BREAKING: Vatican dismisses Father Frank Pavone from priesthood

[fide]

I disagree with this post. I’m assuming you are putting traditionalist/conservatives in the believe in supernatural camp; and the progressive/liberal (socialist) in the unbelief camp; and that is just not the reality. If the P/L(S) camp didn’t have belief in the supernatural, they would be part of the NONES and not part of the Church. Over the years I have known people heavily in the P/L camp that were very spiritual in their faith. The only difference between those camps and the T/C camps is the rigidity of doctrine/liturgy.

That being said there are plenty in the T/C camps who reject the supernatural as well. The perfect example is with the Traditionalist rejecting the current lectionary, and they in various grades rejecting or minimizing the supernaturalness of the current Mass.

That is the irony of these four camps. They all in one way or another are just alike. They take what they like and complain about/condemn the rest.

Orthodox Catholics on the other hand take what is given to them by the Church. They may not understand it, and they may have preferences when it comes to liturgical practice(s); but they keep coming to Mass, keep saying their prayers, reverence those God has put over them, love the Blessed Mother, worship their God; and trust that at the end of the day, Jesus’ promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail over the Church, as long as we have a pope holds true.

Well, your assumption was not exactly right, although it did allow you to express your own thoughts, for which I'm glad. There are several ways to try to clarify the difference in the essentials that I am referring to. I think that John's Gospel does the best job of doing so, however. Have you invested much time in that Gospel?

 

[fide]

Having seen an abomination in St. Peter's recently, with the pope participating, this isn't theoretical. I'm referring to the Pachamama debacle, which promptly was followed by the Covid shutdown. I do think the two things were quite related as spiritual cause and effect. I had no illusions it was otherwise, even at the time.

Those of us with any sense realized this was a time for penance. An enforced penance and a long Eucharistic fast. Some of our priests figured out how to have confessions in this period of time. At my parish the priests sat out in the parking lot to hear confessions from people who drove up. They had a Eucharistic confession. And then when the governor came down hard against opening up churches the bishops called his bluff.

And finally mass was restored to us. Not everybody came back. but those who did, those who were penitent, those who prayed as acts of reparation for the blasphemy that occurred in the Vatican, we who persevered have come back better for it. We now know what abominations let loose. We know these aren't battles of mere flesh and blood, but against the powers of Gehenna. We have seen that the gates of hell have not yet endured. We have hope God will not abandon us even when worse things happen.

As to obedience, if you can't do it, then fine. But it's like David having a spear at Saul's head and crushing his skull. Which David did not do by the way. Even though he had the spear at Saul's head.

So you believe you have seen an abomination in the Holy Place - but perhaps not yet the abomination, standing in the Holy Place, that makes desolate. When and if you do, obedience to Jesus, who warned us, will call us to this (quoting here the NAB):

Mt 24:15 “When you see the desolating abomination spoken of through Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),
16 then those in Judea must flee to the mountains,
17 a person on the housetop must not go down to get things out of his house,
18 a person in the field must not return to get his cloak.
19 Woe to pregnant women and nursing mothers in those days.
20 Pray that your flight not be in winter or on the sabbath,
21 for at that time there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will be.
22 And if those days had not been shortened, no one would be saved; but for the sake of the elect they will be shortened.
23 If anyone says to you then, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it.
24 False messiahs and false prophets will arise, and they will perform signs and wonders so great as to deceive, if that were possible, even the elect...."

I ask the question, and quote this passage - and with this passage in view, and in mind and heart, ask readers what will you DO? HOW will you live your due obedience to Jesus, in this most trying time?
First, His Word must be heard. We must listen, until we hear. And then in hearing, we are called to believe and to the obedience of faith.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Having seen an abomination in St. Peter's recently, with the pope participating, this isn't theoretical. I'm referring to the Pachamama debacle, which promptly was followed by the Covid shutdown. I do think the two things were quite related as spiritual cause and effect. I had no illusions it was otherwise, even at the time.

Those of us with any sense realized this was a time for penance. An enforced penance and a long Eucharistic fast. Some of our priests figured out how to have confessions in this period of time. At my parish the priests sat out in the parking lot to hear confessions from people who drove up. They had a Eucharistic confession. And then when the governor came down hard against opening up churches the bishops called his bluff.

And finally mass was restored to us. Not everybody came back. but those who did, those who were penitent, those who prayed as acts of reparation for the blasphemy that occurred in the Vatican, we who persevered have come back better for it. We now know what abominations let loose. We know these aren't battles of mere flesh and blood, but against the powers of Gehenna. We have seen that the gates of hell have not yet endured. We have hope God will not abandon us even when worse things happen.

As to obedience, if you can't do it, then fine. But it's like David having a spear at Saul's head and crushing his skull. Which David did not do by the way. Even though he had the spear at Saul's head.

David knew that Saul was evil and had abandoned God. He had him in his sight, sleeping, yet he said I cannot lift my hand against God’s anointed.
That is how I view Francis. Who am I mere dust, a worm, to dare to think that I can raise my hand against God’s anointed? Only another Pope can declare a Pope a heretic.
We obey his lawful orders, as Christ said of the Pharisees, they sit in Moses seat, so do whatever they tell you, but do not do as they do. Francis sits in Peter’s chair, so I do whatever he tells me, but I cannot abandoned Catholic teaching or the Church in my obedience to Francis.
It is a very fine line, very fine, but Our Lord told us narrow is the way, straight is the gate that leads to life, and few there be that find it
I search for it with all of my heart, I pray you do too.

 

[Erose]

Only another Pope can declare a Pope a heretic.

There has never been a Pope is the whole 2000 year history of the Catholic Church that was a heretic and declared one by another Pope.

There was a council who attempted as such, in Pope Honorius I, but the pope (I believe one of the Leos) who ratified that council did not let that charge stand.

We have good popes and bad popes, and every once in a while we have a great pope, and every once in a while we have a really bad pope. What we don’t have is a heretic pope. The charism of infallibility protects the Church from such a beast.

 

[Erose]

Well, your assumption was not exactly right, although it did allow you to express your own thoughts, for which I'm glad. There are several ways to try to clarify the difference in the essentials that I am referring to. I think that John's Gospel does the best job of doing so, however. Have you invested much time in that Gospel?

Well I used your language in said assumption. And when it comes to the essentials (which by the way is Protestant language) the whole faith is the essential aspect of our faith.

And yes I also believe John‘s Gospel. He is my patron Saint after all.

 

[fide]

Well I used your language in said assumption. And when it comes to the essentials (which by the way is Protestant language) the whole faith is the essential aspect of our faith.

And yes I also believe John‘s Gospel. He is my patron Saint after all.

I'm just wondering, in terms of clock time, how would describe your investment of your time in listening to, and studying, and praying, and seeking intentionally to be obedient to the truth that you have heard in, John's Gospel? Much? Little? Considerable? Paltry?
I don't mean to pry into your interior life - I have no right to do that. From my own experience with John's Gospel, compared to the synoptics, I have seriously invested much time, and have seen considerable "return on investment" as a result.

I ask you because John's Gospel has given me the language to express - to some extent anyway - the difference between the natural and the supernatural. To explain, to some extent, anyway, the difference between the "citizens of the two cities" that St. Augustine writes of in his book The City of God. Therein he writes of the citizens of the earthly city: the city of man ; and the citizens of the heavenly city: the City of God. There are these two cities, and ultimately, only these two. Each human person must dwell in the one or the other. Inside the visible Church are citizens of both cities; outside the visible Church are citizens of both cities. Augustine describes them briefly - the rulers of each of the two cities, and the citizens of the two:

Accordingly, two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self. The former, in a word, glories in itself, the latter in the Lord. For the one seeks glory from men; but the greatest glory of the other is God, the witness of conscience.

The one lifts up its head in its own glory; the other says to its God, "Thou art my glory, and the lifter up of mine head." [Ps. 3: 3] In the one, the princes and the nations it subdues are ruled by the love of ruling; in the other, the princes and the subjects serve one another in love, the latter obeying, while the former take thought for all. The one delights in its own strength, represented in the persons of its rulers; the other says to its God, "I will love Thee, O Lord, my strength." [Ps. 18:1]

And therefore the wise men of the one city, living according to man, have sought for profit to their own bodies or souls, or both, and those who have known God "glorified Him not as God neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened; professing themselves to be wise,"--that is, glorying in their own wisdom, and being possessed by pride,--"they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." [Rom 1:21-22]

For they were either leaders or followers of the people in adoring images, "and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever." [Rom. 1: 21-25] But in the other city there is no human wisdom, but only godliness, which offers due worship to the true God, and looks for its reward in the society of the saints, of holy angels as well as holy men, "that God may be all in all." [1 Cor. 15:28]
The City of God — Book XIV, Chapter 28—Of the Nature of the Two Cities, the Earthly and the Heavenly.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I'm just wondering, in terms of clock time, how would describe your investment of your time in listening to, and studying, and praying, and seeking intentionally to be obedient to the truth that you have heard in, John's Gospel? Much? Little? Considerable? Paltry?

I would say considerable. What is your take on John 6?

Also what is your take of the source of John’s Gospel? Is it John’s memory alone, or did he have help? There are things in his gospel that he could not possibly have known. It does appear that he received help from Our Lady in writing the gospel, as she was living with him at the time and would have been an invaluable resource.
She did not take credit out of humility but her presence plays prominently in John’s gospel.

The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Catholic faith, as Our Lord said, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

 

[fide]

I would say considerable. What is your take on John 6?

Also what is your take of the source of John’s Gospel? Is it John’s memory alone, or did he have help? There are things in his gospel that he could not possibly have known. It does appear that he received help from Our Lady in writing the gospel, as she was living with him at the time and would have been an invaluable resource.
She did not take credit out of humility but her presence plays prominently in John’s gospel.

The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Catholic faith, as Our Lord said, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

Let me set aside the issues of Jn 6 - to the more fundamental issue of the natural vs. the supernatural, which sets the proper context for understanding Jn 6, I believe.

Thank you for this reply. There is no way I could adequately answer on a forum for "my take" on John's
Gospel - that would take more time than I have left on this earth, even if I had the writing skills to do it. I believe (and I mean "believe" in the spiritual sense, not merely as a way to say, "I think...") that John shared a spiritual intimacy with Jesus and with Mary and with their holy union, that was special - unique - among the disciples/apostles. 1) He was and is "the beloved" disciple, and 2) he and Mary were brought into a spiritual union at the Cross: "he took her into his own". More than "his own care or house or home or responsibility: "into his own" as the Greek literally puts it.

Yes I believe she shared her recollections and impressions and most importantly, her contemplative "insights" into divine revelation, with John.

There is a meaningful relationship to be found, in Scripture, in prayer, relating the Marian "dimension" and the Johannine "dimension" - and their relation to the Petrine. John's Gospel plants seeds for understanding this, seeds that call forth the Holy Spirit for light, and clarity.

Finally, and relevant to my post here on the matter of the supernatural contrasted to the natural, in the religious life of human persons: the matter of "believing" itself is a significant part of John's Gospel. The synoptics present the noun "faith" most often; John, the verb "to believe." John - and the Spirit leading him in his recording of his Gospel - John sought to supplement the synoptics (maybe "mend" better than "correct" - we note John and his brother were "mending" their nets when hearing their vocation to "follow") in this crucial matter of faith/believing.

And more than "believing in", John explicitly uses the Greek "eis" - "into". John uses the verbial phrase "believe into" in revealing ways, to point us to the active life of believing into Jesus and His eternal Truth.
The act (in the Greek) "pisteuein eis" - believe into - describes an interior/spiritual translation, so to speak, from outside something (the Spirit/Life of Jesus) to inside - inside His Being, so to speak. This is a spiritual "movement" from the natural to the supernatural - a work of God received, embraced - a "yes!" - an "Amen" - in the soul of a human person. This, Jesus described to Nicodemus in Jn 3, contrasting flesh and Spirit.

So in earlier posts I began to speak of this crucial spiritual necessity - necessary to be first received in potency (in the virtues of faith, hope and charity), and crucially important to be made act by virtue of actual graces sought and received, living and active - "believing into". John is brilliantly luminous on this point, if we dwell on and in his Gospel rightly.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Let me set aside the issues of Jn 6 - to the more fundamental issue of the natural vs. the supernatural, which sets the proper context for understanding Jn 6, I believe.

Thank you for this reply. There is no way I could adequately answer on a forum for "my take" on John's
Gospel - that would take more time than I have left on this earth, even if I had the writing skills to do it. I believe (and I mean "believe" in the spiritual sense, not merely as a way to say, "I think...") that John shared a spiritual intimacy with Jesus and with Mary and with their holy union, that was special - unique - among the disciples/apostles. 1) He was and is "the beloved" disciple, and 2) he and Mary were brought into a spiritual union at the Cross: "he took her into his own". More than "his own care or house or home or responsibility: "into his own" as the Greek literally puts it.

Yes I believe she shared her recollections and impressions and most importantly, her contemplative "insights" into divine revelation, with John.

There is a meaningful relationship to be found, in Scripture, in prayer, relating the Marian "dimension" and the Johannine "dimension" - and their relation to the Petrine. John's Gospel plants seeds for understanding this, seeds that call forth the Holy Spirit for light, and clarity.

Finally, and relevant to my post here on the matter of the supernatural contrasted to the natural, in the religious life of human persons: the matter of "believing" itself is a significant part of John's Gospel. The synoptics present the noun "faith" most often; John, the verb "to believe." John - and the Spirit leading him in his recording of his Gospel - John sought to supplement the synoptics (maybe "mend" better than "correct" - we note John and his brother were "mending" their nets when hearing their vocation to "follow") in this crucial matter of faith/believing.

And more than "believing in", John explicitly uses the Greek "eis" - "into". John uses the verbial phrase "believe into" in revealing ways, to point us to the active life of believing into Jesus and His eternal Truth.
The act (in the Greek) "pisteuein eis" - believe into - describes an interior/spiritual translation, so to speak, from outside something (the Spirit/Life of Jesus) to inside - inside His Being, so to speak. This is a spiritual "movement" from the natural to the supernatural - a work of God received, embraced - a "yes!" - an "Amen" - in the soul of a human person. This, Jesus described to Nicodemus in Jn 3, contrasting flesh and Spirit.

So in earlier posts I began to speak of this crucial spiritual necessity - necessary to be first received in potency (in the virtues of faith, hope and charity), and crucially important to be made act by virtue of actual graces sought and received, living and active - "believing into". John is brilliantly luminous on this point, if we dwell on and in his Gospel rightly.

nicely put, faith is more than mere intellectual ascent, as we know the demons believe and shudder, but Catholic faith includes works, as our Lord said If you love Me, keep my commandments

 

[fide]

nicely put, faith is more than mere intellectual ascent, as we know the demons believe and shudder, but Catholic faith includes works, as our Lord said If you love Me, keep my commandments

That comment is a helpful one - thank you. "Mere intellectual ascent" can create an institutional system of obedience; supernatural faith is very different. Believing into the Word of God intrinsically, in its essence, demands obedience because IT IS OF GOD. I have been strongly suggesting this as the explanation of Pavone's steadfast fidelity to his commitment to the cause of pro-life in this insane and hedonistic culture. I don't know this for a fact - but if I were his bishop, I would take this as a very likely possibility (a vocation from God) and would proceed with the appropriate personal, humble, prayerful caution - lest I offend and contradict God - in seeking to supervise this priest.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

That comment is a helpful one - thank you. "Mere intellectual ascent" can create an institutional system of obedience; supernatural faith is very different. Believing into the Word of God intrinsically, in its essence, demands obedience because IT IS OF GOD. I have been strongly suggesting this as the explanation of Pavone's steadfast fidelity to his commitment to the cause of pro-life in this insane and hedonistic culture. I don't know this for a fact - but if I were his bishop, I would take this as a very likely possibility (a vocation from God) and would proceed with the appropriate personal, humble, prayerful caution - lest I offend and contradict God - in seeking to supervise this priest.

I am torn by that. Yes I agree that Bishops should not suppress faith that is a gift of God.
At the same time, a priest must be in holy obedience or holy submission.
Fr Pavone may have had faith that is of God, but his pride got in the way. I have to have all the facts and I don’t say that I do, it it would appear to me that Fr Pavone was defying his Bishop instead of trying to find a way to pursue holy obedience, yet not compromising his faith.
I could be way out of line here and probably am, but I see the same look in some of the cancelled priests I have met such as Fr Altman.
I don’t say he is wrong, but when speaking of his discipline, he gets this wry smile like a sort of self satisfaction. I want to jump up and say, this is not funny! It’s not funny
We are witnessing the Church in grave crisis, and I wish all were a bit more sober minded. We should be weeping and repenting in dust and ashes. I agree with Fr Pavone’s pro-life. I agree with Fr Altman’s politics. My newly learned Ignatian discerning spirits training tells me that smiling in the face of injustice or defiance of authority is not loving our enemies nor Christ like behavior.
I pray for these men’s souls, as Satan is very tricky and can trip them up if not careful. We need faithful souls that stand up to a corrupt hierarchy, but not those who would usurp the authority of that hierarchy

Peace be with you, please share your thoughts, I am open to correction

 

[fide]

All obedience is not holy obedience. Would that every parish, diocese, religious order were filled with holy saints of one heart and mind, all one with that of Jesus the Lord. There are saintly bishops with servant hearts, and there are carnal, worldly ambitious bishops. Augustine saw the difference clearly (The City of God — Bk XIV, Ch. 28):

Accordingly, two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self. The former, in a word, glories in itself, the latter in the Lord. For the one seeks glory from men; but the greatest glory of the other is God, the witness of conscience.

The one lifts up its head in its own glory; the other says to its God, "Thou art my glory, and the lifter up of mine head." [Ps. 3: 3] In the one, the princes and the nations it subdues are ruled by the love of ruling; in the other, the princes and the subjects serve one another in love, the latter obeying, while the former take thought for all. The one delights in its own strength, represented in the persons of its rulers; the other says to its God, "I will love Thee, O Lord, my strength." [Ps. 18:1]

I was once on staff in a large city parish, and my wife was my assistant (perfect arrangement!). The "co-"pastor (I don't think that is canonical, but that was their term), my wife and I were in a meeting together, reviewing the status of our area of parish concern. A disagreement arose, between my view and direction, and the "co-"pastor's. When my presentation paused, he interjected, "Wait a minute! You work for us!" (dead serious, with anger) I was a bit stunned, speechless for a moment. My wife spoke up very quickly - and sincerely - "I thought we all worked for the Lord!" Her immediate, intuitive insight put very simply, for me, the difference between the carnal worldly, institutional authority pyramid, and the supernatural, spiritual organization of the Body of Christ - a spiritual organism having the Life of Christ as the unifying and empowering principle.
Thus, there ought to be one mind - service to the one Lord. Then, there is peace

Php 2:1 So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any incentive of love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy,
Php 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.
Php 2:3 Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves.
Php 2:4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,

I put the responsibility on the bishop, to gather his priests into one mind and heart and assign them with prudence, knowledge and wisdom acknowledging the gifts and hearts that God has given them, to use them best in His - not his - service. PF's solution - amputation of the non-conforming problematic member of the Body, does not bode well for the near-future of the Church, the Body of Christ.

 

[Michie]

Revealed: Zurek letter explained Pavone laicization plan

A 2017 letter to then-Father Frank Pavone warned the now-laicized leader of Priests for Life that his bishop had decided to ask the Vatican to dismiss him from the clerical state, and gave the priest an opportunity to request laicization of his own accord.

The letter said that Pavone had been consistently disobedient to ecclesiastical authorities, and had left Bishop Patrick Zurek of Amarillo with no hope of engaging constructively with Pavone.

“Because of your scandalous behavior, your involvement in partisan politics, your persistent disobedience, your lack of respect for legitimate ecclesial authority, control, and oversight, you leave me no choice than to ask you to present a petition to the Holy See for dispensation from all of the obligations of sacred ordination and return to the lay state,” the May 5, 2017 letter explained.

“If you choose not to petition for the dispensation… I will submit a petition to the Congregation for Clergy to request that the Roman Pontiff dismiss you from the clerical state ad poenam,” Zurek wrote.

The bishop’s letter sheds light on an announcement last month from U.S. apostolic nuncio Archbishop Christophe Pierre, who told bishops in a Dec. 13 memo that Pavone had been laicized. It also would appear to confirm The Pillar’s report that the laicization was conducted under the “special faculties II” provision of the Vatican’s Congregation for Clergy.

Continued below.

Zurek letter explained Pavone laicization plan

A 2017 letter to then-Father Frank Pavone warned the now-laicized leader of Priests for Life that his bishop had decided to ask the Vatican to dismiss him from the clerical state, and gave the priest an opportunity to request laicization of his own accord.

www.pillarcatholic.com

 

[John Caldwell]

Mod Hat On


To maintain the peace and harmony on CF you must refrain from doing the following on the public forums:

• Complaining about another members posts/threads, Christian Forums or its Staff.

Mod Hat Off

 

[fide]

This looks, to me, to be all the canonical permission Pavone has needed since 2006, to follow his sacred promise:

... for the rest of my life, to devote myself full-time to my brothers and sisters whose right to life is under direct attack, and to be, especially for the unborn, the voice they do not have. I promise to pursue union with God in all things, and holiness of life which will foster my love for the weakest among us.