Just a couple of points of clarification as I do not like words put in my mouth. I am careful with what I write and choose my words judiciously. First off I never said you were picking on me, but that you were picking at me. A subtle but important distinction. The former implying I was complaining of being treated unfairly (which is not what I meant) and the latter stating that you seemed to be niggling at unimportant points (which is what I did mean). You are either a master in the use of words to convey subtle meanings (which I think is the case) or you are loose with your words when "quoting" me and don't pay much attention to what I actually say (which I do not think is the case). From time to time in Church history governments with extreme antagonism towards the Church need to be dealt with and deals may be struck for better or worse. This is one of those times. Though I am disgusted by the apparent surrender of the Church in China to the atheistic communist government who wish to subvert and destroy it, I fully accept the authority of the Pope to make this move and respect Bishop Wei's opinion though I personally disagree with him. I do not think it can be said Cardinal Zen does not understand the issues because he does not live on the mainland. That is extremely dismissive of a man who has spent his life immersed in this struggle. Perhaps my original post was not clear enough so I offer this as clarification. It is on these two points that I assumed I found myself in agreement with you.
This is what Bruno claims Our Lady told him. ''Although the one who gives an order seems in error,you are bound to obey,unless that order touches on faith,morality and charity.Then no!''
David quotes one underground Bishop who has not been told to make way for an excommunicated priest of the Communist Catholic Church. In doing so, he gives the impression that the Bishop who favours merging the underground Church with the Communist Church is speaking on behalf of the entire underground Church. Cardinal Zen acted on behalf of other underground Bishops: http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Card.-Zen-on-the-bishops-of-Shantou-and-Mindong-42951.html AsiaNews, as a news agency of the Pontifical Academy for Foreign Missions, is a respected source of Catholic news in that part of the world. I expect that we can expect changes in AsiaNews reporting in the future, given the Pope's track record of appointing heterodox Jesuits or even Protestants as editors of Catholic news outlets. Here's the text of the AsiaNews article on the statement by Cardinal Zen: Card. Zen on the bishops of Shantou and Mindong Card. Joseph Zen The bishop emeritus of Hong Kong confirms the information published in recent days by AsiaNews and reveals details of his conversation with Pope Francis on these topics: "Do not create another Mindszenty case", the primate of Hungary whom the Vatican forced to leave the country, appointing a successor in Budapest, at the will of the communist government of the time. Hong Kong (AsiaNews) – Below we publish the article that Card. Joseph Zen, bishop emeritus of Hong Kong, posted today on his blog, regarding the events reported by AsiaNews where a Vatican prelate asked the bishops of Shantou and Mindong, underground and recognized by the Holy See, to step down to leave their place to two illegitimate and excommunicated bishops. Monday, 29 January, 2018 Dear Friends in the Media, Since AsiaNews has revealed some recent facts in the Church in mainland China, of legitimate bishops being asked by the “Holy See” to resign and make place for illegitimate, even explicitly excommunicated, “bishops”, many different versions of the facts and interpretations are creating confusion among the people. Many, knowing of my recent trip to Rome, are asking me for some clarification. Back in October, when Bishop Zhuang received the first communication from the Holy See and asked me for help, I send someone to bring his letter to the Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, with, enclosed, a copy for the Holy Father. I don’t know if that enclosed copy reached the desk of the Holy Father. Fortunately, Archbishop Savio Hon Tai Fai was still in Rome and could meet the Pope in a fare-well visit. In that occasion, he brought the two cases of Shantou and Mindong to the knowledge of the Holy Father. The Holy Father was surprised and promised to look into the matter. Given the words of the Holy Father to Archbishop Savio Hon, the new facts in December were all the more a shocking surprise to me. When the old distressed Bishop Zhuang asked me to bring to the Holy Father his answer to the message conveyed to him by the “Vatican Delegation” in Beijing, I simply could not say “No”. But what could I do to make sure that his letter reach the Holy Father, while not even I can be sure that my own many letters did reach him. To make sure that our voice reached the Holy Father, I took the sudden decision of going to Rome. I left Hong Kong the night of 9th January, arriving in Rome the early morning of 10th January, just in time (actually, a bit late) to join the Wednesday Public Audience. At the end of the audience, we Cardinals and Bishops are admitted to the “bacia mano” and I had the chance to put into the hands of the Holy Father the envelop, saying that I was coming to Rome for the only purpose of bringing to him a letter of Bishop Zhuang, hoping he can find time to read it (in the envelop there was the original letter of the Bishop in Chinese with my translation into Italian and a letter of mine). For obvious reasons, I hoped my appearance at the audience would not be too much noticed, but my late arrival in the hall made it particularly noticeable. Anyway, now everybody can see the whole proceeding from the Vatican TV (by the way, the audience was held in Paul VI Hall, not in St. Peter’s Square and I was a little late to the audience, but did not have to “wait in a queue, in a cold weather”, as some media erroneously reported). When in Rome, I met Fr. Bernard Cervellera of AsiaNews. We exchanged our information, but I told him not to write anything. He complied. Now that someone else broke the news, I can agree to confirm it. Yes, as far as I know, things happened just as they are related in AsiaNews (the AsiaNews report “believes” that the Bishop leading the Vatican Delegation was Msgr. Celli. I do not know in what official capacity he was there, but it is most likely that he was the one there in Beijing). In this crucial moment and given the confusion in the media, I, knowing directly the situation of Shantou and indirectly that of Mindong, feel duty-bound to share my knowledge of the facts, so that the people sincerely concerned with the good of the Church may know the truth to which they are entitled. I am well aware that in doing so I may talk about things which, technically, are qualified as “confidential”. But my conscience tells me that in this case the “right to truth” should override any such “duty of confidentiality”. With such conviction, I am going to share with you also the following: In the afternoon of that day, 10th January, I received a phone-call from Santa Marta telling me that the Holy Father would receive me in private audience in the evening of Friday 12th January (though the report appeared only on 14th January in the Holy See bulletin). That was the last day of my 85 years of life, what a gift from Heaven! (Note that it was the vigil of the Holy Father’s departure for Chile and Peru, so the Holy Father must have been very busy). On that evening the conversation lasted about half an hour. I was rather disorderly in my talking, but I think I succeeded to convey to the Holy Father the worries of his faithful children in China. The most important question I put to the Holy Father (which was also in the letter) was whether he had had time “to look into the matter” (as he promised Archbishop Savio Hon). In spite of the danger of being accused of breach of confidentiality, I decide to tell you what His Holiness said: “Yes, I told them (his collaborators in the Holy See) not to create another Mindszenty case”! I was there in the presence of the Holy Father representing my suffering brothers in China. His words should be rightly understood as of consolation and encouragement more for them than for me. I think it was most meaningful and appropriate for the Holy Father to make this historical reference to Card. Josef Mindszenty, one of the heroes of our faith. (Card. Josef Mindszenty was the Archbishop of Budapest, Cardinal Primate of Hungary under Communist persecution. He suffered much in several years in prison. During the short-lived revolution of 1956, he was freed from prison by the insurgents and, before the Red Army crashed the revolution, took refuge in the American Embassy. Under the pressure of the Government he was ordered by the Holy See to leave his country and immediately a successor was named to the likings of the Communist Government). continued in next post..........
Cardinal Zen statement as covered in AsiaNews continued from previous post/......... With this revelation, I hope I have satisfied the legitimate “right to know” of the media and of my brothers in China. The important thing for us now is to pray for the Holy Father, very fittingly by singing the traditional song “Oremus”: Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Francisco, Dominus conservet eum et vivificet eum et beatum faciat eum in terra et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum eius. ------------------------------------- Some explanations may still be in order. Please, notice that the problem is not the resignation of the legitimate Bishops, but the request to make place for the illegitimate and even excommunicated ones. Many old underground Bishops, though the retirement age law has never been enforced in China, have insistently asked for a successor, but have never received any answer from the Holy See. Some others, who have a successor already named, may be even already in possession of the Bulla signed by the Holy Father, were ordered not to proceed with the ordination for fear of offending the Government. 2. I have talked mainly of the two cases of Shantou and Mindong. I do not have any other information except the copy of a letter written by an outstanding Catholic lady, a retired University professor well-acquainted with affairs of the Church in China, in which she warns Msgr. Celli against pushing for the legitimization of “bishop” Lei Shi Ying in Sichuan. 3. I acknowledge myself as a pessimist regarding the present situation of the Church in China, but my pessimism has a foundation in my long direct experience of the Church in China. From 1989 to 1996 I used to spend six months a year teaching in the various Seminaries of the official Catholic community. I had direct experience of the slavery and humiliation to which those our brother Bishops are subjected. And from the recent information, there is no reason to change that pessimistic view. The Communist Government is making new harsher regulations limiting religious freedom. They are now strictly enforcing regulations which up to now were practically only on paper (from the 1st of February 2018 attendance to Mass in the underground will no longer be tolerated). 4. Some say that all the efforts to reach an agreement is to avoid the ecclesial schism. How ridiculous! The schism is there, in the Independent Church! The Popes avoided using the word “schism” because they knew that many in the official Catholic community were there not by their own free will, but under heavy pressure. The proposed “unification” would force everybody into that community. The Vatican would be giving the blessing on the new strengthened schismatic Church, taking away the bad conscience from all those who are already willing renegades and those others who would readily join them. 5. Is it not good to try to find mutual ground to bridge the decades-long divide between the Vatican and China? But can there be anything really “mutual” with a totalitarian regime? Either you surrender or you accept persecution, but remaining faithful to yourself (can you imagine an agreement between St. Joseph and King Herod?) 6. So, do I think that the Vatican is selling out the Catholic Church in China? Yes, definitely, if they go in the direction which is obvious from all what they are doing in recent years and months. 7. Some expert on the Catholic Church in China is saying that it is not logical to suppose a harsher religious policy from Xi Jinping. However, we are not talking about logical thinking, but the obvious and crude reality. 8. Am I the major obstacle in the process of reaching a deal between the Vatican and China? If that is a bad deal, I would be more than happy to be the obstacle.
Would true catholic Bishops abandoning their flock to communist puppets go against faith morality or love?
Have the bishops abandoned their flocks? I haven't seen any. I think they are doing the best they can in a bad situation. What would you have the Chinese underground bishops do? Declare separation from Rome? How does that improve the situation of their flocks? I think just about the only thing worse that being a Catholic in China right now might be being a schismatic in China. You would have no recourse to the limited protection Rome could give. I am not for this deal. Don't mistake me. I think it was a major error, but it is the deal that we have. Schism is never the answer.
Msgr. Ronny Jenkins “None can take Christ from you, unless you take yourself away. “ St. Ambrose on today’s Gospel and how Christ will never abandon his own, ever.
Pope Francis told Cardinal Zen that he didn't want another Mindzenty situation. Poor Cardinal Zen took that to mean that the Pope wasn't being fully informed of the deal his diplomats were doing in China. He wouldn't be the first person to come out of a meeting with Pope Francis believing that the Pope understood and agreed with him only to learn the hard way that the Pope's spokesmen (diplomats in this case) were doing exactly what they had been told to do. Here's a little refresher on Cardinal Mindzenty. https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=10004 Is it a coincidence that the Pope who sealed the Vatican's betrayal of the Cardinal was the same Pope who scoffed at the messages of Fatima and refused to release the third secret as instructed by Our Lady? He gave us Vatican 11 instead. How did cosying up to Hungarian Communists work out for the faith in Hungary and across the once-Christian West?
A splendid reductio ad absurdum about the modernist version of 'mercy', in the context of multiple recent paedophilia scandals, from Father Hunwicke: Pillula Dicit ('The Tablet says') There are sections of the Tablet which you can read free on the Internet. I have no problem in Conscience about doing this: since I pay them nothing, I can, I hope, feel fairly confident that just reading it on my computer screen does not make me complicit in their promotion of their own version of Christianity. In their latest number, my eye was caught by the headline "Zero tolerance is the only way". "Ah", I thought, "our old friend Pedophilia again". It's only a few weeks since PF assured us yet again that his own policy towards that vice is "Zero tolerance". But no; the Tablet reference was to a current problem in the British 'Charity' world. One of our biggest charities, Oxfam, appears to have been employing people whose motive was not so much to feed the poor as to get posted to impoverished countries where they could enjoy wall-to-wall sex at very advantageous rates. And there has been a sheepish acknowledgement that some of the human beings, made in the image of God, whom this sporcizia has been defiling, were probably children. So it is Pedophilia; or, to be fair, Pedophilia Plus. Memories; memories. The first Oxfam outlet was, I think, in the Broad Street, near Thornton's Bookshop, now, sadly, no more. It was there ... the Oxfam shop, I mean, not Thornton's ... that as a very callow undergraduate I bought my first decanter. It was quite cheap because there was a chip off the stopper. Those were the furtive days when one concealed from one's guests that one was giving them 'South African Sherry'. I still use that decanter. Nowadays, of course, Oxfam promotes Abortion and Contraception, so, to be fair, their miscreant employees were doing nothing worse than consistently following a coherent and widespread ethical system shared by their own organisation: the prioritisation of sexual licence. And in the same issue, you can discover how the Tablet recommends you pronounce Cupich; evidently ... oh dear ... the Pill thinks we are all going to be pronouncing that dismal disyllable quite often. And you can watch a video of Cardinal Soapy's Cambridge lecture with the questions and answers. Ever a thoughtful pastor, His Eminence explained that, in the Confessional, when we promise amendment, amendment means getting "closer to the ideal". Please, dear Reader, forgive me for making, in what follows, a point I have made before. Suppose, in the confessional, somebody confesses to child abuse, pleads diminished responsibilty on the grounds of sick obsession, so that his offences are subjectively no more than venial, and promises to "come closer to the ideal". Perhaps he says "I will cut my abuse down to just once a week". "I will only abuse boys/girls who genuinely seem to enjoy it". "I will be much less penetrative". That ... am I right? ... will, in the eyes of our new Bergoglian ethical Paradigm, constitute a move in the right direction, so that one can warmly commend and then absolve this penitent? Yes? Surely Yes?? At least, one ought not to "make the Confessional a Torture Chamber"? Have I got all this right? If not, why not? I then moved on to a piece by Christopher Lamb. It concerns the letter which, apparently, Cardinal O'Malley was supposed to have handed to PF with regard to the Bishop Barros scandal. Lamb assures us (is this what the PF clique is now putting around in preparation for a cover-up?) that PF is handed 50 things a day and really can't be expected to look at them all. Really? Then PF's irritable outburst to the Press, claiming to have received no evidence, was rather ill-judged. And his infuriated suggestion that you should just send him the evidence is rather undercut by the fact that ... apparently ... he's unlikely to look at it even if you do. Lamb reminds us that, for PF, not a subtle man, 'reforming the Curia' means sackings, so that there are now fewer people around to help him look at those 50 troubling daily items. But Lamb's piece (the man is no fool) does show a real and growing unease about the shabby realities of this pontificate. If even the Pill is starting to notice ... In the great big vulgar world of commerce, can there be any doubt that such a CEO would be facing strong pressures to consider his position? Let's end back with Cupich. He seemed very uncertain about Holy Scripture. "I'd have to look that up"! And his interesting reliance on the deservedly well-known Dominical logion "I came not to teach you but to give you life" seems to overlook the popular murmur "He teaches not as one of the Scribes but with authority"; not to mention that great long section in S Matthew which people call 'The Sermon on the Mount', where the Man who is Torah Incarnate steals away our every sinful comfort with his insistent and prescriptive "But I say unto you". Perhaps that 'Sermon' would be better Lenten reading than anything put out by PF and his sycophants. Especially if it were accompanied by revisiting the masterly dialogue between Professor Joseph Ratzinger and Rabbi Professor Jacob Neusner, in the middle volume of Jesus of Nazareth. Their exegesis of the Sermon is every bit as sparkling (and now even more relevant) as when they wrote it. Posted by Fr John Hunwicke I can second Father's recommendation of the Ratzinger/Neusner passages in Jesus of Nazareth, having recently read them myself.
I think this is a must watch. ROBERT ROYAL, editor in chief of TheCatholicThing.org and FR. GERALD MURRAY, canon lawyer and priest of the Archdiocese of New York return to discuss Jesuit Fr. Antonio Spadaro's recent address at Georgetown University on the first five years of the pontificate of Pope Francis. Spadaro is a close associate of the current pope. Video also has updates on the China-Vatican deal. Chilling. Absolutely chilling.
The Bishop of Rome has abandoned the flock in (underground) China. In my opinion, the one giving the order in this matter is definitely in error in our faith and in charity (obeying the Communist regime in China instead of Jesus our King). Yes. I don't think there is any other way for the (underground) Church in China to hold on to the Catholic faith and practise it. Schism? The pope is forcing it upon them.
Correction: this pope is leading a schism. The Faithful are merely staying Catholic. Just because it’s lead by a heretical pope, it is no less a schism and we are not obligated to follow or obey a pope in schism. And no, a pope does NOT have the “authority” to place a national Church under the rule of schismatic, automatically excommunicated “bishops” appointed by an atheistic anti-Catholic communist regime. They simply are not Catholic bishops and NO ONE owes them obedience NOR any pope who tries to “appoint” these false /illicit - and probably invalid due to automatically excommunicated - bishops. Wake up, folks. Think. Let’s not let personal scrupulously lead ourselves and others astray. Do you really, honestly, believe Chinese Catholics owe “obedience” to this?!? (Chinese police and a persecuted Catholic who refuses to give up their Faith.): View attachment 7465
Chilling yes!! But it is more than that. It is diabolical disorientation (and I stress DIABOLICAL) christian insanity coming from the Vatican.
Akita and La Salette (among others) come to mind. "SATAN WILL ENTER THE CHURCH" (Akita) "Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist . . . "The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay."
Barros Case, Scicluna’s mission sets off well in New York Cruz (Victim of Abuse), “For the first time I felt that someone is listening. The Pope's envoy cried listening to my story about Father Karadima's abuses” Monsignor Scicluna Pubblicato il 18/02/2018 LUIS BADILLA ROME The meeting between Chilean journalist Juan Carlos Cruz and Monsignor Charles Scicluna, the Pope's envoy for the so-called "Karadima-Barros" affair, which loomed over Francis's recent trip to Chile from 18 to 21 January, took almost four hours in New York. Yesterday, Saturday 17 February, in a New York parish (Holly Name of Jesus in Manhattan), Pope Francis' sex crime investigator spoke at length, without limits and without any rush, with the main victim of the abuses of the Chilean priest Fernando Karadima, tried and sentenced in both civil and canonical settings. "It was a long and difficult meeting", Cruz said, and then he observed crying:" I am happy to have been able to speak with Monsignor Charles Scicluna and with Father Jordi Bertomeu of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. They behaved very well. "For the first time I felt that someone is listening". “There are other victims, so far unknown to the public. They have never spoken. Here are some names". The Chilean journalist, probably the best-known victim of priest Karadima, priest who, as it is well known, also abused James Hamilton and Juan Andrés Murillo, -whom Scicluna will listen to in Chile as of February 20 - added visibly moved, "He (Scicluna, ed.) cried when I told about the things that happened. I felt his great compassion. I hope that those who will be heard by him in Chile will feel, in his presence, the same way I felt". Juan Carlos Cruz, in the brief statements made after the meeting, pointed out that he had handed over to Scicluna the names of people who, in his opinion, took part in the tactics of concealment of abuse, as well as a list of other people who were victims of this tragedy and who have never said anything.Scicluna would have said to Cruz that he would do everything he could to listen to these new and completely unknown testimonies. Finally, the journalist said that the Pope's envoy not only asked him about "my information on Juan Barros", the bishop of Osorno accused of having covered up what Father Karadima did, "but also about Cardinal Francisco Javier Errázuriz - Archbishop Emeritus of Santiago of Chile - and about everything he did; on Cardinal Ricardo Ezzati - the current archbishop of the capital subjected to an extension period - and on whatever the bishops, those responsible for the El Bosque parish (Karadima‘s crime-site) have never done. We also talked about other bishops. In short, I think that Scicluna mission is going above and beyond the Barros case. The papal envoy is very empathetic. He seems to me to be a good man, who wants to carry out a transparent and independent investigation. He wants to avoid any interference. He read the things I wrote. He is familiar with my book "The End of Innocence", a document in which Cruz recounts his horrendous experience between 1981 and 1995. http://www.lastampa.it/2018/02/18/v...n-new-york-WCXcGrfTBHkwrJQqx0sDXJ/pagina.html
Maybe the Pope just doesn't "intend" to "overturn this doctrine given to us directly by Christ". That's the benefit of the doubt given rather magnanimously to Hillary after she handled classified info incorrectly and then destroyed evidence. Maybe those around the Vatican's own "justice dept" will be influenced to do the same "charitable" thing as doctrine can gradually no longer "clearly" be found!!
I am sorry but I think you are both in grave error in supporting schism. This is a BAD deal! I get it. I HATE it! But encouraging a group to go into schism because of it is not the answer. Schism is a mortal sin, but it is so severe that in addition it separates one from the supernatural gifts of faith, hope, and charity. Nevermind the canonical mess it puts one in to get back into the Church. One cannot say that bad bishops are a reason to go into schism. One cannot say that bishops who may not have the faith are a reason to go into schism. If that were the case people all over the world would have a right to go into schism. Just look at many of the bishops around the world who may be teaching and believing things far worse than the Chinese bishops. The Chinese people have the same duty we all have. To not follow their bishops if they teach them a false gospel or to sin, but in these matters only. Please people think about what you are saying. Making statements like this is not charitable in any way. Catholics have NEVER had the right to go into schism because they disagreed with a political decision of the Pope. Should the French people have gone into schism because they felt the Church abandoned them to Napoleon who appointed men after his own liking to the bishopric? Of course not. We are not Protestants here. This deal stinks, but it is no reason to declare separation from Rome.
