith and instead become solely a (mediocre) Non Governmental Organization? I thought that the Sin(od) on Sin(odality) was supposed to be focused on diversity and listening?
Just like we have a two-tiered system of justice in the United States, it now comes to the Catholic Church. If removing "two finance officers" is the threshold for triggering a "visitation", then no bishop is safe. If there were a financial scandal in his diocese, why hasn't it appeared in the news?
If Strickland is removed, then I could probably accept that his mismanagement merited it. HOWEVER...given the Stika case, among others, there will be a serious question of equity at work in, "What attracts negative Vatican attention and prompts the application of a severe penalty in the first case." The fact that liberal (or simply well-connected) priests and prelates are routinely let off the hook doesn't make conservative bishops innocent, but it does indicate that the Powers That Be in the Church are motivated by partisan concerns and factional advantage much more than they are by justice or evangelization.
Regardless of Vatican discomfort or displeasure or whatever, I love Bishop Strickland and I think The Pillar should like him more, too. Strickland is one of those indispensable corrective voices every organization needs. He encourages & invigorates the faithful to step up their spiritual & temporal practice, be fearless in speaking of God's revealed teaching when needed. I guess I see Strickland having a prophetic sort of role, a voice for a lot of us voiceless out here. It's beginning to trouble me as a Pillar subscriber to see you Pillar guys sliding into ever more careful nuanced phrasing. I guess you're staking a writing position firmly in some mushy middle between Strickland and McElroy/Cupich. Maybe I'm not understanding something.
I've always appreciated his willingness to just be honest and blunt about things. I remember back a few years ago at a USCCB annual conference where the bishops were debating whether or not to remove wording in an upcoming document that presented abortion as a "preeminent moral issue."
While other bishops made long-winded and carefully-crafted explanations of why it should have (or shouldn't have) been removed, +Strickland got handed the mic and simply said: "Listen, it really just needs to stay in." and then sits back down. No flowery pomp! You can actually find the clip still on Youtube.
It's so refreshing when someone cuts through the boloney of verbiage-heavy flowery diatribes and simply says in like 5 words what's actually on everyone's mind and what needs to be said.
Then-bishop McElroy spent a few minutes talking at length making a carefully-crafted case, to be immdiately followed by Bishop Strickland who's like "it needs to stay," and just leaves. The timing of it all is almost comedic.
I appreciate Bishop Strickland's forthrightness in response to +McElroy. It might have confused the debate, however (together with McElroy's intervention), since the bishops were not voting on whether to remove the description of abortion as the bishops' preeminent priority. They were voting on an amendment to include a full paragraph from Pope Francis describing other important concerns, instead of summarizing the paragraph. This was reiterated before the bishops voted, 143-69, to not include the full paragraph.
+Strickland made the confusion worse after the vote with this tweet: "Thank God the USCCB voted to uphold the preeminence of the Sanctity of the life of the unborn. It is sad that 69 voted no." +McElroy wanted the full paragraph and was opposed to preeminent, but other bishops likely wanted the full paragraph for completely different reasons. More fundamentally, it wasn't a vote on the preeminent language.
Forthrightness is good, but inflaming distrust among the faithful towards nearly 1/3 of the bishops is not.
Thank you very much for the reference back to the vote by the USCCB. I had not read it previously. It gives me a different perspective on that vote on the pastoral letter and the problem with subsequent tweets.
As a Pillar subscriber, I'm glad to see them "sliding into ever more careful nuanced phrasing." I read the Pillar to find out what is actually happening out there. Sometimes a certain person--a bishop or whatever--is exciting and inspiring, but also (say) corrupt. Seeing complex situations for what they are requires, yes, nuance.
It's not a question of finding a position "in the middle," whether mushy or otherwise. It's a question of stating what's true, as accurately as possible. Worrying about whether one's position is middle, right, left, up, down, or whatever just gets in the way of figuring out what's true.
And just to be clear, I'm not saying, or insinuating, that +Strickland is corrupt, or bad in any way. My point is only that there may be problems with his ministry that aren't easily seen from the outside--possibly even serious problems. We have to be open to the possibility that the truth is nuanced in this case. Here, as in many situations, we will do well to to reserve judgment and be patient.
This is a news report, aimed at an objective accounting of the facts. To my mind, it wouldn’t do for us to fill it with our personal feelings on the bishop, or anyone else. So I guess I’m not quite sure what you mean. Can you help me understand a little better?
A faithful Catholic doesn't attack the Pope. If one thinks he is doing something wrong-headed, like the synod on synodality, one prays for him rather than attacks him, however much one might be frustrated by what he is doing.
In my observation, Francis sticks his papal foot in his papal mouth quite frequently. He resembles Joe Biden in this fashion. Perhaps the Pope doesn't intend to cause confusion or alienate mostly faithful Catholics, but he certainly does, as this article and the comments attest, and irrespective of your personal allegiance to this pontiff.
I pray for Francis daily, but find my inspiration elsewhere.
Sue, his messages may not be conflicting but his actions are. Letting the German synodal way continue more or less unchecked, while issuing a motu proprio drastically limiting the use of the TLM is an example.
He has consistently told the Germans they can't do what they're doing. They have consistently ignored him. That's what I meant when I said he doesn't enforce what he says.
LOL! Of course he tries to say that to sound Catholic. But they are playing according to his playbook. That is the whole game. He pretends to tell them off but really he approves of what they are promoting because they are all in league together.
So let me get this. You are saying that the Pope is simply stupid not malicious. I suppose I can buy that were it not for all his rather malicious actions.
Let us assume a worst case scenario in which your fears are accurate. It's possible, after all.
In that case, a necessary and very urgent task lies before you, which is to become a great saint (whatever kind of saint God wants) in order to help save the Church. In His great humility and love, God wants your help in this vital task and we ought to take Him seriously.
The way to become a great saint is very simple. It is by wanting to.
Naturally all of us might raise a hand and say "I already want to become a saint, because the alternative is to go to hell, which would be a pretty dumb thing to want." Of course. But do you have a burning desire for holiness, like a consuming fire within you? The fastest way to acquire a great desire to become a saint is (this might seem like cheating, but it is really just playing by the rules of the game exactly as they have been stated) by asking for it. If you already perceive that you have a burning desire for God, it would do no harm to ask Him to give you a still greater desire for Him.
It may also be helpful to read the autobiography of a saint. If you find one that resonates with you, their desire will surreptitiously infect you with little or no effort, like a snotty little child who embraces her mother and then sneezes directly in her face (the mother does not have to try to catch the child's cold and it is not surprising to anyone when she does.) Depending on your taste you might prefer Confessions of St Augustine; Story of a Soul (St Therese); A Pilgrim's Journey (dictated by St Ignatius of Loyola); I will throw in The Living Flame of Love (not an autobiography in the technical sense but St John of the Cross would like to share his germs too.) Other people might have some other suggestions. It will only take one, though, if it is one that resonates with you.
After you have asked God for the desire to be made into a saint the only remaining thing is to try to cooperate with Him (He wants to do it and the only thing standing in the way is one's own not-wanting-to, as though a crew from a home renovation show is standing at our front doors waiting to be let in to demo the kitchen.)
He says one thing and does another. He attacks the faithful and gives a pass for the unfaithful. Just look at those he promotes and who he has around him. Someone said that with him personel is policy. The number of sexual abusers and miscreants that he has promoted says a lot. And a lot of teaching that one could not call Christian.
True. But they were never quite so promoted as when they were made to head the synods or given preference. Think Kasper, think Hollerich. And it goes beyond that. Fancy calling a woman who performed 30,000 abortions one of Italy's greats. Then resurrecting the tired and sick theologians at the Amazon Synod.
Their agenda is Francis's agenda because he is very much of the St Gallen Mafia.
He is pro everything that is antithetical to the Gospel.
Depends on what you mean by attack. Even canon law allows for questioning the pope. There is nothing that says you can't publicly disagree with the pope. The manner in which you do it matters a great deal however
Sorry, Sue, but the "Who am I to judge?" mentality he exhibits toward many who condemn foundational teachings of the Church is costing souls. And although I'm one of those Catholics he dismisses as "rigid," I pray for him daily. The salvation of my own soul depends upon it. Perhaps one day I'll be able to pray for him out of love instead of terror.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church 3 things are necessary to separate a person from God: it has to be seriously wrong, what the Church calls grave matter; the one who does it must know it is wrong, and trying to not find out when there's a Catechism you could quickly check to find out counts as knowing it's wrong, since otherwise one wouldn't be afraid to check; and one must freely will to do it. I don't always know if I'm freely doing something or not, and I certainly couldn't tell whether someone else is acting freely or out of some compulsion. Likewise, Pope Francis couldn't determine the state of the soul of the person he was asked to judge and honestly said so. That the press wrongly interpreted what he said shows they were either too lazy to read the Catechism when commenting on what the Pope thought or too stupid to understand what it says. I haven't paid any attention to them since.
It's hard not to pay attention when he keeps giving interviews to Scalfari then claims that Scalfari has misrepresented him but then does not give what exactly he said to Scalfari.
That's why I pay no attention to his interviews with Scalfari. I wouldn't expect anyone to remember exactly what he said and Scalfari works from memory so there's no reason to think any of what he writes is accurate. I couldn't remember what I said exactly either.
And that exactly goes to the heart of my point. You say that the Pope is clear but he is anything but.
Most of his statements are ambiguous and many are unorthodox. Then there is these interviews with Scalfari where the guy claims that the Pope said this and then some Popesplaner goes to say that Francis didn't say it but when asked what it is exactly he said they can't say. Basically the Popesplaner says no the Pope did not say that there is no such thing as hell and the baddies just get annihilated but when pressed as to what the Pope actually said, they can't say. Now he has granted quite a few interviews where Scalfari is supposed to have misrepresented what the Pope said yet he keeps giving him interviews knowing that Scalfari is going to say something that supposedly he did not say.
This is the forked tongue speaking. He aims to confuse. There is something malicious about that.
Many Catholics now suffer from some kind of cognitive dissonance. They know that they must respect the Pope but more and more it is getting hard so they try to find some kind of coping mechanism. It 's like children of abusive parents. You are supposed to love your parents but then they are the ones who are abusing you so try to make sense of this and make excuses but then in your gut you know they are bad but how can they be bad when they are your parents.
I would more likely characterize Bishop Strickland as a glory hound who uses his office to gain publicity for himself. I know plenty of orthodox Catholics who don't believe that every Democrat is going to hell (Strickland agreed wholeheartedly, in a tweet, with a rouge priest who stated just exactly that.
@Pillar, the article quotes one priest who then makes a claim of speaking for "us priests." If the priest wants to speak of his own concerns that is fine, but it is inadequate journalism to quote him as a representative and not interview other priests.
That's an interesting point, Adam. I don't think we perceive him as a representative of the whole presbyterate -- and, believe me, we tried to interview as many priests as we could. We'll certainly talk with more in the days to come, as we're able.
Exactly! He cracks down only on what he calls Traditionalist. He has a fierce hatred of them.
Putting my prediction on record now: +Strickland's dismissal will be announced within 90 days of Monday June 26th, while at the same time +Stika will still retain his position in Knoxville.
Meanwhile, everybody who watched the Arecibo affair with +Frenandez unfold: "oh hey cool - we got a sequel!"
Update June 27th: I have once again been proven wrong (that part's typically not surprising, at least)
No, no, when +Strickland is sacked it will have nothing to do whatsoever with his strident tweets nor with his protests against the heroic and virtuous charity organization known as the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (of whom I have little doubt some or all of our beloved cardinals feel more kinship with than with their confrere in Tyler, TX). No, no, heavens no. You see, when +Strickland is sacked, it's because he's a poor bookkeeper. Right. That's the ticket. Nothing to see here. Move along.
well, according to this one priest that's the "primary" reason. I think it's about time something was done in response to his stupid tweets including his rejection of the "program" of Francis (which is simply the Gospel), as well as more generally his alignment with reactionary extremism in the USA.
“Synodality” is not the gospel. The gospel says that Jesus is The Way, not a bunch of self-important lay people sitting around tables in Rome.
I didn't mention synodality, and neither did Strickland in the tweet I referenced. I am speaking more broadly about the vision and theology of Francis, which is in every aspect informed by the Gospel. as for your description of synodality, it is not representative of reality. real synodality, walking together in prayer and listening to each other and to the Holy Spirit, is indeed based on the Gospel and the Scriptures.
No, but Francis does, regularly. Do you think I am mistaken that Francis believes his “program” to be synodality?
of course not! synodality is absolutely key to the vision of Francis. where I disagree is about what synodality is and whether it is being done effectively in the current synod.
Synodality is going to be the new socialism. Whenever it fails it will be because “real Synodality hasn’t been tried yet.”
yes. fortunately socialism and synodality were both tried and were remarkably successful in the early Christian community.
Hmmm, not that anachronistic old cliche. The early Church was in no way socialist. And synod was something it followed, not something it did.
you are badly mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. the early Christians effectively engaged in rudimentary, voluntary communism. they held everything in common and gave to each according to his or her need. some of those in the community who kept private property were killed by God. as for synods, it is absurd to think that you can follow what a synod says without first doing a synod.
Friend, you have no idea what scriptures I do or do not know, but seeing how you misrepresent the story of Ananias and Sapphira I wonder who is badly mistaken here.
But one thing that I do know is that “Synodality” is nothing that the Orthodox nor the Syro-Malabar nor the early church would recognize. We’re not doing a synod, it’s a total crock. I reject it utterly, Francis or no Francis.
I wonder why would we venture to call it "rudimentary, voluntary communism" when we could use even more words and call it "a rudimentary Catholic Worker movement" or use fewer words and call it "rudimentary monasticism" (these all sound equally silly to me, like debating whether it is correct to call a wolf a rudimentary large chihuahua; there is already a name for it, which is "a wolf", and we need not be self-congratulatory for having created dog pedigrees.)
If they did engage in rudimentary communism, then they were not Christians
The first seven Ecumenical Councils had those who disagreed with the decisions of those Councils. Yet they accomplished (without edicts from the bishop of Rome alone) proclaiming what is the orthodox Faith of the Church.
There were those who dissented and were truly heretics, some participants were confused by the linguistic differences amd.formula does in explaining the teaching proposed and received by most of the Church.
But it was these Councils that synodically, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit "nailed down" the essential truths of the Faith.
The pope did not impose these and in some cases was not asked to ratify the decisions of these Councils.
Unfortunately, the form of synodality at those Councils is not what is being touted as synodality today. They are two very different "creatures."
The decisions of those Sacred Synods were not based on broad consultations and opinions of every conceivable group or various individuals to set their teachings. It was the many bishops and other ecclesiastics that argued, discussed pulled beards and condemned each other who finally set down the truth.
Laity, and lower clergy "received" the teaching, some rejected them. The non Chalcedonian Churches and and some of the Syriac Churches are evidence of this.
Bottom line, it was the bishops of those Councils (not some broad consultations of everyone in creation) that proclaimed and annunciated the orthodox Faith.
The synodality of the seven Ecumenical Councils of the mainly undivided Church have very little in common with the SoS today.
your comment is mostly correct. when I said synodality was practiced early, I was referring to the New Testament, though of course later examples are also forms of synodality. the Jerusalem council for example seemingly had some "lay participation" (though as yet there were not clear lines between laity and clergy), believers who attended and even spoke at the council. it certainly included the elders of the Church as well as the apostles. so yes, there is historical precedent even for ordinary believers to be consulted and to speak.
Utter nonsense. If socialism was tried in the early Christian community, there would not be a Christian community to speak of.
Yes, we know. That is how he is wrecking the church.
I am glad that you're still able to bury your head in the sand enough to think that synodality is anything other than a mess. I don't think the Holy Spirit will allow the church to actually fall into error, but that doesn't mean he won't allow a pointless synod that leads many souls astray, given that the synod is not an organ of the magisterium, nor of governance.
I think the Holy Spirit allows the Church to fall into error all the time, otherwise our history wouldn't be so full of course-correcting! change is always needed, as the Church travels through time towards the fullness of understanding. tradition is always treason, as Latin phonetics suggest.
You appear to be another confused modernist who has lost his way in the dense thicket of Francis-isms.
and you're another confused trad or conservative who is utterly disconnected from reality.
Touche
What reality? Your version of reality that is divorced from the truth of the Gospel? That is not reality, that is smoke and mirrors of the father of lies.
Then you don't have a Catholic understanding of the Church. I'll pray for you.
wrong. my understanding is perfectly Catholic, and yours is ahistorical.
Wow, the Holy Spirit allowing the Church to be swallowed by the Father of lies. Some Holy Spirit. Or do you confuse the Holy Spirit with the father of lies that seem to be the spirit animating the higher echelons of the Church
What an extraordinary statement. First, the quotation that you're presumably alluding to, "Traduttore, traditore" doesn't mean that traditions are treason (betrayal), but that translation (from one language to another) can't help but betray the original. Second, to claim that tradition is treason means throwing out, among other things, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Timothy 1: 13. I think you'd better reconsider your position here.
I'm not throwing out anything. maybe go read some David Bentley Hart or something
Of course synodality is "a mess," Veritatem Quaero. As you'll recall, Francis issued his "make a mess" directive at the outset of his papacy, thereby implicitly giving the Germans license to attack doctrine in the name of "reform" that was actually "DEform." They took him at his word and ran with it. Now they and other heretics (whom Francis promoted and continues to promote) have gone so far as to threaten his own authority. Until he himself repents of his prideful efforts to remake the Church in his own image & likeness--efforts that the Germans were more than willing to support when it suited their purposes--he is as at least as culpable as they are for the doctrinal errors they advocate.
I agree with you that he has allowed heresy to spread unchecked within the church. The guarantee of infallibility isn't that the pope will always do a good job of governing the church and rooting out heresy, it's that when he teaches definitively he won't fall into error. And Francis barely even teaches coherently, let alone definitively.
Its imposible to teach coherently if you can't think coherently except perhaps when thinking of coprophagia
I disagree. I think he has been very clear in stating the truth but not at all effective in enforcing what he says. Unless he starts excommunicating people, some of whom he put into their positions, this mess is going to continue. I pray for him daily and I hope you do too.
The truth? Does he even know what it is?
I pray for his conversion.
He has already allowed heresy to be inserted into the Catechism so it's pretty hard to tell.
You can have synodality or you can have the all-singing, all-dancing Roman papacy. The latter of which, contrary to popular belief, got a booster shot at Vatican II.
Roman synodality is indistinguishable from a Soviet party Congress, right down to the repeated assurances that the people have a voice. The guy at the top is all that matters.
I will have synodality. the absolute papacy is overrated, much as I like Francis.
I suppose corrupting the church by diocese is more effective than doing it centrally
You still have Roman synodality. Orchestrated by the papal court and going according to its dictates. Starting with who is invited and who is not, and who writes up the reports. Nothing has changed from the Latin synods of the 20th Century save populist window-dressing. They are never going to be allowed to challenge, let alone modify, papal power.
it took you five months to reply?
And another six on top of that.
I'm afraid you've given the game away, and confirmed suspicions.
good. I never intended to keep "the game" secret. I have no problem with your evil suspicions being confirmed.
Pope Francis assures us that he is a man of the church,. Nevertheless, some of his actions and appointments seem to be questioning the Deposit of Faith. I think this is what Bishop Strickland is getting at.
our faith is in a person, Jesus of Nazareth, not a deposit. deposit makes it sound more like a bank account. but yes, the faith is not static or unable to develop and change, so I have no problem with Francis allowing people to question and think about these things.
The deposit of faith is what Jesus left us and entrusted to the church. Jesus is God, so he did not make a mistake in leaving out something in the deposit of faith. Through the church, we can develop our understanding of the deposit of faith, but it will not change. Jesus got it right.
it's not a question of "Jesus making a mistake". it's a question of the Church through time coming to a fuller understanding of Jesus.
"This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her."
You mean because the Apostles never really understood Jesus and somehow you in the 20th century know better?
I mean what I said. why do you have to come and butt into other peoples' conversations with about fifty comments at once? one would have been enough to reveal your utter lack of understanding. unfortunately, there is nothing of substance in any of your comments for me to reply to.
You post in an open board and you ask why people respond?
Try somewhere where it echoes. That might be more your cup of tea.
As for understanding, that's not been much in evidence in your posts apart from trotting out the tired old 60s usual blah blah
my issue is not that you're commenting, it's that you're simultaneously replying to almost every comment I have made to everyone else. try picking your battles maybe?
No. Just finding what you write lacking in what you call "understanding"
Others make more sense so I simply like their post.
How else do you know about the Person of Jesus of Nazareth except for the deposit of faith?
Francis won't know the Gospel if it him.
As time goes by, I find (by fits and starts, slowly giving up the habit of biting sarcasm myself) that I prefer an author's yes to mean yes and his no to mean no, rather than his yes to really mean no and his no to really mean yes.
I am not surprised. It has been coming for a long time. As the article said he has gone through financial officers and diocesan staff; clergy who serve in other parishes outside the Tyler diocese and the 2 Catholic schools in Tyler have gone through at least 4 principals each in the time I was a member of this diocese(10 years). I’ll concede he has quite a few seminarians, but not necessarily the money to fund all of them to go.
My experience is that K-12 Catholics schools have high principal turnover. The high school principals tend to stick a little longer.
Why does Rome want to alienate observers of the Catholic faith and instead become solely a (mediocre) Non Governmental Organization? I thought that the Sin(od) on Sin(odality) was supposed to be focused on diversity and listening?
Just like we have a two-tiered system of justice in the United States, it now comes to the Catholic Church. If removing "two finance officers" is the threshold for triggering a "visitation", then no bishop is safe. If there were a financial scandal in his diocese, why hasn't it appeared in the news?
If Strickland is removed, then I could probably accept that his mismanagement merited it. HOWEVER...given the Stika case, among others, there will be a serious question of equity at work in, "What attracts negative Vatican attention and prompts the application of a severe penalty in the first case." The fact that liberal (or simply well-connected) priests and prelates are routinely let off the hook doesn't make conservative bishops innocent, but it does indicate that the Powers That Be in the Church are motivated by partisan concerns and factional advantage much more than they are by justice or evangelization.
Regardless of Vatican discomfort or displeasure or whatever, I love Bishop Strickland and I think The Pillar should like him more, too. Strickland is one of those indispensable corrective voices every organization needs. He encourages & invigorates the faithful to step up their spiritual & temporal practice, be fearless in speaking of God's revealed teaching when needed. I guess I see Strickland having a prophetic sort of role, a voice for a lot of us voiceless out here. It's beginning to trouble me as a Pillar subscriber to see you Pillar guys sliding into ever more careful nuanced phrasing. I guess you're staking a writing position firmly in some mushy middle between Strickland and McElroy/Cupich. Maybe I'm not understanding something.
I've always appreciated his willingness to just be honest and blunt about things. I remember back a few years ago at a USCCB annual conference where the bishops were debating whether or not to remove wording in an upcoming document that presented abortion as a "preeminent moral issue."
While other bishops made long-winded and carefully-crafted explanations of why it should have (or shouldn't have) been removed, +Strickland got handed the mic and simply said: "Listen, it really just needs to stay in." and then sits back down. No flowery pomp! You can actually find the clip still on Youtube.
It's so refreshing when someone cuts through the boloney of verbiage-heavy flowery diatribes and simply says in like 5 words what's actually on everyone's mind and what needs to be said.
Here's the video I was referring to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJpwAJAahHA&ab_channel=JohntheSonofThunder
Then-bishop McElroy spent a few minutes talking at length making a carefully-crafted case, to be immdiately followed by Bishop Strickland who's like "it needs to stay," and just leaves. The timing of it all is almost comedic.
I appreciate Bishop Strickland's forthrightness in response to +McElroy. It might have confused the debate, however (together with McElroy's intervention), since the bishops were not voting on whether to remove the description of abortion as the bishops' preeminent priority. They were voting on an amendment to include a full paragraph from Pope Francis describing other important concerns, instead of summarizing the paragraph. This was reiterated before the bishops voted, 143-69, to not include the full paragraph.
You can read more about the vote in this analysis by JD Flynn: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/amp/news/42825/analysis-the-usccb-abortion-debate-and-what-came-after
+Strickland made the confusion worse after the vote with this tweet: "Thank God the USCCB voted to uphold the preeminence of the Sanctity of the life of the unborn. It is sad that 69 voted no." +McElroy wanted the full paragraph and was opposed to preeminent, but other bishops likely wanted the full paragraph for completely different reasons. More fundamentally, it wasn't a vote on the preeminent language.
Forthrightness is good, but inflaming distrust among the faithful towards nearly 1/3 of the bishops is not.
Thank you very much for the reference back to the vote by the USCCB. I had not read it previously. It gives me a different perspective on that vote on the pastoral letter and the problem with subsequent tweets.
As a Pillar subscriber, I'm glad to see them "sliding into ever more careful nuanced phrasing." I read the Pillar to find out what is actually happening out there. Sometimes a certain person--a bishop or whatever--is exciting and inspiring, but also (say) corrupt. Seeing complex situations for what they are requires, yes, nuance.
It's not a question of finding a position "in the middle," whether mushy or otherwise. It's a question of stating what's true, as accurately as possible. Worrying about whether one's position is middle, right, left, up, down, or whatever just gets in the way of figuring out what's true.
And just to be clear, I'm not saying, or insinuating, that +Strickland is corrupt, or bad in any way. My point is only that there may be problems with his ministry that aren't easily seen from the outside--possibly even serious problems. We have to be open to the possibility that the truth is nuanced in this case. Here, as in many situations, we will do well to to reserve judgment and be patient.
This is a news report, aimed at an objective accounting of the facts. To my mind, it wouldn’t do for us to fill it with our personal feelings on the bishop, or anyone else. So I guess I’m not quite sure what you mean. Can you help me understand a little better?
Amen!
BP Strickland is truly a Warrior for Christ and His Church. Finding reasons to get rid of him is not the work of God.
A faithful Catholic doesn't attack the Pope. If one thinks he is doing something wrong-headed, like the synod on synodality, one prays for him rather than attacks him, however much one might be frustrated by what he is doing.
Hey Sue, perhaps legitimately questioning the deliberately confusing messages from Francis and praying for him are possible?
I don't think his messages are conflicting. I think the press misinterprets them and he doesn't enforce what he says.
I think he knows exactly what he’s doing. I’ve lived long enough to know when I see dishonesty.
In my observation, Francis sticks his papal foot in his papal mouth quite frequently. He resembles Joe Biden in this fashion. Perhaps the Pope doesn't intend to cause confusion or alienate mostly faithful Catholics, but he certainly does, as this article and the comments attest, and irrespective of your personal allegiance to this pontiff.
I pray for Francis daily, but find my inspiration elsewhere.
Sue, his messages may not be conflicting but his actions are. Letting the German synodal way continue more or less unchecked, while issuing a motu proprio drastically limiting the use of the TLM is an example.
He has consistently told the Germans they can't do what they're doing. They have consistently ignored him. That's what I meant when I said he doesn't enforce what he says.
LOL! Of course he tries to say that to sound Catholic. But they are playing according to his playbook. That is the whole game. He pretends to tell them off but really he approves of what they are promoting because they are all in league together.
I observe that you do not yet know and use Hanlon's Razor.
So let me get this. You are saying that the Pope is simply stupid not malicious. I suppose I can buy that were it not for all his rather malicious actions.
Let us assume a worst case scenario in which your fears are accurate. It's possible, after all.
In that case, a necessary and very urgent task lies before you, which is to become a great saint (whatever kind of saint God wants) in order to help save the Church. In His great humility and love, God wants your help in this vital task and we ought to take Him seriously.
The way to become a great saint is very simple. It is by wanting to.
Naturally all of us might raise a hand and say "I already want to become a saint, because the alternative is to go to hell, which would be a pretty dumb thing to want." Of course. But do you have a burning desire for holiness, like a consuming fire within you? The fastest way to acquire a great desire to become a saint is (this might seem like cheating, but it is really just playing by the rules of the game exactly as they have been stated) by asking for it. If you already perceive that you have a burning desire for God, it would do no harm to ask Him to give you a still greater desire for Him.
It may also be helpful to read the autobiography of a saint. If you find one that resonates with you, their desire will surreptitiously infect you with little or no effort, like a snotty little child who embraces her mother and then sneezes directly in her face (the mother does not have to try to catch the child's cold and it is not surprising to anyone when she does.) Depending on your taste you might prefer Confessions of St Augustine; Story of a Soul (St Therese); A Pilgrim's Journey (dictated by St Ignatius of Loyola); I will throw in The Living Flame of Love (not an autobiography in the technical sense but St John of the Cross would like to share his germs too.) Other people might have some other suggestions. It will only take one, though, if it is one that resonates with you.
After you have asked God for the desire to be made into a saint the only remaining thing is to try to cooperate with Him (He wants to do it and the only thing standing in the way is one's own not-wanting-to, as though a crew from a home renovation show is standing at our front doors waiting to be let in to demo the kitchen.)
"If you already perceive that you have a burning desire for God, it would do no harm to ask Him to give you a still greater desire for Him."
And what makes you think I don't that?
Is it mutually exclusive, this knowledge that the current Pope cuts Hanlon's Razor both ways and the desire for God?
I don't aspire to be a great saint. I simply desire to love God and ask for the grace to do that. It's quite simple really.
Now you may have a desire to be a great saint. Good for you.
"I simply desire to love God and ask for the grace to do that."
Then I am confident that you will become a great saint! Pray for me though please.
He says one thing and does another. He attacks the faithful and gives a pass for the unfaithful. Just look at those he promotes and who he has around him. Someone said that with him personel is policy. The number of sexual abusers and miscreants that he has promoted says a lot. And a lot of teaching that one could not call Christian.
I think most of the German bishops were appointed by his predecessors.
True. But they were never quite so promoted as when they were made to head the synods or given preference. Think Kasper, think Hollerich. And it goes beyond that. Fancy calling a woman who performed 30,000 abortions one of Italy's greats. Then resurrecting the tired and sick theologians at the Amazon Synod.
Their agenda is Francis's agenda because he is very much of the St Gallen Mafia.
He is pro everything that is antithetical to the Gospel.
Depends on what you mean by attack. Even canon law allows for questioning the pope. There is nothing that says you can't publicly disagree with the pope. The manner in which you do it matters a great deal however
Its a question of calling a spade a spade.
Sorry, Sue, but the "Who am I to judge?" mentality he exhibits toward many who condemn foundational teachings of the Church is costing souls. And although I'm one of those Catholics he dismisses as "rigid," I pray for him daily. The salvation of my own soul depends upon it. Perhaps one day I'll be able to pray for him out of love instead of terror.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church 3 things are necessary to separate a person from God: it has to be seriously wrong, what the Church calls grave matter; the one who does it must know it is wrong, and trying to not find out when there's a Catechism you could quickly check to find out counts as knowing it's wrong, since otherwise one wouldn't be afraid to check; and one must freely will to do it. I don't always know if I'm freely doing something or not, and I certainly couldn't tell whether someone else is acting freely or out of some compulsion. Likewise, Pope Francis couldn't determine the state of the soul of the person he was asked to judge and honestly said so. That the press wrongly interpreted what he said shows they were either too lazy to read the Catechism when commenting on what the Pope thought or too stupid to understand what it says. I haven't paid any attention to them since.
It's hard not to pay attention when he keeps giving interviews to Scalfari then claims that Scalfari has misrepresented him but then does not give what exactly he said to Scalfari.
That's why I pay no attention to his interviews with Scalfari. I wouldn't expect anyone to remember exactly what he said and Scalfari works from memory so there's no reason to think any of what he writes is accurate. I couldn't remember what I said exactly either.
And that exactly goes to the heart of my point. You say that the Pope is clear but he is anything but.
Most of his statements are ambiguous and many are unorthodox. Then there is these interviews with Scalfari where the guy claims that the Pope said this and then some Popesplaner goes to say that Francis didn't say it but when asked what it is exactly he said they can't say. Basically the Popesplaner says no the Pope did not say that there is no such thing as hell and the baddies just get annihilated but when pressed as to what the Pope actually said, they can't say. Now he has granted quite a few interviews where Scalfari is supposed to have misrepresented what the Pope said yet he keeps giving him interviews knowing that Scalfari is going to say something that supposedly he did not say.
This is the forked tongue speaking. He aims to confuse. There is something malicious about that.
Many Catholics now suffer from some kind of cognitive dissonance. They know that they must respect the Pope but more and more it is getting hard so they try to find some kind of coping mechanism. It 's like children of abusive parents. You are supposed to love your parents but then they are the ones who are abusing you so try to make sense of this and make excuses but then in your gut you know they are bad but how can they be bad when they are your parents.
Finally! Frankly, there should be more of these visitations.
The colossus of liberal bureaucracy known as the mainstream church, trying to cancel conservative/ orthodox voices.
I would more likely characterize Bishop Strickland as a glory hound who uses his office to gain publicity for himself. I know plenty of orthodox Catholics who don't believe that every Democrat is going to hell (Strickland agreed wholeheartedly, in a tweet, with a rouge priest who stated just exactly that.
Sadly Bergoglio Coddled Grassi Zunchetta and sitka for Years. Hypocrite
GOD bless Bishop Strickland.
@Pillar, the article quotes one priest who then makes a claim of speaking for "us priests." If the priest wants to speak of his own concerns that is fine, but it is inadequate journalism to quote him as a representative and not interview other priests.
That's an interesting point, Adam. I don't think we perceive him as a representative of the whole presbyterate -- and, believe me, we tried to interview as many priests as we could. We'll certainly talk with more in the days to come, as we're able.
Please do. The takeaways are hard to discern here without more of their voices. Thank you!