, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Beggars and ChoosersIn a previous post titled Going Down with the Neo-modernist Ship, (see here) we explained how the “sect of Vatican II” that has taken control of the Catholic Church, is willing to allow the entire the Catholic Church to disintegrate, just so as not to allow the false neo-modernist religion/ideology that was created after the Second Vatican Council, to fail.

In order to illustrate the above, we explained how the head of one diocese in the US, the Diocese of Scranton explains the situation that he faces with respect to the shortage of priests, yet apparently is unwilling to take any appropriate course of action that could save his diocese from its impending path to extinction. Furthermore, it cannot be said that this bishop is oblivious to the present situation, since he explains it quite accurately in his video presentation. The only rational explanation for this bishop’s course of action is this: he is either completely imbued with the false neo-modernist religion/ideology, a.k.a. an ideologue or he is incompetent. Either way, one thing is for certain, the bishop is not taking any constructive and rational actions that would avert this impending disaster.

As a matter of fact, it would appear as if this bishop is consciously preparing himself for this disaster. To be more specific, this bishop is preparing himself for a time when his diocese will have few if any priests and maybe even a “diocese” with no institutional structure. We concluded with the observation that instead of acting rationally and not to mention responsibly, like for instance the head of the United Methodist Church (see here) or another Catholic bishop (see here), this bishop is consciously and with premeditation consigning his diocese to oblivion.

That bishops like the one from Scranton are cognizant of what they are doing, we can also infer from a similar situation faced by another cleric, the President of the Episcopal Conference and Prelate of the Netherlands, who has allowed the situation in the Dutch Catholic Church to degenerate to such a state, that this prelate has decided that there is a “NECESSITY TO CLOSE THE VAST MAJORITY OF CHURCHES IN THE COUNTRY, IN THE NEAR FUTURE”. (see here) Given the severity of the situation, the cardinal has some advise for the Faithful and that is not to be bitter, besides:

Although church buildings might disappear, our faith and the will to be the Church does not disappear from our villages and districts – Cardinal Eijk writes in his message for Lent.

The above described situation in the Universal Church, with respect to the chronic shortages of priests and the wholesale closure of churches is where we pick up our story today.

The ultimate superior of these two above referred to clerics, i.e. the one from Scranton PA in the US of A and the one from the Netherlands, is none other than the bishop of Rome, Francis. And from the information that has come out this weekend, it would appear that Francis is not too concerned about either the state of the church as an institution or of the priesthood in particular. Today we will concentrate on the priesthood issue.

This past Saturday, Francis gave a speech to the “first of-it’s-kind” congress of 1200 formation directors. Before we go on, and as you are reading the below, please reflect on what could have been the reason behind FrancisChurch calling in these formation directors. Please also keep in mind that during the height of the  “new springtime of the spirit of Vatican II pederast crisis”, such measures were not instituted.

Before we go to Francis’ speech, let’s first explain how Francis sees the priesthood. For this we are grateful to IndignusFamulus for providing an excerpt from the book that Francis and his Jewish Rabbi friend co-authored: (emphasis added)

BERGOGLIO explains that the priestly role is threefold: to be “a teacher, a leader of the people of God, and president of the liturgical assembly where prayer and worship take place.

As we can see form the above, our present bishop of Rome does not have a classical view of the Catholic priesthood to say the least. Here is the rest of the passage from Bergoglio:

The priest, in his role as teacher, teaches, proposes the truth revealed and accompanies you. Even if he has to face failure, he is with you,” Bergoglio says. “A teacher who assumes the role of making decisions for the disciple is not a good priest.He is a good dictator, an annihilator of the religious personalities of others.A priest dictator “weakens and holds back people in the search for God,” Bergoglio says.A true teacher “will let his disciple go and he will walk with him in his spiritual life.

From the above, it is quite telling that Francis considers the Catholic priesthood as founded by Our Lord or commonly understood by the Catholic Church to be not of his liking. But more on that in a bit.

Which brings us to the speech that Francis gave to the “first of-it’s-kind” congress of 1200 formation directors this past Saturday. (see here) The theme of the speech can be summed up with the following: “it’s about quality not quantity”. Here is what Francis had to say:

Pope Francis has warned against allowing the lower numbers of people entering Catholic religious life to influence decisions about who is healthy and able to take lifelong vows as a priest, brother or sister.

From the above, we have proof that Francis is cognizant of the OBJECTIVE REALITY of the problem with the low numbers of vocations. So far, so good. Next:

On Saturday, the pope told a meeting of an estimated 1,200 formation directors for religious orders they must be “lovingly attentive” to those they are guiding so that “the eventual crisis of quantity does not result in a much graver crisis of quality.

From the above, it is plain to see that Francis does not consider the shortage of vocations as a crisis yet, but only an “eventual crisis”.  And Francis cautions that this “eventual crisis does not result in a much graver crisis of quality“.

Now, I am not sure which “reality” Francis populates, but the “reality” that Francis left behind in Buenos Aires was one where the seminary of the entire diocese had less than 30 seminarians. And just like the bishop of Scranton, Francis is also preparing himself and alerting the formation directors for the “eventual crisis” in vocations.

So how to explain this fatalistic view of the neo-modernists for the future of  vocations and their apparent inability to actually implement a course of action to rectify this problem?

The answer to the above question needs to be viewed in its proper context. If someone who sees the priest as “a teacher, a leader of the people of God, and president of the liturgical assembly where prayer and worship take place”, then it becomes pretty obvious that that someone, in this case Francis, would consider the vocation of a priest as is commonly understood by the Catholic Church as EXPENDABLE.

Actually, a person such as Francis could and most likely does, view the priesthood as it was commonly understood in the Catholic Church, to be an institution that could form or in fact does form priests who Francis characterised as follows: [Those] who assume the role of making decisions for the disciple is not a good priest. He is a good dictator, an annihilator of the religious personalities of others.” A priest dictator “weakens and holds back people in the search for God,” Bergoglio says.A true teacher “will let his disciple go and he will walk with him in his spiritual life.”

If this were or is the case, Francis would not want to promote or even allow this perceived formation process to exist. In other words, Francis would or does perceive a threat to his Bergoglian/Kasperian “theology done on the knees” from the Catholic priesthood, a priesthood as it is commonly understood by the Catholic Church.

So what evidence do we have that the above is a credible assumption?

The answer to the above question could be provided by a recent post over at the Harvesting the Fruits blog titled Who needs priestly vocations? Apparently not Francis. (see here) After a short explanation about how far the “mind of the bishop of Rome is from the mind of the Catholic Church”, we read this passage:

Since 1963, the Church has designated the Fourth Sunday after Easter as the “World Day of Prayer for Vocations.

Further down in the post, we read this:

A quick review of each of the messages issued by the various popes over the years will reveal, just as one might expect, a focus on priestly vocations (meaning, the ministerial priesthood), along with some reference to consecrated religious life.

That is, until Pope Francis…

So far, he has issued two messages for World Day of Prayer for Vocations.

His first, in 2014, gives the priesthood just a passing mention, while deliberately lumping it together with the lay vocation:

“Therefore every vocation, even within the variety of paths, always requires an exodus from oneself in order to centre one’s life on Christ and on his Gospel. Both in married life and in the forms of religious consecration, as well as in priestly life, we must surmount the ways of thinking and acting that do not conform to the will of God.”

The message for World Day of Prayer for Vocations 2015 has already been published.

In it, Pope Francis doesn’t mention the priesthood even once.

So given the above, is it any wonder that at the “first of-its-kind” congress of “formation directors”, Francis AFFORDED himself the luxury of speaking about the need for “quality in assessing” vocations of… for the most part… non-existent candidates.

As to the “quality issue of the for the most part… non-existent candidates”, I refer you to The Radical Catholic blog and the post titled The Hidden Dangers of Clarity and Structure.  (see here)

Closing, the casual observer listening to the Francis speech could be confused and disoriented observing a situation in which a bishop, who is facing a crisis in vocations, would set the topic of his speech to one of “quality over quantity”. That casual observer could also suspect that there is something “wrong” with that bishop whose “theological approach” produces very few if any candidates that his formation director can even assess. Furthermore, this casual observer could also come away with the impression that this bishop most likely has the same types of problems that he is warning his formation directors to be on the look out for (see here.) And yet, this is the OBJECTIVE REALITY in which that casual observer would find himself in.

If however, this casual observer has followed the career of Jorge Bergoglio, it would not be the first time that he would have come into contact with a situation in which “Bergoglio the beggar” acts as if he was “Bergoglio the chooser”.