Archdiocese of Detroit: Stay away from liberal Catholic conference

[challam2010]

True - there have been many historical confrontations, but in my mind I was pondering more on the prophetic aspects of todays culture and the numbers of apostates working to destroy the hierarchical church.

Or, if one were truly trying to understand the reasons behind formation of these groups, one might for 3.5 minutes try to shelve one’s own point of view and charitably consider the possible validity of the dissatisfaction of the people involved.

For the record – I am NOT a member of any of the above groups, I was raised in the 1950’s Church and loved it (enough to enter the convent for a few years), but, to my everlasting thanksgiving and joy, I made the glad and successful journey through the reforms of Vat. II, guided by forward-thinking bishops and priests who embraced the changes. I attend daily mass, have a well-catechized and “informed” conscience but have no problem with my conscience about wishing for further changes in the RCC.

That being said, I would ask that you read with an open mind and heart the “talking points” of the website posted previously and in this link:
americancatholiccouncil.org/blog/

I am at a loss to understand how furthering the actions of the Vatican II Council, as described in the talking points, is such a threat to the “orthodox Catholic community” as evidenced by the Archdiocese’s statement and the reaction on this board. The only point that I can see validly argued would be the following bullet:

Opportunities for ordained ministry would be expanded (female, male and married clergy) to permit response to the call to ministry among all the baptized and to accommodate the needs of the baptized to counter the shortage of priests, to keep parishes open, and to minister to the needs of those in different personal lifestyles;

Of course, Rome has spoken on that and, while many more liberal thinkers disagree, the concept is closed (for now). I understand that this is a flash point – but the other bullet points? How are they subversive and so dangerous? How is the act of talking about these points such a threat to orthodoxy?

I truly don’t understand.

The people involved in these groups are not nutbars – they are not from the lunatic fringe – they are not “dissenters” according to their own consciences. They are very active Catholics, supportive of their parishes, followers of Jesus and His Church, although they see an imperfect Church without the blinders of strict, legalistic conformity, particularly when the heirarchical Church is measured against the ideals of Vat II Council.

I’m writing this respectful of each of you and the fact that CAF is a conservative community, and understanding that many of you abhor most of the changes that occurred past 1960. However, don’t you think it possible, even mildly conceivable, that the Church today is NOT perfect, is NOT as effective as it could be as the Church of Jesus, and that acting to effect more of the guidelines from Vat II (as this group proposes) could be an answer to making the Church more relevant to today’s world?

I’m truly not trying to be confrontational and I’d ask that your replies, if any, be written with the same respect with which this posting was made. Thank you.

 

[reggieM]

The Archbishop might consider a positive effort also, with his own conference that counter-acts all of the errors promoted in the liberal event. It would be a nice reparation for Call to Action’s start in Detroit also.

 

[Dale_M]

Challam, thank you for your thoughtful post. I hope it will generate reasoned discussion which might prove profitable.

I can see several points in the ACC Talking Points which are potential problems. For example, they identify six ideas which they call Vatican II Motifs of the Spirit. Most are uncontroversial. After all, who would oppose the importance of Baptism? However, a couple of these motifs have sometimes been used to justify demands which are controversial. In particular, “primacy of conscience” has been used to justify opposing Church teaching on moral issues. The issue of collegiality might also be a problem, given their desire for the laity to have a role in choosing parish priests and bishops.

 

[Tigg]

Looking at the list of organizers from the link provided, it is obvious that this council is filled with the most dangerous of dissenters from the faith. You all know that many members of Call to Action were excommunicated from the Lincoln, NE diocese a number of years ago. They have not changed their agenda. Also closely associated to CTA is Voice of the Faithful, another notorious group. Robert Ludwig (who happens to write for The Catechist magazine) has ties to VOTF. Here is one critique of his work:

"Ludwig’s harsh attitude regarding the Church’s hierarchy and his misrepresentation of its teachings should come as no surprise to those familiar with his book, Reconstructing Catholicism. Regarding this book, reviewer Mary Schneider wrote: "The reconstructed Catholicism which Professor Ludwig has formulated has little in common with the Catholic faith. It is a veritable Hydra of heresies’ (Homiletic & Pastoral Review, July 1996).

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4610&CFID=54353992&CFTOKEN=85506810

More info here:

catholicmediacoalition.org/cta%20orlando.htm

These groups not only desire to remake the church in their own image, but some also have political ties to liberal causes and utilize Alinskyian community organizing which many believe to be steeped in Marxist ideology.

Excellent articles to further research here:

catholic-pages.com/dir/dissent.asp

 

[reggieM]

Looking at the list of organizers from the link provided, it is obvious that this council is filled with the most dangerous of dissenters from the faith.

I noticed that also.

 

[comrade1789]

That being said, I would ask that you read with an open mind and heart the “talking points” of the website posted previously and in this link:
americancatholiccouncil.org/blog/

I am at a loss to understand how furthering the actions of the Vatican II Council, as described in the talking points, is such a threat to the “orthodox Catholic community” as evidenced by the Archdiocese’s statement and the reaction on this board. The only point that I can see validly argued would be the following bullet:

Opportunities for ordained ministry would be expanded (female, male and married clergy) to permit response to the call to ministry among all the baptized and to accommodate the needs of the baptized to counter the shortage of priests, to keep parishes open, and to minister to the needs of those in different personal lifestyles;

Of course, Rome has spoken on that and, while many more liberal thinkers disagree, the concept is closed (for now). I understand that this is a flash point – but the other bullet points? How are they subversive and so dangerous? How is the act of talking about these points such a threat to orthodoxy?

I truly don’t understand.

The problem is that what these groups are advocating is not in the spiritit of Vatican II, but a perversion and subvertion of that spirit, they misrepresent the very teachings that they are claiming to uphold, and they ae attacking the apostolic authority of Catholicism. If you do not assent to the teachings of the Magisterium, then you cannot be Catholic. These groups do attack and openly resist the Magisterium, and they have no right to call themselves Catholic. There is a word for those who do not believe in the very mission of the group they identify with, in fact those who operate against the mission of the group they call themselves a member of:

subversives.

Much of what the groups are advocating are old heresies that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has fought against throughout its 2000 year history. If someone doesn’t like what the Church is teaching, and has been teaching consistently for that 2000 years, then they should just leave the Church rather than subvert it. In fact, what the American Catholic Council is doing is both, they are working at subverting the Church by their heresies, and by actively challenging the authority of the Church in her own affairs, the ACC is creating her own ecclessial body outside of the RCC.

If a person doesn’t like the teachings of the RCC, they should just leave the RCC rather than misrepresent what the RCC has, is and will be teaching.

 

[challam2010]

In the conservative, orthodox Roman Catholic world, every thought, wish, conjecture, daydream and sneeze ever committed by any male theologian or member of the curia would be: prayerfully discerned, scrutinized in light of then-accepted interpretations of the Gospel, written in Latin on parchment, codified, wrapped up in a box and labeled “dogma,” then tied up with 357 ribbons bearing associated laws and rules, (plus applicable punishments if broken or disagreed with, including eternity in hell,) and added to our “body of truth as an infallible matter of faith and morals” and placed in the Vatican Library forevermore.

That’s it – no more consideration EVER in light of changing contemporary developments or situations, no more theological questioning to see if that particular “truth” remains true in light of more advanced exegesis of the Gospel, no more consideration after newer theological insight, no more thought of any kind.

It’s like taking one photo of the moon juxtaposed with Venus and calling it a portrait of the complete Universe (and you’re going to certain hell if you dare to say the Universe contains more than the moon and Venus).

These “subversive” groups do have the courage and audacity to question some of this “dogma” and many of the Church’s disciplines not elevated to the status of dogma.

They have taken off their blinders and view the Church as a divinely-directed organization - but still an organization comprised of very human, and therefore error-prone, men.

They see human rights violations, absolute discrimination and obvious error in this partriarchal, medieval Institution that professes to evangelize the Good News of Jesus, yet falls far short of modeling Jesus to the world.

They see an Institution more protective of little boxes of dogma and law than of the humans for which Jesus gave His life… an Organization more attached to its laws than Jesus’ law of love. They see power-based leadership which has long forgotten the Servant model in favor of a persistent clerical monarchy.

They see a Church that, for a brief period of time, opened the windows to the breath of the Spirit but then slammed those windows shut by conservative reactionaries. They feel betrayed by this regression and agitate for the reopening of those windows and re-welcoming the actions of the Spirit.

They challenge the institutional Church – and all of us – to scrutinize our actions against the message Jesus gave us in the Gospel and the ideals of the Vat II Council – yes, the same one ultra-conservatives wish had never happened.

As I said above, I’m not a member of any of these groups and I don’t agree with every point of these “subversives’” agenda, although many of those points do resonate within my own experience and thought. I do, however, completely support and admire their persistence to at least DISCUSS the points they find problematic.

A non-oppressive Church secure in its truth shouldn’t fear discussion – it should welcome it. It shouldn’t be afraid to question the validity of dogma that may no longer be true. It should be sitting at the table, addressing the problems and ideals – and then sharing Eucharist with their “subversive” brothers and sisters.

I do believe the Church teaches truth, but I do not believe the Church contains ALL the truth – God is Truth, and the Church on Earth cannot contain all of God.

Many members of these “subversive” groups are respected clerics, consecrated religious, theologians, great contemporary thinkers – and ordinary people who possibly, without the blinders of numbing obedience, can see bits and pieces of more truth.

The Church may have locked up its dogma in secure little boxes, but it cannot lock up the Spirit, Who moves where He will. Having been shut out in Rome since the end of the Council, perhaps the Spirit moves within “subversives.”

What is so threatening about new questions? What are you so afraid of?

 

[comrade1789]

That’s it – no more consideration EVER in light of changing contemporary developments or situations, no more theological questioning to see if that particular “truth” remains true in light of more advanced exegesis of the Gospel, no more consideration after newer theological insight, no more thought of any kind.

It’s like taking one photo of the moon juxtaposed with Venus and calling it a portrait of the complete Universe (and you’re going to certain hell if you dare to say the Universe contains more than the moon and Venus).

No, it is called proclaiming the truth in season and out of season. Being orthodox is radical, it is just as the scriptures in today’s Mass proclaim, (II TIm. 3:14-4:2) “Remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known the sacred Scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus…I charge you…be persisistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient…”

These “subversive” groups do have the courage and audacity to question some of this “dogma” and many of the Church’s disciplines not elevated to the status of dogma.

They have taken off their blinders and view the Church as a divinely-directed organization - but still an organization comprised of very human, and therefore error-prone, men.

No, It is not courage nor appropriate audacity, but pride. They think they know better than Christ’s Church, than the verdict of 2000 years of consistant teaching.

They see human rights violations, absolute discrimination and obvious error in this partriarchal, medieval Institution that professes to evangelize the Good News of Jesus, yet falls far short of modeling Jesus to the world.

They see an Institution more protective of little boxes of dogma and law than of the humans for which Jesus gave His life… an Organization more attached to its laws than Jesus’ law of love. They see power-based leadership which has long forgotten the Servant model in favor of a persistent clerical monarchy.

They see a Church that, for a brief period of time, opened the windows to the breath of the Spirit but then slammed those windows shut by conservative reactionaries. They feel betrayed by this regression and agitate for the reopening of those windows and re-welcoming the actions of the Spirit.

They challenge the institutional Church – and all of us – to scrutinize our actions against the message Jesus gave us in the Gospel and the ideals of the Vat II Council – yes, the same one ultra-conservatives wish had never happened.

As I said above, I’m not a member of any of these groups and I don’t agree with every point of these “subversives’” agenda, although many of those points do resonate within my own experience and thought. I do, however, completely support and admire their persistence to at least DISCUSS the points they find problematic.

A non-oppressive Church secure in its truth shouldn’t fear discussion – it should welcome it. It shouldn’t be afraid to question the validity of dogma that may no longer be true. It should be sitting at the table, addressing the problems and ideals – and then sharing Eucharist with their “subversive” brothers and sisters.

I do believe the Church teaches truth, but I do not believe the Church contains ALL the truth – God is Truth, and the Church on Earth cannot contain all of God.

Many members of these “subversive” groups are respected clerics, consecrated religious, theologians, great contemporary thinkers – and ordinary people who possibly, without the blinders of numbing obedience, can see bits and pieces of more truth.

The Church may have locked up its dogma in secure little boxes, but it cannot lock up the Spirit, Who moves where He will. Having been shut out in Rome since the end of the Council, perhaps the Spirit moves within “subversives.”

What is so threatening about new questions? What are you so afraid of?

These are not new in any sense of the word. Old heresies. You stand where you stand, but it is obviously outside the confines of the faith we have received. This is a time that holding to the truth is out of season, which is why those who wish to faithfully handle and pass on the deposit of faith that we have received will increase in our vigilance to defend that very faith. Far from being afraid, we persist with full confidence that the gates of hell shall not prevail against us. Is the Church in need of reform? As Fr. John Hardon S.J. once said, “You bet. What the Church needs in reform, but not rebellion.” (paraphrase from talk 001 – Foundation of the Papacy (Sept. 1) Part 1, available from therealpresence.org/archives/MP3/RP0021000.htm)

 

[edwest2]

Or, if one were truly trying to understand the reasons behind formation of these groups, one might for 3.5 minutes try to shelve one’s own point of view and charitably consider the possible validity of the dissatisfaction of the people involved.

For the record – I am NOT a member of any of the above groups, I was raised in the 1950’s Church and loved it (enough to enter the convent for a few years), but, to my everlasting thanksgiving and joy, I made the glad and successful journey through the reforms of Vat. II, guided by forward-thinking bishops and priests who embraced the changes. I attend daily mass, have a well-catechized and “informed” conscience but have no problem with my conscience about wishing for further changes in the RCC.

That being said, I would ask that you read with an open mind and heart the “talking points” of the website posted previously and in this link:
americancatholiccouncil.org/blog/

I am at a loss to understand how furthering the actions of the Vatican II Council, as described in the talking points, is such a threat to the “orthodox Catholic community” as evidenced by the Archdiocese’s statement and the reaction on this board. The only point that I can see validly argued would be the following bullet:

Opportunities for ordained ministry would be expanded (female, male and married clergy) to permit response to the call to ministry among all the baptized and to accommodate the needs of the baptized to counter the shortage of priests, to keep parishes open, and to minister to the needs of those in different personal lifestyles;

Of course, Rome has spoken on that and, while many more liberal thinkers disagree, the concept is closed (for now). I understand that this is a flash point – but the other bullet points? How are they subversive and so dangerous? How is the act of talking about these points such a threat to orthodoxy?

I truly don’t understand.

The people involved in these groups are not nutbars – they are not from the lunatic fringe – they are not “dissenters” according to their own consciences. They are very active Catholics, supportive of their parishes, followers of Jesus and His Church, although they see an imperfect Church without the blinders of strict, legalistic conformity, particularly when the heirarchical Church is measured against the ideals of Vat II Council.

I’m writing this respectful of each of you and the fact that CAF is a conservative community, and understanding that many of you abhor most of the changes that occurred past 1960. However, don’t you think it possible, even mildly conceivable, that the Church today is NOT perfect, is NOT as effective as it could be as the Church of Jesus, and that acting to effect more of the guidelines from Vat II (as this group proposes) could be an answer to making the Church more relevant to today’s world?

I’m truly not trying to be confrontational and I’d ask that your replies, if any, be written with the same respect with which this posting was made. Thank you.

I was there before and after Vatican II. I had absolutely no reason to be less respectful of the Church afterwards or to consider any changes to have been anything other than the Church hierarchy acting in the best interest of the faithful.

I was in Catholic school at the time, and the most radical obvious change, the priest facing the congregation with the Mass in English, was explained to us by the nuns as a way to encourage greater participation in the Mass. The later removal of the prohibition of eating meat on Friday did not do away with the practice entirely, and some did continue it.

As to other “changes,” they were not even suggested by Vatican II, much less endorsed by it:

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

By publishing falsehoods about the changes, and their true origin, and introducing the fictional ‘spirit of Vatican II,’ much harm has been done to distort the actual message of the Second Vatican Council.

The America of 1965 was much more trusting of public institutions and experts in general. The mood, if you will, of the country was that the people in charge usually had our best interest at heart (no, I’m not denying actual corruption and scandals).

The invoking of the Spirit of Vatican II is often done to hide the actions of those inside and outside the Church that hated some of what it stood for. In 1967, a split between Catholic institutions of higher learning and the Catholic hierarchy began under the cover of academic “freedom”:

catholichistory.net/Events/LandOLakesStatement.htm

This was the opening attack against the Church, others would follow right behind it.

con’t

 

[edwest2]

The crux of the matter was the publication of Humanae Vitae in 1968. This document marked the beginning of the battle that continues to this day. Birth control manufacturers had to move product. They couldn’t risk losing sales to a bunch of Catholic women listening to the Pope. Send in the Hippies. Some Catholic Theologians took out a full page ad in the New York Times denouncing it. Some months back, a priest posted here about a gathering he attended with other priests in 1968. The priest in charge asked him to sign a document against Humanae Vitae. He refused. The priest in charge, a former Marine, used rather salty language to try to get him to change his mind. He still refused. As of today, at least one priest from 1968 has formally announced his regret for signing such a document in 1968.

In the 1970s, priests in seminaries were taught Humanae Vitae but they were also told the Church would change its teaching on artificial contraception someday. The result? Upon becoming priests, they advised parishioners that it was a personal conscience matter.

Meanwhile, the Hippies told everyone. “Don’t trust anyone over 30! Down with the Establishment! We’ll burn this country down if we have to!”

And they ignored Church teaching, even if they had been raised Catholic. Have sex with your girlfriend. Move in with her. Marriage was just a useless piece of paper. Smoke dope. Mom? Dad? They’re old. They don’t know anything.

Most of the problems that exist in the United States today have to do with a distorted and wrong use of human sexuality.

But psychological warfare was also part of the strategy. Read this Time magazine article from 1970:

time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19700223,00.html

Oh yes. I heard the Hippies talking about freedom and being free. What that meant was smoking dope and engaging in illicit sexual relationships. In the end, that is what Freedom actually meant to them.

The Church has no authority to ordain women.
The radical feminist organization that did the most harm to male-female relationships in the 1970s was the National Organization for Women. Their goal: power for women. Not healing. Not understanding between the sexes but a radical separation. That’s why colleges offer courses in Women’s Studies and Women’s Literature as if women do not even have a species relationship with men.

I worked in a hospital for nearly 10 years. No one was asked their sexual orientation or gender identity when they showed up in the emergency room. No one. Today, ‘alternative lifestyles’ are still against Church teaching. If you tell a priest you are living with and having sex with your girlfriend, then he can’t absolve you. He won’t tell you to break up but he will tell you to stop having sex.

The myth about a priest shortage has been brought up on Catholic Radio. A priest pointed out that other denominations that allow priests to marry are also experiencing a shortage of priests.

I hope what I’ve written is helpful to you.

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

In the conservative, orthodox Roman Catholic world, every thought, wish, conjecture, daydream and sneeze ever committed by any male theologian or member of the curia would be: prayerfully discerned, scrutinized in light of then-accepted interpretations of the Gospel, written in Latin on parchment, codified, wrapped up in a box and labeled “dogma,” then tied up with 357 ribbons bearing associated laws and rules, (plus applicable punishments if broken or disagreed with, including eternity in hell,) and added to our “body of truth as an infallible matter of faith and morals” and placed in the Vatican Library forevermore.

Your sweeping generalization, mockery and stereotyping of a large population of the Catholic Church betrays the claims of “liberal tolerance and acceptance”. But it’s simpler just to point out that your opinion can’t carry much weight as such.
If you tied this down to specifics it would be more helpful. Pope Benedict is a poor theologian? He doesn’t give any thought of any kind to the Faith? We’re supposed to think that Hans Kung is the future of the Church?

It’s important not to blind oneself to the incredible damage that has been done in the Church since the late 1960s. What was the source of that destructive movement? Clearly, it was the misguided liberalism proclaimed by Call to Action and their followers.

They see a Church that, for a brief period of time, opened the windows to the breath of the Spirit but then slammed those windows shut by conservative reactionaries. They feel betrayed by this regression and agitate for the reopening of those windows and re-welcoming the actions of the Spirit.

This I find more understandable and sympathetic. They thought the Church was going to be re-formed into their own image. But God wants something different. So, now they’re angry. That is sad to see, but very understandable. The 1960s liberals do not speak for God. From my perspective, they have shown themselves to know very little about God’s ways, indeed. What I see from that sad generation, is not the kind of invigorating Catholicism that is filling seminaries, religious orders, Catholic colleges and youth apostolates today. I just see it as the death rattles of a group of spoiled and embittered senior-citizen-hippies who didn’t get their way.

They challenge the institutional Church – and all of us – to scrutinize our actions against the message Jesus gave us in the Gospel and the ideals of the Vat II Council – yes, the same one ultra-conservatives wish had never happened.

That’s fine for what it is. People can offer opinions to try to “challenge” the Church (there is no such thing as “the institutional Church” except in the fantasy world of Catholic-liberalism). In this case, the challenge didn’t mean much since the Archbishop is not convinced at all.

A non-oppressive Church secure in its truth shouldn’t fear discussion – it should welcome it. It shouldn’t be afraid to question the validity of dogma that may no longer be true. It should be sitting at the table, addressing the problems and ideals – and then sharing Eucharist with their “subversive” brothers and sisters.

The Universalist churches are a so-called “non-oppressive” bodies. There are no requirements for members to accept any dogmas or moral codes. One does not need to believe in God either.

The Church may have locked up its dogma in secure little boxes, but it cannot lock up the Spirit, Who moves where He will. Having been shut out in Rome since the end of the Council, perhaps the Spirit moves within “subversives.”

What is so threatening about new questions? What are you so afraid of?

There’s a difference between “new questions” and conclusions which are in opposition to the Faith of the Church. When one sows dissent and doubt about the teaching of Christ, one ruins Faith in Christ for future generations.

This is why the Church opposes heresy – the teaching of falsehoods. We are required to give Faith and assent to the teachings given us by Christ. That’s what the Gospel shows clearly. When groups persist and demaning changes based on their own self-interest, and are unwilling to embrace the Truths of the Church, then this has a very destructive effect.

What am I afraid of?

— More generations of Catholic children being deprived of good Catholic education.
— Continued lack of vocations to priesthood and religious life
— More moral disorders due to liberal tolerance for evil behavior
— Catholic family life destroyed by liberal-Catholic dissent on abortion and birth-control
— Society destroyed by pro-abortion Catholic liberals (and the loss of children’s lives)
— The worship of God rendered a joke by liberalism
— Catholic teaching melted down into lukewarm ambiguity
— The spread of atheism (which is the logical endpoint of liberal-Catholicism).
— Closing of churches, schools, seminaries, convents
— Countless souls lost for eternity due to the spread of liberal-Catholic lies and distortions
— Catholicism becoming unrecognizable (in the U.S.), if it even survives for the future

… my list could go on and on.

 

[Tigg]

This council (and all dissident groups) is really about the loss of faith. They are to be pitied, really, for in their rebellion and intellectual superiority, they neither recognize nor acknowledge this fact. What further truth can be revealed that will help you gain your eternal salvation? The Church does not change her teachings to accommodate the world and assuage those unhappy people who find the way of Christ’s truth too hard.

Some quotes from the greats:

*“If, of those things taught by the Church (as divinely revealed), one holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as an infallible guide, but to his own will.” Such a one may accept other teachings of the Church, but he does so not out of divine faith, but “only by a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.” (II II,5,3) ~ St. Thomas Aquinas ~

**“If it be certain that something be revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine faith…He who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truths absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth.” ***~ Pope Leo XIII- Encyclical on the Unity of the Church ~

“The teaching Church does not invent her doctrines; she is a witness, a custodian, an interpreter, a transmitter. As regards certain truths, she can be called conservative, uncompromising. To those who would urge her to make her faith easier, more in keeping with the tastes of the changing mentality of the times, she answers with the apostles, we cannot.” (Acts. 4:20)

rosary-center.org/ll46n4.htm

 

[jackangelo1]

Read more: Archdiocese of Detroit: Stay away from liberal Catholic conference | freep.com | Detroit Free Press freep.com/article/20101013/NEWS05/101013019/1001/rss01#ixzz12FCbT817

Isn’t it about time The Pope and his bishops Removed evil (homosexuals,pro-abortion Catholics) from Roman Catholicism??AnyCathoic that doesn’t follow Church Doctrine,Canon Law, and Scripture must be told to leave the fellowship of the Church.

 

[pablope]

Quote:
Who is behind this gathering?

“Catholics, committed to the principles of Vatican II. We ground ourselves in our common baptism giving us rights and responsibilities to continue the mission of Christ on earth. We are a movement of individuals and representatives of organizations committed to the fullness of the Catholic Church. As Vatican II Catholics we are united under a new banner, the American Catholic Council.”

My first question to these people is under whose authority they are conducting this meeting? Who is guiding them? The Holy Spirit? I doubt it is the Holy Spirit. If it is not the HS, then who?
And who’s kidding who!!!

 

[AHapka]

The point I was trying to make is that there have always been enemies of the faith. I don’t know if it is worse now or if modern media just makes it seem that way.

And don’t forget we also have the Internet. 100 years ago we probably wouldn’t have heard much, if at all, about enemies of the faith more then a couple hundred miles away from us.

 

[dimittuntur]

And don’t forget we also have the Internet. 100 years ago we probably wouldn’t have heard much, if at all, about enemies of the faith more then a couple hundred miles away from us.

The anonymity of the internet also gives courage to speak up to those who may have kept their mouth shut in a previous generation.

I’m not such a fool as to think I know the hearts and minds of others, but my gut feeling is that dissent has been part of the human condition since the dawn of time.

 

[jackangelo1]

And don’t forget we also have the Internet. 100 years ago we probably wouldn’t have heard much, if at all, about enemies of the faith more then a couple hundred miles away from us.

I’ve been studying Politics and Religion for over 50 years.,and have come to the Conclusion that Liberalism is the DEVIL!

 

[Tigg]

And don’t forget we also have the Internet. 100 years ago we probably wouldn’t have heard much, if at all, about enemies of the faith more then a couple hundred miles away from us.

I agree to an extent, but some of the early heresies became so widespread that it took a church council to refute them. And I also believe in private revelation, although Catholics are not required to do so. We are a people of the end times (I’m not saying that the end is near) only that certain events will happen before the parousia, (remembering also, that prophecy is conditional.) The Church approved apparition of Mary at Akita, for instance, speaks of the things we are literally seeing with our own eyes within the Church today.

Do not stifle the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, test everything; retain what is good, avoid any semblance of evil.
~ 2 Thess. 19:22 ~

Re-read II Timothy, Chapter 3, and tell me that the description does not fit these times and these dissidents and liberal groups who insist they know better than the divinely ordained ecclesiastics, and would take the Church DOWN in a heartbeat if only they could. They make a pretense of religion, but would negate its power (in TRUTH) in their desire to fashion it in the image they want.

It’s fine to say that mankind has always had these evil tendencies, but I, for one, believe in the terrible times of the last days in which Timothy speaks, and the Church exhorts us to remember that Christ will come again, indeed, we are to look forward to it and know there are certain signs that will be the precursor.

 

[Lepanto]

Agreed. Too bad Bishop Dearden couldn’t get the Call to Action conference, the ultimate liberal Catholic rebellion, canceled 35 years ago.

Dearden was as liberal as they came (just look at the individuals that he appointed bishops).

And, if I’m not mistaken, Dearden was a speaker at the very first Call to Action conference, which was held in Detroit. This conference was the founding of this wretched organization.

I don’t think that Dearden expected CTA to become the monster that it is, however.

 

[Lepanto]

The Archbishop might consider a positive effort also, with his own conference that counter-acts all of the errors promoted in the liberal event. It would be a nice reparation for Call to Action’s start in Detroit also.

Already done:

calltoholiness.com/2011/cth_newsletter_2011.pdf

calltoholiness.com

HISTORY OF CALL TO HOLINESS, 13 YEAR ANNIVERSARY 1996 - 2009

On the weekend of November 15th-17th, 1996, priests and laity in the Detroit Archdiocese, faithful to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, organized the first Call to Holiness Conference. Two thousand priests, religious, and laity from across the country responded. And history may show that this conference helped ignite a new movement to restore authentic Catholicism in the United States according to Fr. Hardon.

“The response from around the country has been dramatic,” Fr. Hardon said, noting that some bishops had privately told him they were deeply grateful for the efforts of Call to Holiness participants.

“Let us thank the Holy Spirit for the guidance that led to this movement that may ignite the revitalization of Catholicism into the new millennium,” an enthusiastic Fr. Hardon told volunteers who organized the event during an appreciation dinner held the following December.

The success of the first Call to Holiness Conference in 1996 was repeated in the six following years. That all of these conferences were such successes makes it apparent that there is a great hunger for the Truth and Light of Christ. In fact, Call to Holiness has been a catalyst for some wonderful initiatives:

It was at CTH in 1997 that Fr. Joseph Fessio and Mother Angelica launched a drive to establish Catholic radio stations throughout the United States. Successful plans to develop Detroit Catholic Radio began during that conference. And today, Catholic Family Radio network is heard in nine U.S. cities.
Call to Holiness of Canada was formed as an affiliate organization and has hosted a conference for the last four years, with this year having the fifth conference. Last Spring Call to Holiness in Australia hosted a successful conference and will host another this year. This also will be their fifth conference.
Numerous Call to Holiness conferences have been held in various U.S. states, often with planning assistance from CTH here in Detroit.
We are forming chapters in other cities. These chapters present Fr. John Hardon’s Basic Catechism Course. We are working with representatives from nearly 10 cities in forming chapters.
Our protest of a pro-abortion speaker at the Red Mass sponsored by the University of Detroit Mercy in 1998 sparked an incredible chain of events that resulted in the founding of a new authentically Catholic law school in Ann Arbor.
Only God knows of the life-changing experiences so many of our people have experienced from our conferences, including the youth conferences we have hosted.