(Lepanto Institute) — We’ve reported extensively on The Association of U.S. Catholic Priests (AUSCP), cataloging the many ways this dissident organization of priests is working to subvert Church teaching and practice into what they feel is the true “spirit” of Vatican II, but is just a modernist fantasy.
Some of AUSCP’s goals include the sacramental ordination of women, priestless lay-led parishes, homosexual activism including homosexual adoption of children, and a host of other deviant ideas and ideologies.
WATCH: Priests at dissident meeting berate LifeSite reporter for questioning them on Church teaching
Last year, the AUSCP was so fed up with our reporting that its executive director, Father Stephen Newton, CSC, sent a letter to Michael Hichborn, president of the Lepanto Institute. The letter is said to have been sent “at the request of the AUSCP Core Team… in response to Lepanto once again labeling AUSCP a heretical organization,” and it referenced our report headlined, “The Synod’s Backdoor for Heretics.”
The thrust of the letter was to ask that both Hichborn and Lepanto “cease continued slander and defamation aimed at the AUSCP and individual members.”
Liberal bishops around the world continue promoting heterodox views on homosexuality, female priests, divorce, contraception, and more — advancing anti-Catholic positions that jeopardize the salvation of souls.
Such bishops often sideline, ignore and even persecute traditional Catholics who simply ask that the Faith be preserved and passed on to their children.
But traditional Catholics cannot be silenced any longer, which is why we are uniting in this international boycott of modernist bishops and dioceses until the deposit of Faith is upheld by the hierarchy again.
SIGN: We will not fund modernist bishops or priests who undermine the Catholic Faith, but rather direct our contributions towards faithful clergy and orders that work for the salvation of souls.
There are countless examples of bishops working against Christ's Church in calling for divine law to be ignored in favor of sexual, doctrinal and liturgical deviancy, even trying to clamp down on Catholics who practise the Faith.
Just last year, Cardinal Cupich banned traditional prayers after Mass, and more recently has curtailed the Traditional Latin Mass in his diocese.
Cardinal Cupich has banned the Hail Mary and St Michael Prayer after Mass— Nick Donnelly (@ProtecttheFaith) August 27, 2021
Who but a devil would ban these prayers after Mass
The attack on the Faith is out in the open, with modernist bishops causing scandal in countless ways:
- Shutting down the Latin Mass in numerous parishes
- Rejecting the Church's teaching on sodomy
- Ignoring Vatican cover-ups of abuse by fellow bishops
- Celebrating LGBT Masses
- And so much more!
We have seen enough. Now is the time to show true Catholic unity against those who undermine the Faith - do not be bullied into submission by these men who would disfigure Christ's Church.
JOIN THE BOYCOTT & SHARE! Tell everyone you know to STOP giving money to bishops who attack the Catholic Faith.
"We therefore commit to a financial boycott of modernist bishops until the hierarchy resolves to uphold the entire deposit of Faith."
If the bishops refuse to uphold and protect the teaching of Christ's Bride, the Catholic Church, then we must refuse to support them until they repent.
P.S. — Demanding that liberal bishops be held to account through financial boycott will help save the Church from doctrinal and pastoral ruin. This is the first step in restoring the Faith for future generations. Our time is now, so please join us by signing today!
Photos: Pope Francis. Flickr. Long Thiên; Cardinal Cupich. Flickr. Goat_Girl; Collection Plate: Lisa F. Young/Shutterstock
We responded with a simple set of questions asking the AUSCP to affirm key points of Church doctrine. The AUSCP, of course, answered with a dodgy non-response.
Now, it looks like we’ll have another question to add to the list, this time concerning Church teaching on the Eucharist.
On March 13, the AUSCP posted an event notice on its website for a “Eucharistic Revival” featuring “AUSCP member and former Assembly presenter” Father Jim Bacik.
WATCH: The astonishing proof for Jesus’ real presence in the Eucharist
Bacik, according to his website bio, is a well credentialed theologian, who has held teaching positions at a number of Catholic universities. A cursory review of his materials found him to be stereotypically modernist and a good fit for AUSCP. His presentations include the promotion of such condemned ideas as the “Fundamental Option” (a theory condemned in Veritatis Splendor that we make a fundamental choice for or against God rather than fall based on our individual moral choices), the ordination of women to the priesthood and a dissident understanding of homosexuality.
Following the Eucharistic Revival event, the AUSCP posted a video of Bacik’s presentation to its website.
The talk consists of Bacik answering a number of fictional questions concerning Mass and the Eucharist.
The first question, from a character named Abraham, sets the overall tone of the presentation. Abraham is a traditionalist who doesn’t like music or the sign of peace. Bacik emphasizes that liturgy is a communal activity and a “common meal.” Later, around the twenty-minute mark, Bacik explains that some tell him Mass is a sacrifice to which he responded, “it doesn’t turn me on.” He goes on to state that the Mass is a ritual gift exchange rather than a sacrifice.
Other highlights include his discussion at the one hour and one minute mark calling Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone a “culture warrior” for his response to Nancy Pelosi while then going on to praise Cardinal Robert McElroy’s approach on making the Eucharist “common ground.”
READ: Cdl. McElroy doubles down on heresy, pushes Communion for ‘sexually active’ homosexuals, adulterers
However, the most alarming aspect of the talk is where Bacik swerves into downplaying or downright denying transubstantiation.
Beginning around 13 minutes into the talk, Bacik presents the story of a woman named Sarah who is challenged by her presbyterian husband concerning her belief in transubstantiation. Bacik first downplays transubstantiation by claiming that Catholics are not “tied” to that as a teaching. Bacik then tells Sarah that she can explain Christ’s presence in the Eucharist to her husband as “transignification,” by saying:
Trent said that [transubstantiation] was a ‘suitable way’ of describing the Eucharist. Most theologians don’t think we’re tied to that. The Vatican did repeat it in the 1950s… but, um, I think most theologians would say we’re not tied to that. So, you can tell your husband, ‘Okay you don’t like it. I don’t have to hold it as a Catholic.’
Here’s another. Try this. How about thinking of what happens in the Eucharist as ‘transignification.’ So, that bread and wine, because of the Eucharistic prayer, is no longer merely bread and wine. They don’t just throw it away when the Mass is over. It took on, through the Mass, a ‘new significance.’ So, you could tell your husband, ‘No, I don’t hold [transubstantiation], I hold transignification. When I go to communion, that’s Jesus – for me. That’s Him nourishing me, that’s Him strengthening me, that’s helping me get through my day – tough day – and the dog-eat-dog world that I live in.’ Transignification. Try that on your husband; see how that works. [Emphasis added]
The problem here is that Bacik is instructing his audience to hold a condemned view of Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist.
Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Mysterium Fidei expressly condemned the concept of transignification as a “false and disturbing opinion”:
For We can see that some of those who are dealing with this Most Holy Mystery in speech and writing are disseminating opinions on… the dogma of transubstantiation that are disturbing the minds of the faithful and causing them no small measure of confusion about matters of faith, just as if it were all right for someone to take doctrine that has already been defined by the Church and consign it to oblivion or else interpret it in such a way as to weaken the genuine meaning of the words or the recognized force of the concepts involved.
To give an example of what We are talking about… to concentrate on the notion of sacramental sign as if the symbolism – which no one will deny is certainly present in the Most Blessed Eucharist – fully expressed and exhausted the manner of Christ’s presence in this Sacrament; or to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning what the Council of Trent had to say about the marvelous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, as if they involve nothing more than ‘transignification,’ or ‘transfinalization’ as they call it; or, finally, to propose and act upon the opinion that Christ Our Lord is no longer present in the consecrated Hosts that remain after the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass has been completed.
Everyone can see that the spread of these and similar opinions does great harm to belief in and devotion to the Eucharist. [Emphasis added]
Later in the same encyclical, Paul VI adds:
In the same way, it cannot be tolerated that any individual should on his own authority take something away from the formulas which were used by the Council of Trent to propose the Eucharistic Mystery for our belief. These formulas – like the others that the Church used to propose the dogmas of faith – express concepts that are not tied to a certain specific form of human culture, or to a certain level of scientific progress, or to one or another theological school. Instead they set forth what the human mind grasps of reality through necessary and universal experience and what it expresses in apt and exact words, whether it be in ordinary or more refined language. For this reason, these formulas are adapted to all men of all times and all places.
Bacik is proposing exactly what is condemned by Paul VI, because of the exalted reason that “most theologians don’t think we’re tied to that.”
READ: Vatican cardinal highlights contradiction between Pope Francis’ remarks on confession, Catholic doctrine
This is yet another example of the heretical threat posed by the AUSCP. Not only did the AUSCP promote this “Eucharistic Revival” event, but they published the entire lecture on their own website for all to see. Given this, it stands to reason that the AUSCP agrees with Bacik’s assertion that the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation is not an obligatory belief to be held by all Catholics, and that Catholics can hold belief in “transignification” instead.
We already know the AUSCP holds Bacik in incredibly high esteem, as he presented at its 2014 Annual Assembly, and the AUSCP has published nearly two dozen other articles by him, including one that calls into question the Church’s absolute condemnation of abortion. However, the AUSCP continues to hold that it is not a heretical organization, so we are offering the AUSCP the chance to answer the following questions:
- Does the AUSCP, as an organization, assent to the following teaching of Pope Paul VI that: “We have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. Her voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way in which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament is through the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, a unique and truly wonderful conversion that the Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls transubstantiation.”
- Will the AUSCP take down Fr. Bacik’s video, and publicly condemn his notion that it is proper for a Catholic say that they do not have to hold to transubstantiation as a Catholic, but can hold to transignification instead?
We look forward to the AUSCP’s response on these important questions.
Reprinted with permission from the Lepanto Institute.