Father Corapi: Am I the only one?
#41
(03-24-2011, 05:38 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(03-24-2011, 03:37 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I'm being honest when I say that I couldn't care less about the televangelist star Fr. Corapi and other Novus Ordo clergy. I honestly don't care.

Just a quick question.  Why did you post?  If you don't care, you don't care but you care enough to let everyone know that you don't care.  

It seems important for you to trumpet your disdain more than your apathy.  

Why do any of us post?  
Reply
#42
(03-24-2011, 05:38 PM)Nic Wrote:   What I think Vetus is getting at is that with the Novus Ordo, crap like this is par for the course.  For those of us who love the Church and are real tired of seeing it beaten down like a dog these last 50 years by the liberal infiltrators and a Protestant Mass, we do start to "care less," in a sense, about stuff like this.  BUT - it is the ISSUE that we "care less" about, not the person involved.

It's one thing if you have gone down the rabbit hole of thinking the Orders are invalid and the whole structure is gone, but if you actually don't deny these are priests, there is a problem.  Primarily, the idea that bishops selling out priests and false accusations against priests is solely a post-conciliar phenomenon.  It's been going on since the beginning like this.

Places like SSPX chapels (God Bless Them) are abnormal. They are Catholic M.A.S.H. units.  I spent 7 wonderful years going to one of them and I still go when I can.  But I did notice especially in the elder folk a ceding of ground attitude.  They want nothing more than to die in their little chapel and have nothing to do with the parishes that our families built with their hands and their nickels and dimes. 

I for one have always held the idea that I'm not giving up the fight for the parishes, for the souls that are still going to the parishes, for the priests that remember and yearn for the traditions but are isolated and simply doing the duty of a parish priest to the best of their ability some ordained prior to the changes and still hold the truth, belief in the sacraments and wear out rosaries in their hands.  For the younger priests, perhaps even inspired by JPII but have since discovered a much more traditional understanding than "he who brung them." 

Archbishop LeFebvre was built and called to find a particular kind of priest and set up a particular kind of operation.  It's not a one-size fits all situation and it's not a one-size fits all solution.  (Added to that, within the SSPX there is a wide variety of priest) 

Now,as much as people would  like to believe the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil, it is not.  Card. Ottaviani called it a "lowering of the Church's defenses."  The Defenses of the Church take multiple forms and are contingent realities, not necessary components.  The fact is with the Novus Ordo and its apparatus, the insidiousness is not the intrinsic merit, but rather the intention of removing elements that are and have been aids to particular attacks against the faithful.

An SSPX priest has the full arsenal of tradition, plus the formation and the mission set before him to oppose that "intention" brought to the Novus Ordo by the modernists.  They are not opposed to the individual priests.  There is too much willingness  on the part of the SSPX to aid Novus Ordo priests in  supplementing what they are lacking, namely doctrinal formation and proper liturgical experience. 

In more than most instances Fr. Corapi is bringing the same messsge to people that Bishop Williamson gives.  Stylistically different but the same substance down to the details to the point where I suspect he has listened to more than a few Bishop Williamson interviews. 

If a priest can work with the blunt instruments of the Novus Ordo and get the thick, ignorant and proud skulls of a sizable amount of Novus Ordo attendees to find out about the doctrine of the Church and start to live it, the ground is only being made fertile for a restoration of the full traditions of the Church. 
Reply
#43
(03-24-2011, 06:00 PM)Lavalliere Wrote: Why do any of us post?  

For a variety of reasons.

To Inform

To Help

To request help

To commiserate

To vent

To attack

To defend

To rebuke

To hurt

To ridicule

To calumniate

To boast

To alleviate a desire

To make a sacrifice

To detract

etc. etc.
Reply
#44
(03-24-2011, 06:09 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(03-24-2011, 06:00 PM)Lavalliere Wrote: Why do any of us post?  

For a variety of reasons.

To Inform

To Help

To request help

To commiserate

To vent

To attack

To defend

To rebuke

To hurt

To ridicule

To calumniate

To boast

To alleviate a desire

To make a sacrifice

To detract

etc. etc.

Quite right. 

That's what makes up a forum. 
Reply
#45
It's all about the abuse hoax and how the National Socialists and Communists used the SAME tactics to discredit the Church in Germany, with perhaps the exception that now, our Bishops and many of our priests participate in the hoax by acquiescing to it, using the language of our enemies and even bending to their demands and expectations.

Many of these concessions actually promote the Modernist agenda, like clergy review boards and sex education programs.

And it gets even better when shameless clerics pretend to be sorry for the crisis they helped to promote both by refusing to fight it and by refusing to discipline modernism and actively hiring homosexuals in many cases to be clergy.
Reply
#46
It really doesn't matter what I think, since I don't know and have no intimate knowledge of the case.

But, as I posted on another thread. I was taken aback by his new look some 6 to 9 months ago. I was glad to see that others said things like "it brought up my Catholic radar", It shows a tendency towards vanity, etc. And also, I found it interesting that many had not yet seen his new look.

But, as I said in that thread also, he didn't really seem like a priest at all. He did not confect the Eucharist at the Mass in which he preached. In fact he seemed distant to it. I wish I could play the clip for you all and maybe you would understand what I mean.

I also, in the past, doubted some of his stories. I think he gilds the lilly a bit in order to bring about a greater good and hammer home a point. When I once heard that a Hollywood fast laner who helped get him into cocaine, became a nun, and then he had to rescue her out of a crack house, and I have heard a similar story about a priest, it starts to all sound a bit familiar. Again, do people have these problems? Yes. Could it help if Fr. Corapi tells these stories this way? Yes. Is it ethical if they are not 100% true? I don't know. And again, I don't know that he has ever gilded the lily, Just a sense I have had about him after listening to many hours of his great sermons.

And someone who has had a cocaine problem, can easily fall and get back into it. So, yes, since I know how easy it is for me and everyone else to fall into our own personal sins, I think it is possible that some of these charges could be true. Of course I pray they are not. 
Reply
#47
It's all about the abuse hoax and gunning for orthodox or at least more traditional priests.  It's all about social engineering.
Reply
#48
How anyone in his right mind considers televangelist star Fr. Corapi an "orthodox priest" is beyond me.
Reply
#49
(03-24-2011, 08:42 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: How anyone in his right mind considers televangelist star Fr. Corapi an "orthodox priest" is beyond me.

Well, it's quite simple, if the substance of what the guy says is actually the teaching of the Catholic Church, and if he actually professes to believe it even going to so far as to say that whatever the Magisterium teaches he will submit to.  That's being orthodox.  It doesn't mean one can't be in an honest error, but it's quite different from someone like Fr. Benedict Groeschel or Fr. Mitch Pacwa deliberately declaring that they don't hold certain truths of the Catholic faith. 

His Catechism series has actually done a good service to alot of people by his explanations of the commentaries being drained of the ambiguous nature he does what Bishop Williamson calls "dragging the language back onto the high ground." 
Reply
#50
(03-24-2011, 09:41 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(03-24-2011, 08:42 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: How anyone in his right mind considers televangelist star Fr. Corapi an "orthodox priest" is beyond me.

Well, it's quite simple, if the substance of what the guy says is actually the teaching of the Catholic Church, and if he actually professes to believe it even going to so far as to say that whatever the Magisterium teaches he will submit to.  That's being orthodox.  It doesn't mean one can't be in an honest error, but it's quite different from someone like Fr. Benedict Groeschel or Fr. Mitch Pacwa deliberately declaring that they don't hold certain truths of the Catholic faith. 

His Catechism series has actually done a good service to alot of people by his explanations of the commentaries being drained of the ambiguous nature he does what Bishop Williamson calls "dragging the language back onto the high ground."   

Anyone who is an accomplice to the new Church cannot be considered "orthodox" by any stretch of the imagination.

Since the new Magisterium teaches religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, healthy laicism, etc., Fr. Corapi accepts these things as teachings of the Church. Even if he were in honest error about these modern heresies, it would still be a complete violation of the meaning of the word to call him "orthodox."
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)