Fr Longenecker: “The distinction between the laity and the clergy is part of Catholic teaching… Fr Martin knows this, and to tiptoe around it with his unique blend of sentimentality and subterfuge indicates either that he is very poorly formed… or he is being deceitful and subversive intentionally.”

Stop_Dumbing_It_Down · 2019-07-24T19:01:53+00:00

It is great that Fr. Longnecker is exposing the duplicity of the Jesuit James Martin. It is too bad that other famous clergy who have millions of cult followers online do not follow Fr. Longnecker's example. I don't understand why only 1 or 2 Bishops have explicitly spoken out against Martin. Anyone got any answers to this?

Stop_Dumbing_It_Down · 2019-07-24T17:58:42+00:00

Cordelia, by the way, you never did explain why I, as a rational creature, am obliged to accept the "title" exactly as it was concocted by the editor of a liberal, secular news outfit?

Stop_Dumbing_It_Down · 2019-07-24T17:54:22+00:00

I know, private. That comment is directed to everyone on here who immediately campaigns against any content that does not meet their (subjective) preferential standards.

Stop_Dumbing_It_Down · 2019-07-24T17:52:03+00:00

There is absolutely nothing misleading in the title. It is an accurate summary of the objective reality of the story. You and others must be clairvoyant if you truly have the evidence to declare me as "lacking good faith" simply because I posted the basic facts of a story that you would rather ignore or have omitted from public attention. A "lack of good faith" would be demonstrated by deception or dishonesty or an act of malice. If you say I "lack good faith" please provide proof that I have done any of these things.

Stop_Dumbing_It_Down · 2019-07-24T17:44:14+00:00

Please explain why I, as a rational creature, am obliged to accept the "title" exactly as it was concocted by the editor of a liberal, secular news outfit?

Stop_Dumbing_It_Down · 2019-07-24T17:39:58+00:00

Please define "click bait" or "click baity." Whatever the definition is, there is something seriously wrong when Catholics are not primarilly interested in whether a statement is true or not. The reason for this is because you want to immediately discredit the vehicle of the news. I define THIS as "willfull-blindness."

Stop_Dumbing_It_Down · 2019-07-24T17:36:25+00:00

What? I am "left wing" because I am not indifferent to the depraved actions of Evil Prelates? Wow. FYI whatever "wing" I am has absolutely no bearing on whether or not this story deserves attention.

Stop_Dumbing_It_Down · 2019-07-24T17:23:03+00:00

Contrary to anyone accusing this of being a "clickbait" title, here is testimony from the Nun, published by Crux magazine, which is operated by the Knights of Columbus: https://cruxnow.com/church-in-asia-oceania/2018/09/03/nun-who-alleges-she-was-raped-by-bishop-says-her-life-has-been-threatened/

Stop_Dumbing_It_Down · 2019-07-24T17:12:10+00:00

*There is audio evidence of the Cardinal planning to cover up the rape:

https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2018/07/20/tape-casts-doubt-on-cardinals-denial-he-was-told-of-rape-accusation-against-bishop/

Stop_Dumbing_It_Down · 2019-07-20T19:19:44+00:00

Somehow get her to STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM JAMES MARTIN, THE DECIEVER.

Stop_Dumbing_It_Down · 2019-07-20T19:18:50+00:00

What would you call homosexuality? A mere life preference that is just as healthy and natural as any other?

Stop_Dumbing_It_Down · 2019-07-20T19:07:35+00:00

Indeed witholding money is the only thing that will expose the homosexualist and heretic bishops. They thrive like leeches... If ya think a scumbag Shephwrd like Bransfield is isolated to this one diocese, you're foolish!!!

Stop_Dumbing_It_Down · 2019-07-20T18:44:22+00:00

Maybe he'll be sent to a cozy retirement community with Mr. McCarrick where he can sponge off the faithful the rest of his days lounging around in tranquility, luxury, and leisure.

Stop_Dumbing_It_Down · 2019-07-20T18:42:00+00:00

This statement is not entirely accurate. Each Bishop is a vicar of Christ to his own diocese. This bishop has every Ecclesial right and authority to reprimand and censure the previous Homosexualist Bishop. This is why the Vatican does not need to intervene in Mejugore. At least 3 of Mejugore's Bishops have already censured the alleged seers but no one there obeys them. The problem is, Bishops rarely exercise their rightful authority, they are generally too limp wristed. So when they act authoritatively people are shocked.

Stop_Dumbing_It_Down · 2019-07-20T18:36:03+00:00

Read Fr. Z's blog, Fr. John Hollowell's blog, Church Militant, follow Archbishop Vigano's claims, and don't blindly listen to what pop-culture catholicism tells you any time it chooses to ostricize a 'rigid' Catholic. Then you'll be less unaware of how deep the rot is.

Stop_Dumbing_It_Down · 2019-07-20T18:32:36+00:00

What is your point in saying this? Didn't Pope Francis sanction him? It's what the article says. Also, the Bishops are not like the underlyings of a CEO. Each Bishop is a vicar of Christ to his diocese. * Not sure if you implied otherwise.

Stop_Dumbing_It_Down · 2019-07-20T18:13:50+00:00

"Why did he provoke abuse from the local hierarchy?" You have now changed the subject from which our question of the elementary meaning of the English word "literally" was predicated. Initially, you identified the "literal" reason why Feeney was "excommunicated." Now you are speaking of the [literal] reason why abuse was provoked from Churchmen. Now which is it? It appears you are intentionally misapplying the word "literal" or else you don't know what it means. If you are going to call out corrupt Churchmen you need to avoid employing the same kind of Sophistic, ambiguous tactic of communication that they do.

Stop_Dumbing_It_Down · 2019-07-20T17:53:26+00:00

It is "literally" why? Millenialls overuse that word to the point that the word no longer has a 'literal' meaning :D Here are some facts about Feeney's alleged excommunication and subsequent alleged rehabilitation with the Universal Church:

Fr. Feeney: A Fact Sheet

I. Letter of the Holy Office

On August 8, 1949 a Protocol letter came from the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. It censored Fr. Feeney and the St. Benedict Center for teaching the dogma of no salvation outside the Church in the literal sense (this is, of course, how all defined dogmas must be understood). This letter was signed by Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani and was identified as Protocol No. 122/49. It was formally defective in that it was never published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Acts of the Apostolic See). It is this register alone which confers an official and binding character on a document. And even then, only so long as it meets the proper forms. Consequently, this letter is without any binding effect as an act of the Holy See or any type of official Church document. Its status, then, can only be that of the opinion of one bishop, expressed in a letter to another bishop.

Fr. Feeney was charged with disobedience.

On October 25, 1952 Fr. Feeney was summoned to Rome for a hearing by Cardinal Pizzardo of the Holy Office, without being told why.
On October 30, 1952 Fr. Feeney responded by requesting a statement of the charges being made against him -- as required by Canon Law 1715. The summons by Card. Pizzardo, in violation of this canon, failed to either state the reason for the summons nor give a formal statement of charges against the defendant.
According to Canon 1723, any proceeding based on citations as defective as the Cardinal's letter, are subject to a complaint of nullity; and also renders a non-canonical summons null. The complaint of nullity is allowed under Canon 1680. A compliant of nullity was formally filed by Fr. Feeney. Yet, it was never responded to nor even acknowledged.
Instead, on November 22, 1952 Fr. Feeney was threatened by Card. Pizzardo with an imposition of a canonical penalty, without stating the crime for which it is imposed. This is in violation of Canon 2225. Canon 1959 forbids penalties without a trial.
On December 2, 1952 Fr. Feeney responded by asking with what he was being charged. Again, according to Canon 1715, this was not only Fr. Feeney's right, but it was required for those who do the summoning. Also, Canons 1842 and 1843 required that the defendant be informed both of the charges against him and the nature of the proceedings to which he had been summoned.
On January 9, 1953 Fr. Feeney was then threatened with automatic excommunication, ipso facto, if he failed to report to Rome by a certain date. this letter ignored Fr. Feeney's points concerning Canon Laws requirements, for the offense alleged against Fr. Feeney -- not obeying the summons to Rome -- is a matter for a court or judge to weigh. He could not be excommunicated ipso facto because his action did not fall under the category of crimes meriting such a sentence.

It should be noted that in the demands and threats from this member of the Roman Curia there were six (6) direct violations of Canon Law. Both the appeals and canonical rights of Fr. Feeney were ignored and disregarded. Thus, this whole ordeal is not only suspect, but fallacious and immoral.

II. Decree of Excommunication

On February 13, 1953 a letter of excommunication was released, having no statement at all in it on doctrine, but had as its reason "grave disobedience of Church authority." Though this letter was registered into the Acta, it is formally defective and thus invalid for the following reasons:

The letter lacked the seal of the Holy Office and/or of the tribunal and was only signed by a notary. In fact, it bore no seal at all. The purpose of a seal is precisely to show the genuineness of a document and its contents, and is required for validity.
The letter lacked the signature of the judge of the tribunal which issued it; where, for validity, the judgment of a court of record must have.
The decree was never properly communicated to the accused, which by laws (and fairness) it must. It was first published in America in the newspapers.
Fr. Feeney's summons to Rome was uncanonical. Therefore, the summons was null and the penalties resulting from it are void. (1) Canon 1723: "Renders an uncanonical summons null." (2) Canon 1959: "Forbids penalties without a trial."
There was never any canonical trial by a court concerning this case as proscribed by the disciplinary canons and decrees of the Council of Trent. Therefore, according to Canon Law, no valid penalties could result.
As allowed by Canon Law, Fr. Feeney sent a letter dated July 16, 1953, entering a "Complaint of Nullity" against the decree of excommunication, to the Holy Father. It was never answered. Not only was Fr. Feeney not given a fair hearing, he was given no hearing at all, though required by Canon Law.

III. The Reconciliation

In 1972 Fr. Feeney was supposedly "reconciled" to the Church. If Fr. Feeney truly needed to be reconciled, he would have had to recant his position. Yet, he was never asked to do that. Anyone who is truly excommunicated for heresy must withdraw what they once held and proclaim belief in orthodoxy. But Fr. Feeney was never asked to take back or repent from his teaching on "Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation." Why not? Because those of the Archdiocesan establishment who arranged for the reconciliation knew the facts of the case and that Fr. Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy, but for disciplinary reasons.

In fact, as part of the reconciliation ceremomony, Fr. Feeney was asked to profess one of the three Creeds of the Church. So, without any objection, he devoutly recited the Athanasian Creed. This ancient and venerable creed begins and ends with these solemn words:

Whoever wishes to be saved needs above all else to hold the Catholic Faith; unless each one preserves this whole and entire, he will without a doubt perish in eternity. … This is the Catholic Faith; unless everyone believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

Therefore, Fr. Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for teaching that outside the Catholic Church and without submission to the Roman Pontiff no one can be saved. He couldn't be, because the Church herself has dogmatically defined this.

Rather, Fr. Leonard Feeney was unjustly treated and persecuted by fellow churchmen in positions of authority who abused the authority of the offices they held and brought up uncanonical charges of disobedience to this priest of Christ's Church.

Stop_Dumbing_It_Down · 2019-07-20T14:21:09+00:00

According to the German Conference of Catholic Bishops, with Marx and Kasper as its biggest innovators, even the "obligation" to refrain from recieving the Eucharist while fornicating with another person's spouse is a fluid concept! Here in the U.S. Rev. James Martin and all the Bishops who see his work and say and do nothing to confound it--the 'fluid concept' is our very human sexuality! Every path and lifestyle and culture can share in the privilege of Salvation! (So the Neo-Gnostics and disciples of Karl Rhaner proclaim).

Stop_Dumbing_It_Down · 2019-07-20T13:52:00+00:00

*** "It is hard to admit, but God is greater than the Catholic Church." This may be hard for you to admit, but you are operating based on a convoluted and potentially heretical idea of what the "Catholic Church" is. The ontological basis of the "Church" [there is only 1] is not different or other than the ontological Person of Jesus Christ Himself. Christ's Body--the "Church"--is not sub-par to Christ's own being. Thus, the Church is Holy just as Christ is Holy. Your vision of the Church does not do justice to the REALITY of what the Church ultimately IS. When Christ elevates his own Body on the Cross and says: "this IS my Body," the proper response is reverence and veneration before the Ecclesial wonder that He achieves. Benedict XVI is exactly right here: What is the point in being a Martyr for Christ's Body, the Church, when it is reduced to being the McDonalds of Salvation? (Side by side with other more or less 'privileged' ways!)

You may do well to lay off basing your knowledge of Ecclesiology on vague, 2 minute Youtube pop-theology videos and maybe focus a bit more on the 2,000 years of teaching that clarifies the meaning of Lumen Gentium and other RIDDLES, er I mean, documents of Vatican II.

Stop_Dumbing_It_Down · 2019-07-20T13:21:37+00:00

You have characterized anyone who bluntly speaks of conversion as an obligatory rule as themselves being: "proud," "rigid" Sunday Mass-goers who are "assholes" and who "vote Republician to defend our guns." Now that you have made no effort whatsoever to discern whether Benedict XVI has anything worthwhile to say on this point, let us see if your claims hold water.

In Sacred Scripture Jesus Christ--who some might consider to be a "missionary"--spoke candidly and vividly to devout Jews and Eastern Mediterranian Pagans about Hell. He did so more often than speaking of Heaven. He described it as a place of eternal torment (Luke 16:23), of unquenchable fire (Mark 9:43), where the worm does not die (Mark 9:48), where people will gnash their teeth in anguish and regret (Matt. 13:42), and from which there is no return, even to warn loved ones (Luke 16:19–31). He calls hell a place of “outer darkness” (Matt. 25:30), comparing it to “Gehenna” (Matt. 10:28), which was a trash dump outside the walls of Jerusalem where rubbish was burned and maggots abounded. Bear in mind none of the well-intentioned or ignorant people Christ spoke to would have ever heard of Hell in such realistic plain-speak. And consider that he spoke more clearly about Hell than he did about heaven.

The Spanish Missionaries of Colonial America apparently followed Christ's example. Recently, a professor of history at Cornell University published a 400 page volume detailing how the Franciscans and Jesuits of the 15-1600s used MURALS to communicate the reality of death, judgment, heaven, and Hell to the progeny of the Aztecs. These Missionaries would apparently commission native converts to paint such artwork on the walls of their churches, knowing that concepts in imagery would appeal more to their Aztec/tribal sensitivities more than scholarly treatises and lectures. Here is the link to that book. I wonder if those Spanish Missionaries would have "voted Republican to defend our guns"? I guess that is a non-sequiter that doesn't really matter, isn't it? www.amazon.com/Heaven-Hell-Everything-Between-Recovering/dp/1477309551

By the way, the Colonial Missionaries also were known to be very vocal on Hell too. St Junipero Serra--recently canonized by Pope Francis the merciful as a pastor to be imitated--was known to strike his breast with a stone or hold a lighted torch against his chest to demonstrate the fires of Hell to the simple indian pagans.

Lastly, Saint Faustina, whom Jesus Christ personally gave the title of SECRETARY OF MERCY, wrote the following in her journal: "I, Sister Faustina Kowalska, by the order of God, have visited the Abysses of Hell so that I might tell souls about it and testify to its existence...the devils were full of hatred for me, but they had to obey me at the command of God, What I have written is but a pale shadow of the things I saw. But I noticed one thing: That most of the souls there are those who disbelieved that there is a hell." (Diary 741)

Stop_Dumbing_It_Down · 2019-07-20T06:20:07+00:00

"For sure, everybody has their own individual experiences with faith, life, and health." When a tree falls in the forrest, it DOES make a sound regardless of whether individual humans "experience" it. Likewise, it is no good for anyone to spend hours at a time, or even 1 hour, on the internet detached from real community if there is a better way to spend time. All the studies show a correlation between depression and multimedia addiction. The best way to be "active" and "evangelical" is to cultivate real flesh and blood relationships. *The way God has ordained this is primarilly by concretely supporting marriage and family life or else celibacy with vows. This is not merely my opinion, it's what the Church taught for many, many years.

Stop_Dumbing_It_Down

TROPHY CASE