Fr. Stephanos Pedrano was kind enough to translate from Italian the famous "Smoke of Satan" homily from Italian, allowing us to see the quote in its original context. I’ve put the entire homily in the below-the-fold part of this post, and I’ll offer some analysis of it here.
FIRST, HERE’S THE ORIGINAL ITALIAN FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO LOOK IT UP IN THE ORIGINAL.
Now for the analysis:
1) A strange thing about this homily is the way it is presented. It isn’t simply the text of his remarks, which is the normal way today for presenting the text of a papal homily. Instead, it’s a kind of narrative summary of what he said, with occasional direct quotations attributed to him. I’ve never seen this way of presenting a papal homily before, but perhaps it was the way they did it back in the early 1970s. It’s unfortunate, from my perspective, because the narrative summary format introduces a new layer of ambiguity into the document. If we don’t have the pope’s exact words, but someone’s narrative re-telling of them, or if we can’t tell precisely when we have the pope’s exact words and when we don’t, it makes it that much harder to determine exactly what the pope meant.
The phrase “from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God” is, apparently, directly attributed to Paul VI, but it’s embedded in a big narrative block that narrates what he said in this part of the homily, but we don’t have–or can’t know that we have–his exact words. This means that there must remain a question mark over the correct interpretation of this phrase.
I hereby register my opposition to this manner of presenting papal remarks. Let the pope speak for himself.
2) Despite the above point, if the summary that is offered is remotely accurate, we can get a sense of what the pope meant. Here’s the paragraph in which the quotation occurs, as well as the following one:
Referring to the situation of the Church today, the Holy Father
affirms that he has a sense that “from some fissure the smoke of Satan
has entered the temple of God.” There is doubt, incertitude,
problematic, disquiet, dissatisfaction, confrontation. There is no
longer trust of the Church; they trust the first profane prophet who
speaks in some journal or some social movement, and they run after him
and ask him if he has the formula of true life. And we are not alert
to the fact that we are already the owners and masters of the formula
of true life. Doubt has entered our consciences, and it entered by
windows that should have been open to the light. Science exists to
give us truths that do not separate from God, but make us seek him all
the more and celebrate him with greater intensity; instead, science
gives us criticism and doubt. Scientists are those who more
thoughtfully and more painfully exert their minds. But they end up
teaching us: “I don’t know, we don’t know, we cannot know.” The
school becomes the gymnasium of confusion and sometimes of absurd
contradictions. Progress is celebrated, only so that it can then be
demolished with revolutions that are more radical and more strange, so
as to negate everything that has been achieved, and to come away as
primitives after having so exalted the advances of the modern world.This state of uncertainty even holds sway in the Church. There was
the belief that after the Council there would be a day of sunshine for
the history of the Church. Instead, it is the arrival of a day of
clouds, of tempest, of darkness, of research, of uncertainty. We
preach ecumenism but we constantly separate ourselves from others. We
seek to dig abysses instead of filling them in.
In the next section the subject of the devil is further expounded upon:
How has this come about? The Pope entrusts one of his thoughts to
those who are present: that there has been an intervention of an
adverse power. Its name is the devil, this mysterious being that the
Letter of St. Peter also alludes to. So many times, furthermore, in
the Gospel, on the lips of Christ himself, the mention of this enemy of
men returns. The Holy Father observes, “We believe in something that
is preternatural that has come into the world precisely to disturb, to
suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to impede the
Church from breaking into the hymn of joy at having renewed in fullness
its awareness of itself. Precisely for this reason, we should wish to
be able, in this moment more than ever, to exercise the function God
assigned to Peter, to strengthen the Faith of the brothers. We should
wish to communicate to you this charism of certitude that the Lord
gives to him who represents him though unworthily on this earth.”
Faith gives us certitude, security, when it is based upon the Word of
God accepted and consented to with our very own reason and with our
very own human spirit. Whoever believes with simplicity, with
humility, sense that he is on the good road, that he has an interior
testimony that strengthens him in the difficult conquest of the truth.
From this–as well as other elements in the rest of the homily–a fairly clear picture emerges of what Paul VI meant. This can be summarized as follows:
The Second Vatican Council did its work to renew the Church and to bring a new day of light. However, the Council’s work has been frustrated by an attack by the devil by means of broader sociological currents that were present in the late 1960s and early 1970s, such as secular social experts and social movements and scientists who lack faith and political and cultural revolutionaries. These sociological currents ("the smoke of Satan") have infected the Catholic community and caused many to doubt and trust the Church and turn away from the eternal answers it has to offer and folow after passing modern ideas that are hostile to Christian thought. In this way the devil has thwarted the work of the Council in bringing in the day of joy and renewal that should have followed the Council.
3) It is thus clear–if the reportage of what Paul VI said is even remotely right, that he was not claiming that there were Satanists in the Vatican (as some have claimed), nor is he linking the "smoke of Satan" with the Second Vatican Council itself or the liturgical reforms that followed it or anything like that. He perceives the work of the Council as a good thing that has been thwarted–or partially thwarted–by the social crisis that was breaking out in the developed world at this time. In other words, he’s responding to the cultural crisis of the late 1960s and early 1970s and its impact on the Church using a poetic image and attributing it (rightly) to the work of the devil, but he is not making the kind of sensationalistic claims that some have used to interpret this phrase.
People who have been claiming the latter need to get their tin foil hats adjusted properly or go back on their meds.
NINTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CORONATION OF HIS HOLINESS
HOMILY OF PAUL VI
SOLEMNITY OF THE HOLY APOSTLES PETER AND PAUL
THURSDAY, 29 JUNE 1972
In the evening of Thursday, 29 June, Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, in the presence of a considerable multitude of the faithful coming from every part of the world, the Holy Father celebrates the Mass and the beginning of the tenth year of his Pontificate as successor of Saint Peter.
With the Dean of the Sacred College, Lord Cardinal Amleto Giovanni Cicognani and the Subdean Lord Cardinal Luigi Traglia, there are thirty Porporati [cardinals] from the Curia, and some Shepherds of dioceses, present today in Rome.
Two Lord Cardinals for each Order [or rank], accompany the Holy Father in procession to the altar.
In the complete [entourage], the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See, with the Substitute of the Secretary of State, archbishop Giovanni Benelli, and the Secretary of the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, archbishop Agostino Casaroli.
We give a rendering of the Homily of His Holiness.
The Holy Father begins by affirming a most lively debt of gratitude to all those Brothers and Sons who are present in the Basilica and all those who, far away, but spiritually associated to them, are attending the sacred rite whose purpose is to celebrate the Apostle Peter, to whom the Vatican Basilica is dedicated as the privileged guardian of his tomb and his relics, and the Apostle Paul, ever united to him by apostolic design and by cult. He [the Holy Father] joins to that purpose another intention: that of recalling the anniversary of his election to succession in the pastoral ministry of the fisherman Simon, son of Jona, whom Christ named “Peter”— succession therefore also in the roles of Bishop of Rome, Pontiff of the universal Church, visible and most humble Vicar on earth of Christ the Lord. The most lively gratitude is for how much the presence of so many faithful shows him their love for Christ himself in the sign of his [the Holy Father’s] poor person, and it assures him therefore of their fidelity and indulgence towards him, no less than their consoling commitment to help him with their prayer.
THE CHURCH OF JESUS, THE CHURCH OF PETER
Paul VI goes on to say that he does not want to speak in his brief discourse, about him, St. Peter, for it would take too long and would perhaps be superfluous to anyone who already knows his marvelous history; neither does he [the Holy Father] wish to speak about himself, since there is already too much being said about him in the press and the radio. Nonetheless, he expresses his debt of recognition to them [the press and the radio]. The Holy Father wishes, rather, to speak of the Church, which in that moment and from that vantage point seems to appear before his eyes as spread out in its most vast and most complicated panorama. He limits himself to repeating a phrase from the Apostle Peter himself, as if uttered by Peter to the immense catholic community, uttered by him in his first letter that is included in the canon of the writings of the New Testament. This most beautiful message, sent from Rome to the first Christians of Asia Minor, who were partly of Jewish origin, partly of pagan, as if to show right from the start the universality of the apostolic ministry of Peter. This message has a parenetic character, that is, an exhortative character, but it does not lack doctrinal teachings, and the phrase that the Pope cites has precisely that character, so much that the recent Council has enshrined it as one of the Council’s characteristic teachings. Paul VI invites all to listen to it as if St. Peter were pronouncing it for them while he [Paul VI] was voicing it.
After having recalled the passage from Exodus that tells how God, speaking to Moses before giving him the Law, said: “I shall make of this people a priestly and royal people,” Paul VI declares that St. Peter took up this quite uplifting and grand phrase, and he applied it to the new people of God, the heir and continuance of Biblical Israel, to form a new Israel, the Israel of Christ. St. Peter says: “This people will be a priestly and royal people that will glorify the God of mercy, the God of salvation.”
The Holy Father makes the observation that certain individuals have misunderstood this phrase, as if the priesthood were only one order, and as if it had been communicated to all who are inserted in the Mystical Body of Christ, to all who are Christians. That understanding is true as far as regards what is called the common priesthood, but the Council tells us, and Tradition had already taught, that there exists another grade of the priesthood, the ministerial priesthood that has particular and exclusive faculties and prerogatives.
However, what interests everyone is the royal priesthood, and the Pope spends some time on the meaning of this expression. Priesthood means the capacity to render worship to God, to communicate with Him, to offer Him worthily something in his honor, to converse with Him, to seek him always with new depth, with new discovery, with new love. This impetus of humanity towards God, which is never sufficiently achieved, nor sufficiently known, is the priesthood of the one who is inserted in the unique Priest, who is Christ, after the inauguration of the New Covenant. Whoever is a Christian is for that reason endowed with this quality, with this prerogative of being able to speak to the Lord in real terms as a son to a father.
THE NECESSARY DIALOGUE WITH GOD
“We dare to say”: we can really celebrate, before the Lord, a rite, a liturgy of shared prayer, a sanctification even of profane life, and this distinguishes one who is Christian from one who is not. This people is distinct, even though it may be mixed in with the great tide of humanity. It has its own distinction, its own unmistakable characteristic. St. Paul says “segregatus” [segregated], separate, distinct from the rest of humanity precisely because invested with prerogatives and functions lacking to those who do not possess the extreme fortune and excellence of being members of Christ.
Paul VI adds, then, that the faithful— who are called to be sons of God, to be partakers in the Mystical Body of Christ, and are animated by the Holy Spirit, and made into the temple of the presence of God— must carry out this dialogue, this colloquium, this conversation with God in religion, in liturgical worship, in private worship, and extend the sense of sacredness even to profane actions. “Whether you eat, whether you drink— says St. Paul— do it for the glory of God.” And he says it several more times, in his letters, as if to challenge the Christian with the capacity to infuse something new, to illuminate, to make sacred even the things that are temporal, external, passing, profane.
We are invited to give to the Christian people, that is called the Church, a truly sacred meaning. And we feel the duty to hold back the rising tide of profanity, of desacralization, of secularization that wants to confuse and overwhelm the religious sense in the secret of the heart, in private life or even in the affirmations of public life. There is a tendency today to affirm that there is no need to distinguish one man from another, that there is nothing that could bring about this distinction. Even more, there is a tendency to restore to man his authenticity, his being like all other men. But the Church and St. Peter today summon the Christian people to its consciousness of itself, and say to the Christian people that it is a chosen people, distinct, “acquired” by Christ, a people that must exercise a particular relationship with God, a priesthood with God. This sacralization of life must not be canceled today, expelled from custom and from daily reality as if forced to appear no more.
SACREDNESS OF THE CHRISTIAN PEOPLE
Paul the VI notes that we have lost the religious habit and so many other exterior manifestations of religious life. On this point there is much to discuss and much to acknowledge, but it is necessary to maintain the concept, and with the concept also some sign of the sacredness of the Christian people, of those who are inserted into Christ, High and Eternal Priest.
Certain sociological currents today tend to study humanity while prescinding from this contact with God. By contrast, the sociology of St. Peter, the sociology of the Church, studies men by pointing to precisely this sacred aspect of conversation with the ineffable, with God, with the divine world. It is necessary to affirm that in the study of all the human differentiations. No matter how heterogeneous humankind may appear to be, we must not forget this fundamental unity that the Lord confers upon us when he gives us grace: we are brothers in Christ himself. There is no longer Jew, nor Greek, no Scythian, nor barbarian, nor man, nor woman. We are all only one thing in Christ. We are all sanctified, we all have participation in this supernatural grade of elevation that Christ has conferred upon us. St. Peter reminds us of it: it is the sociology of the Church that we must not obliterate or forget.
CONCERN AND AFFECTION FOR THE WEAK AND DISORIENTED
Paul VI asks himself, then, if the Church of today can bring itself to face with tranquility the words that Peter has left as an inheritance, offering them to be meditated upon. The Holy Father says, “At this time, with immense charity, let us again think of all our brothers who are leaving us, think of all those who are fugitive and oblivious, think of all who perhaps have never arrived at having an awareness of the Christian vocation, even though they have received Baptism. How we should wish truly to stretch out our hands towards them, and tell them that our hearts are always open, that the door is easy, and how we should wish to make them sharers in the great, ineffable fortune of our happiness, the fortune of being in communication with God, who does not take away from us any part of the temporal vision and the positive realism of the exterior world!“
Perhaps our being in communication with God obligates us to renunciations, to sacrifices; but at the same time that it deprives us of something it multiplies its gifts. Yes, it imposes renunciations, but it makes us superabundant in other riches. We are not poor, rather we are rich, because we have the riches of the Lord. The Pope adds, “And so, we should wish to tell these brothers—whose absence we feel as it were in the guts of our priestly soul— how close they are to us, how much we love them now and always, and how much we pray for them, and with how much effort we seek to pursue, surround and repair the interruption that they themselves have imposed on our communion with Christ.
Referring to the situation of the Church today, the Holy Father affirms that he has a sense that “from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.” There is doubt, incertitude, problematic, disquiet, dissatisfaction, confrontation. There is no longer trust of the Church; they trust the first profane prophet who speaks in some journal or some social movement, and they run after him and ask him if he has the formula of true life. And we are not alert to the fact that we are already the owners and masters of the formula of true life. Doubt has entered our consciences, and it entered by windows that should have been open to the light. Science exists to give us truths that do not separate from God, but make us seek him all the more and celebrate him with greater intensity; instead, science gives us criticism and doubt. Scientists are those who more thoughtfully and more painfully exert their minds. But they end up teaching us: “I don’t know, we don’t know, we cannot know.” The school becomes the gymnasium of confusion and sometimes of absurd contradictions. Progress is celebrated, only so that it can then be demolished with revolutions that are more radical and more strange, so as to negate everything that has been achieved, and to come away as primitives after having so exalted the advances of the modern world.
This state of uncertainty even holds sway in the Church. There was the belief that after the Council there would be a day of sunshine for the history of the Church. Instead, it is the arrival of a day of clouds, of tempest, of darkness, of research, of uncertainty. We preach ecumenism but we constantly separate ourselves from others. We seek to dig abysses instead of filling them in.
FOR A LIFEGIVING AND REDEEMING “CREDO”
How has this come about? The Pope entrusts one of his thoughts to those who are present: that there has been an intervention of an adverse power. Its name is the devil, this mysterious being that the Letter of St. Peter also alludes to. So many times, furthermore, in the Gospel, on the lips of Christ himself, the mention of this enemy of men returns. The Holy Father observes, “We believe in something that is preternatural that has come into the world precisely to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to impede the Church from breaking into the hymn of joy at having renewed in fullness its awareness of itself. Precisely for this reason, we should wish to be able, in this moment more than ever, to exercise the function God assigned to Peter, to strengthen the Faith of the brothers. We should wish to communicate to you this charism of certitude that the Lord gives to him who represents him though unworthily on this earth.” Faith gives us certitude, security, when it is based upon the Word of God accepted and consented to with our very own reason and with our very own human spirit. Whoever believes with simplicity, with humility, sense that he is on the good road, that he has an interior testimony that strengthens him in the difficult conquest of the truth.
The Pope concludes: The Lord shows himself to be light and truth for him who accepts him in his Word, and his Word becomes no longer an obstacle to the truth and the path to well-being, but rather a stair-step upon which we can climb and truly be conquerors in the Lord who reveals himself through the path of faith— this faith that is the anticipation and guarantee of the definitive vision.
By underlining another aspect of contemporary humanity, Paul VI recalls the existence of a great number of humble, simple, pure, upright, strong souls who follow the invitation of St. Peter to be “strong in faith.” And we should wish, so Paul VI says, that this strength of faith, this sureness, this peace should triumph over all obstacles. Finally, the Pope invites the faithful to an act of faith that is humble and sincere, to a psychological effort to find in their own hearts the impetus towards a conscious act of adherence: “Lord, I believe in Your word, I believe in Your revelation, I believe in the one You have given me as witness and guarantor of Your revelation to sense and to prove, with the strength of faith, the anticipation of the blessedness of the life that is promised us with faith.”
Jimmy, thanks for your clear and succinct analysis.
So what you are saying is, we really don’t know anymore than when we started.
Thanks Jimmy, for putting that one to bed.
Although there is that degree of uncertainty about the Pope’s words due to the “precis” or paraphrase sort of approach to the record of his homily, nevertheless if this was the officially published account of his homily and he did not subsequently go on record correcting this account, then we can only conclude that the Pope didn’t see any inaccuracy in the way his words were paraphrased.
Although there is that degree of uncertainty about the Pope’s words due to the “precis” or paraphrase sort of approach to the record of his homily, nevertheless if this was the officially published account of his homily and he did not subsequently go on record correcting this account, then we can only conclude that the Pope didn’t see any inaccuracy in the way his words were paraphrased.
Unless of course the Smoke of Satan sought to obscure his meaning…
Jimmy,
You noted: ” If we don’t have the pope’s exact words, but someone’s narrative re-telling of them, or if we can’t tell precisely when we have the pope’s exact words and when we don’t, it makes it that much harder to determine exactly what the pope meant.”
Paraphrasing the above: If we don’t have the Jesus’ exact words, but someone’s narrative re-telling of them, or if we can’t tell precisely when we have the Jesus’ exact words and when we don’t, it makes it that much harder to determine exactly what Jesus meant. ”
i.e. Problems of interpretation (translation?) of narratives are not new as evidenced by our four Gospels and subsets of epistles,letters and minor gospels.
In singularity and going to work now on a money project. Later!!!
Thanks for the great analysis Jimmy!
Christine
TheWorld…IMHO
Realist, you are hobby-horsing AGAIN, turning every post into an excuse to deliver your standard-issue harangue against the authority of scripture, the authority of the Church and, well, the reliability of anything not personally approved by yourself.
“…If we don’t have the Jesus’ exact words, but someone’s narrative re-telling of them, or if we can’t tell precisely when we have the Jesus’ exact words and when we don’t, it makes it that much harder to determine exactly what Jesus meant. ”
Nobody said it was easy. What J.D. Crossan does, on the other hand, IS easy.
This is also why we have capital-T Tradition, and this is why it is absolutely indispensable. The Bible was not written in a vacuum. There was a living Church that gave birth to the Scriptures, and it is that same living Church through which they must be interpreted, or one is simply wandering without a compass.
But, to turn to the actual topic of Jimmy’s post –
It sounds like Pope Paul VI was worried about the same destructive social trends and heresies that anyone with eyes could see looming in the last half of the twentieth century, INCLUDING exactly the kind of preposterous modernism advocated by J.D. Crossan and his ilk.
How this text could be used to argue that he regretted the actions of the Council, or thought the Novus Ordo a mistake is beyond my comprehension. The text simply can’t be stretched that far without breaking.
And as for Satanists in the Church… you mean we should not take Bishop Milingo at his word? He wouldn’t have any axe to grind against the hierarchy of the Church, would he?
Thanks Jimmy; Awesome as usual.
It seems that Pope Paul VI was lamenting on the trend of the faithful as Saint Paul had written.
2Tm 4:3-4 For there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. (DRV)
Jimmy,
How can it be said that he didn’t mean the liturgical life of the church had been hurt? I am thinking specifically about the fact that the Council (which has a highest level of protection, thank you Holy Spirit!) and the promulgation of the new Ordo were separate events. The Council called for *something* (but not specifically or necessarily what we got many years later).
pax,
Scott
Scott,
I think one needs to make a distinction between the promulgation of the Ordo, and the way that Ordo was implemented on a parish by parish basis. The two are not the same.
As I stated in the previous thread, my reading of the original Italian text left me with the same conclusion: Paul was referring to the “spirit of VII” as the “smoke of satan”. Benedict put the same idea in other less dramatic, yet no less accurate, words, referring to it as the “hermeneutics of discontinuity.”
But now I’m intrigued by the fact that the original text wasn’t offered, only a report on it…
JIMMY AKIN:
You’re AWESOME! When I had commented in the Italian Translation Bleg thread yesterday evening that I couldn’t wait ’till you published the follow-up to that post in order to help folks with their misunderstanding on this matter, I didn’t know the follow-up would actually arrive the next day! Whoa!!! That was QUICK SERVICE!
+J.M.J+
Yes, thank you for this post!
It would be great if something like this would appear in a future copy of This Rock, no? {hint-hint :-)}
In Jesu et Maria,
Realist, you are hobby-horsing AGAIN, turning every post into an excuse to deliver your standard-issue harangue against the authority of scripture, the authority of the Church and, well, the reliability of anything not personally approved by yourself.
Tim J:
Brutha, if Realist is going to continue in this manner just to sabotage Jimmy’s blog in order to further his own ends and promote the Crossan gospel, you might consider posting permanently that Gospel According to Realist Summary of yours as a warning to those who would be unaware of Realist’s hidden agenda and this ulterior motive.
JIMMY:
You might want to have the following (nicely done by Tim J) regarding Realist permamently posted if Realist continues to repeat his behavior in sabotaging your posts with the heretical Crossan Gospel all throughout these and other future posts; that it may serve as a warning for unsuspecting blog visitors not acquainted with his distorted liberal views. Just wanted you to know though that Tim J didn’t originally call it “The Gospel According to Realist”. I was the one who actually added that title in there since, considering Realist’s views on the matter, it seemed appropriate. I didn’t want you to become upset with him if you disliked the title.
The “Gospel According to Realist”:
For the sake of simplicity, and for those new to JA.O, here is a short synopsis of Realist’s comments on just about any subject;
1) The Bible is nothing more a collection of “faith stories” with no basis in historical fact. He knows this because the Jesus Seminar says so, and they are infallible in matters of doctrine.
2) The *Official Version* of Church history is a lie made up by the hierarchy so that they can continue scamming all of us.
3) Miracles – that is supernatural events of any kind – are impossible because in reality, nothing exists outside of nature. This means we have to re-think our idea of “God”.
3) “Catholic” is, apparently, a word with no fixed meaning… this means that all Catholics are equal, especially dissidents. There is, of course, no absolute Truth, but the *Official Catholic Version* of anything is ESPECIALLY rejected.
None the less, Realist assures us that he REALLY IS a Catholic, which is like me insisting that I am REALLY a committed Communist, even though I think communism gets everything wrong and that Karl Marx never existed, but was an invention of Joseph Stalin.
That doesn’t really change the facts.
If someone wishes to dismiss the claim that Pope Paul VI was referring to the negative effects following the Council (let’s face it; documents like Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate really aren’t bastions of Catholic Tradition and Truth) the crushing statistical evidence remains.
35% decline in priests, from 75% to 25% drop in Mass attendance, over a 90% drop in seminarians (98% in Canada), almost 70% drop in ordinations, 70% disbelief in the Real Presence, huge divorce rates, annulment rates, abortion rates, etc. among Catholics, 92% of Catholics disagreeing with the Church’s dogmatic teaching on contraception, over 66% drop in the number of seminaries, about a 55% drop in the number of adult converts, and let’s not even get into what’s happened to the Holy Mass, devotion to Our Blessed Lady, to the Most Blessed Sacrament, etc.
You can find all of this in Kenneth Jones’ book “Leading Catholic Indicators…”
Why anyone would fight so desperately, with such ferocity, to uphold this Council as though it really “let in a new springtime” is beyond me.
Admit that we’re in a crisis and set about addressing it. Kung, Rahner, Schillebeeckx…when else in Church history have people like this been allowed into the conciliar document-making process? St. Cyril? St. Athanasius? St. Charles Borromeo? Were these great saints out to subvert Church teaching, dumb it down for modern man (as Pope Paul VI admitted, in his address of 11/26/1969, was part of the intention for vernacularizing the Mass) and introduce the ambiguity of modernism, which St. Pius X called the “synthesis of all heresies”?
I better stop there. I’m sure I’ll soon receive a volley of scathing rebukes, spitting angry tirades, and even death threats lambasting me for being a radical, reactionary, lidless-eye traditionalist from the Middle Ages.
Stat Man,
Just one question:
Did the Holy Spirit abandon the Church during Vatican II thereby allowing the gates of Hell to prevail?
I look forward to your answer, John…I mean Stat Man.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
STATMAN (though this was not your ‘name’ before):
35% decline in priests, from 75% to 25% drop in Mass attendance, over a 90% drop in seminarians (98% in Canada), almost 70% drop in ordinations, 70% disbelief in the Real Presence, huge divorce rates, annulment rates, abortion rates, etc. among Catholics, 92% of Catholics disagreeing with the Church’s dogmatic teaching on contraception, over 66% drop in the number of seminaries, about a 55% drop in the number of adult converts, and let’s not even get into what’s happened to the Holy Mass, devotion to Our Blessed Lady, to the Most Blessed Sacrament, etc.
Gee… and all those statistics actually PROVE that Vatican II was behind them???
HOW???
As I stated before:
That is like finding a correlation between people wearing pink bikinis on the beach on a hot summer’s day and the high number of deaths that occured on that particular day.
Does that mean that because there were several folks wearing pink bikinis on that hot summer’s day and the high number of deaths that occurred that very day; that the former was a cause of the latter?
Mind you, correlation does not prove causation!
Darn it! Where did those pink bikinis actually go????
That’s right, the smoke of Satan entered them and…!!!
(i)(what I wouldn’t give for a good punchline to that!) (/i)
Memo to Stat Man:
Look up “post hoc, ergo propter hoc.”
Inocencio–
Did the Holy Spirit abandon the Church during Vatican II thereby allowing the gates of Hell to prevail?
No. But insofar as Pope Paul VI’s closing address of January 12, 1966 admitted quite clearly that nothing from the council was proclaimed dogmatically infallible, the Holy Spirit was not invoked to protect these documents from error.
Pope Benedict XIV, for instance, said in 1748: It is almost impossible to happen that Catholics who mix themselves with heretics or schismatics in any act of worship might be worthy to be excused from this shameful crime.
The Council’s decree on ecumenism, number 8, offers: “In certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers “for unity,” and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in common are certainly an effective means of obtaining the grace of unity, and they are a true expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their separated brethren.”
Of course, I bet you’re skilled at reconciling jointly exhaustive, mutually exclusive statements, as most conservative Catholics these days are; whenever a traditionalist is encountered, conservative Catholics become instantly able to offer an impassioned defense of why before the Council, 2 and 2 equalsed 4 and after “possibly, if we consider it in a certain way and dialogue with our separated brethren in the proper spirit of ecumenical fervor, noting that the way of salvation is also open to our separated brethren, that 2 and 2 can at times equal 5.”
I would rather say that the Holy Spirit prevented the Council from swallowing up Tradition utterly and completely.
I look forward to your answer, John…I mean Stat Man.
My name is actually Michael, but I don’t want to let facts stand in the way of your obscuring the point by adopting the same tactic I predicted would be used.
I could just as easily refer to you as a post-Vatican II neo-con who thinks popular approval is sufficient to append “Magnus” to the name of Pope John Paul II, but I’ve chosen to address your point as though it contained something of substance.
Presumably, a traditional Catholic (which is to say, a Catholic who does things largely as they were done before 1962 and is hence free from criticism in that respect unless the criticizer wishes to blast any pope before Blessed John XXIII as well) is not extended the same courtesy.
People, don’t feed the trolls! (Realist, John.)
Re: Jimmy’s analysis…
I would say this to those who use the “smoke of Satan” line to say his holiness was casting doubt on his own enterprise of Vatican II:
That’s not what the official account of his remarks say. What have you got? What’s your source?
Now, some folks are just in the grip of an unreasonable level of anxiety — and it is both counter-productive and ultimately, uncharitable to argue with them as if this were about appealing to reason. It’s similar to dealing with those in the grip of scrupulosity. Once you realize what you’re up against, the right thing to do is STOP THE ARGUMENT. Just as it is foolish to try to parse morality and culpability with someone who is scrupulous, don’t try to disprove “the conspiracy” or “the sky is falling” to someone who is caught up in that frame of mind. It is counter-productive; and, really, it is uncharitable . At some point it is cruel. (Another reason not to feed the trolls.)
But when it’s not an emotional-anxiety sort of thing, then I say put the whole burden of proof on the one assaulting Holy Mother Church (which is what these Vatican II- and pope-bashers are doing); don’t be tricked into accepting the burden of disproving their claims. The proof of your claim in defense of the Church remains Matthew 16:18.
And now, a whirlwind tour through all these objections, with clear and concise answers:
“35% decline in priests, from 75% to 25% drop in Mass attendance, over a 90% drop in seminarians (98% in Canada), almost 70% drop in ordinations”
Is this just in America? Because ordinations and conversions etc… have been increasing in other parts of the world, one could argue in large part through the changes brought about after Vatican II. Furthermore, there are plenty of parts of our country, in the midwest for example, where ordinations are at good levels. All this suggests that the fault lies not with Vatican II, but with cultural factos based on region and locale.
“70% disbelief in the Real Presence”
This poll has not only been proven false, but a new poll by First Things has demonstrated high belief in the Real Presence. Besides which, we have no numbers from the past to compare current numbers too. Actually, a good history on the Eucharist will show that Eucharistic reception and adoration are at higher levels then they were in other periods, such as the medieval.
“huge divorce rates, annulment rates, abortion rates, etc. among Catholics, 92% of Catholics disagreeing with the Church’s dogmatic teaching on contraception, over 66% drop in the number of seminaries, about a 55% drop in the number of adult converts, and let’s not even get into what’s happened to the Holy Mass, devotion to Our Blessed Lady, to the Most Blessed Sacrament”
I’ve already answered the point about the Blessed Sacrament and seminarians (look for repetition in the future). Devotion to our Lady has been helped by the Luminous Mysteries (that horrible post-Vatican II invention!) and has actually increased in the past few years among lay Catholics.
As for the other stats, I’d like to see some documentation. Are the “Catholics” really Catholic, or is that what they call themselves? If one looks through history, one can see plenty of examples of the laity and the clergy failing to live up to the call of holiness – that’s why evangelization has never gone out of style, and why the saints were often controversial.
To treat this stat-malady, I prescribe a good book on Church History, especially the medieval period, a dose of Canterbury Tales, Gerard Manley Hopkins, and Flannery O’Connor, a read-through of the actual documents of Vatican II and the Pope’s encyclicals, and a visit to one of the many parishes with Eucharistic Adoration along with a visit to World Youth Day to talk to the youth of the Church. Perhaps some youthful hope and exuberance will rub off, and bitterness will subside.
Look up “post hoc, ergo propter hoc.”
Ryan C–
Thank you. While you may regard me as an idiot, the logic of the situation compels us to consider that when the one thing which binds Catholics everywhere in the world, no matter their language or country, is the weekly obligation to hear Mass, and when we consider that the 1969 Missae departed so radically from what was done before as to make null and void any attempt to declare it “organic development,” we have strong case for a comparative study using those indicators of Catholic life I referenced above.
And hypothetical induction also requires that an opposing hypothesis be advanced which offers a better and clearer explanation of the data, is more complete, consistent with external data, confirmable, and has no undermining counterevidence.
In this case, the “the 60’s were a crazy time, society changed, and people lost the Faith” defense won’t work for any number of reasons.
But, as I noted before, don’t let that be an impediment to unearthing new insults and ad hominems. I know that’s a staple tactic for combox respondents here.
People, don’t feed the trolls! (Realist, John.)
Thank you, Fr., for proving my point.
It seems I must note again that my name is not John, but Michael, and that there is more than one person who finds elements of the Council objectionable.
Nonetheless, I might propound the idea that gratitude is in order that you evidently need not deal with some of those indicators I mentioned above.
In the dozens of parishes I’ve attended up and down the East Coast, with modified words of Consecration, homilies denying or diminishing the Real Presence, bongo drum Masses, and various other cute modernist novelties, Jones’ conclusions have only been reinforced with startling accuracy.
But as it’s obvious most prefer to toss out labels and name call rather than interact substantively with the points, I’ll be on my way.
Ryan C–
Thank you. While you may regard me as an idiot…
JOHN/STATMAN/MICHAEL:
If Ryan C regarded you as an “idiot”, I don’t believe he would have taken the time to respond to your post and provide you with such a detailed argument as regards the matter you put forth.
If anything, it shows a sign of respect. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have dignified your answer with a response!
Stat Man,
No the Holy Spirit did not and has not abandoned the Catholic Church. Excellent answer!
Since a pope confirmed the council it is now part of the Catholic councils even if you don’t give it your authority.
And unlike you I can easily admit when I am wrong…Your name is Michael and not John I stand corrected.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
STATMAN/MICHAEL:
In the dozens of parishes I’ve attended up and down the East Coast, with modified words of Consecration, homilies denying or diminishing the Real Presence, bongo drum Masses, and various other cute modernist novelties, Jones’ conclusions have only been reinforced with startling accuracy.
Ohhh… that’s right! Those few churches you visited up and down the East Coast is actually representative of the Catholic churches in the ENTIRE WORLD!
You’d need a pretty good sample size of Catholic churches across the ENTIRE WORLD in order to even begin to have something that’s representative of the Catholic churches around the world — yet, I thought someone with such expertise in Statistics would already know that!??!?!?!
Stat Man,
You’re argument against ecumenicism is a non sequitur. When a Catholic faithful to the Magisterium of the Church looks at those two statements (from Benedict and VII) they do not see contradiction. Rather they see that the “worship” Benedict speaks of, and the “prayer with seperated Brethren” and “ecumenical services” that Vatican II speaks of, are very different things.
Indeed, Benedict’s note that Catholics can’t participate in Protestant worship is still in force, as Catholics cannot receive communion at those services or seem to support them, partly for fear of causing scandal.
But praying together, and “ecumenical gatherings” are not the same thing as participating in Protestant or other worship, as I think anyone who doesn’t cloud themselves about the matter can see. This is clear if one looks at the liturgies of those services Benedict surely had in mind, which often denigrate Catholicism and the Pope explicity. That’s not what happens when a Catholic and a Protestant pray together after one of them has suffered a loss.
But perhaps Benedict would also condemn the Catholics at the Council of Florence from associating and praying with the Orthodox before the schism was healed, or the Fathers of Trent for inviting other Christians (even Protestants!) to the Council!
As always, context is everything.
Stat Man,
I do not think you are an idiot. I do think your use of a pseudonym is flippant. I also think you’re use of stats is fallacious (hence my equally flippant response). But I did not call you names.
Furthermore, I live on the East Coast, and have attended a dozen parishes as well. And I have heard all sorts of Orthodox homilies, from topics ranging from the Real Presence to Purgatory. I have never heard the words of consecration changed, nor ever heard bongos in mass. Now who of us sounds like he would be more objective in evaluating the state of a parish? You with your a priori suspicion of everything post Vatican II, or me with my love of both the new mass and the old one? (and the many other different rites).
The fact is, Stat Man, in lambasting the Church for the sins of today you are taking an extremely myopic view of the present and of history. Widen your horizons, look at the Church worldwide. There’s Catholics now in countries people in the 18th century would harldy expect there could be. Blaming Vatican II for the admittable problems that exist today is like blaming the first Council Nicea for the rise of the Arians and Julian the Apostate post-Council.
+J.M.J+
>>>I could just as easily refer to you as a post-Vatican II neo-con who thinks popular approval is sufficient to append “Magnus” to the name of Pope John Paul II,
Actually, the title “Magnus” is given by popular acclaim; it’s not officially applied by Church authorities (unlike, say, “Doctor of the Church”). That’s why it’s often applied in a rather odd, even illogical manner.
For instance, one could argue that Sts. Teresa of Avila or Catherine of Siena deserve the appelation “the Great,” yet neither of them has it. In fact, the only female saint called “the Great” is Gertrude of Helfta. Why did she get it and not them? Popular acclaim. The Catholic people gave it to St Gertrude yet failed to give it to Sts. Teresa and Catherine. Fair and logical? Probably not, but that’s how it goes. So if JP2 is called “the Great” it will also be by popular acclaim.
>>>Furthermore, I live on the East Coast, and have attended a dozen parishes as well. And I have heard all sorts of Orthodox homilies, from topics ranging from the Real Presence to Purgatory. I have never heard the words of consecration changed, nor ever heard bongos in mass.
This has pretty much been my experience as well – except that I did hear bongos once at an African-American parish. Yet I, too, never remember a priest tinkering with the words of consecration. Even at Masses where the priest rephrased other parts of the liturgy, the consecration itself was unchanged. That’s not to say it never, ever happens, but in my experience it hasn’t happened.
In Jesu et Maria,
Funny, but in all the years of hearing about “the smoke of Satan” and reading the various instances people point to as evidence, I’ve not read such emphasis only on VII until I read the blogs! Frankly, such a history of warnings began with Leo XIII with his “prophecy” (accompanied by the prayer to St. Michael for protection) about the 100 years, which Fatima seemed to sum up, and then in the beginning of this new century we had Pope JPII speaking to a kind of ultimate war between good and evil before this new era of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. It will come but not without a showdown! Now, of course just “who” do we expect to be fighting against this “Woman” … especially as the time gets closer and closer?? It may have begun to be more noticeable than before in the recognition of that “smoke”, but it would appear that now the whole world is involved in the battle. So, the following mention by Paul VI appears to sum up this idea:
We believe in something that is preternatural that has come into the world precisely to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to impede the Church from breaking into the hymn of joy at having renewed in fullness its awareness of itself.
IOW, it’s not just some social effect explanation. As far as Satanists in the Church … shall we just say that such “preternatural” influences are becoming manifest in the cults of the world, loss of faith to New Age, desecration of the Eucharist et al … with the Church being rather weakened in Herself to confront the problems in their enormity. Yet, we had JPII with his emphasis on Mary’s role in all this as well as his generation of youth … a real sign of the Holy Spirit still acting. And the grassroots new charisms cooperating in hope with the Church and that gift of a pope that have held things together. We shouldn’t get stuck in some myopic vision that may have come with that “smoke” alert.
Jimmy and Ckris K. I am in full obedience to PAPA Benedict and Holy Mother Church. I know that sometimes you Jimmy and you Chris K. and myself have have different views on medjugorje.I would like to ask you what would you do if you went to your Diocese web site and in the search section you type in medjugoje and not only does it support it, but also sells books about Our Holy Father Pope John Paulll and PaPa Benedict being anti Popes also containing a website called worldslastchance.com? Has not the smoke entered?
I’M IN THE DESERT(?):
The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith actually spoke to this point on Madjegoria, not definitively or finally; but the Church has told us that as of that point in time in 1998, the Scared Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared that the Church is in agreement with the local bishop when the bishop said that up until that point, there is no evidence of anything supernatural occurring; that’s what the Church said. Now, the Church says (by the way, Cardinal Ratzinger was then prefect who now is Pope Benedict XVI) that this is not a condemnation but, of course, was not an approval as well because the apparitions were still ongoing. So, they’re still under investigation. However, the Church did say – and that’s a pretty strong statement – that there’s no evidence of anything supernatural up to that point.
Now, the Church went on to say that there could be no official pilgrimages to Madjegoria. We cannot officially pray to Our Lady of Madjegoria. Well, what do you mean by ‘officially’? Well, liturgically-speaking (of course, as private Catholic people – be they a bishop, a priest, or a lay person – can go there as a private individual), we cannot make any official sort of proclamation that there is an Our Lady of Madjegoria and, thus, have liturgical prayers to her as such.
Basically speaking, the Church has not affirmed it, has not condemned it; it has put out a bit of a caveat there. So, it’s a problem if or when you have a priest, or let’s say, even a bishop, who would go and make any sort of official statement, like praying to Our Lady of Madjegoria — that would be a problem.
As for the other concerns you mentioned, I’m not aware of those or even have experienced such dissension in a genuine Catholic website.
Stat Man:
If you are not John, then I fail to see why you seem to take my comments, about John, as applying to you.
Stat man you are sadly correct.The Holy Ghost did not abandon man,man abandoned The Holy Ghost.Just look at the Sacramental state of The Church.
For example,just recently I went to confession to a parish priest at a Novus Ordo church.It was not the normal time for him to hear confessions but I had no other choice.Iwas recieving Our Lord 2 hours later.He wasnt busy at all,but seemed agitated at my request.He,thankfully but,reluctantly agreed to hear it.Firstly he told me to sit in a chair next to him,but I knelt down realizing that I am now about to encounter Christ.He then interrupted my confession to tell me that what I had just confessed was not a sin.Now I know for a fact that it is a mortal sin,grave matter,but the rev. chastised me for thinking so and recommended I get spiritual counseling to make me get hip with the times. I had to beg him repeatedly to absolve me I was shaking and close to tears.He finally did.
The next time I went to confession it was to the other church 20 miles from where I live.This time the priest absolved me incorrectly,or I should say did not absolve me at all.He said “May God fill you with absolution and peace,and I bless you in the name of the Father,and of The Son,and of the Holy Ghost.An anamoly if Ive ever heard one.
These are the only two catholic churches within a 50 mile radius of where I,and thousands others live,and I am quite sure this happens elsewhere.
So you see we have abandoned Christ,as Catholics en masse,in a special way have these last thirty seven years.
Esau, thank you for your reply, If you are still online Please go to The Diocese of Palm Beach Fl. and search Please reply back this is tearing my heart out.
Dan’s Dad,
I have had my confession heard in at least 3 parishes with about 7 priests, and I have never had such things happen to me. I truly regret that you experienced what you did, but you cannot draw the conclusion that this is what most people experience with the Church.
+J.M.J+
Dan’s Dad:
That’s terrible. I wish you lived here, where there are many Catholic parishes close by and I have never been refused absolution. A priest in the neighboring diocese once told me that something I confessed wasn’t a sin when I knew that it was, but he still absolved me using the proper formula.
In Jesu et Maria,
The words of the Consecration changed: well, The closest I got was a priest who was inappropriately using the children’s liturgy with “We praise you, we bless you, we thank you” mixed in with the Eucharistic prayer, but the bishop put a stop to that. I’ve never heard the Real Presence denied and I’ve heard some doozeys of sermons over the years.
But bongo drums, yes. In at least two parishes. The sound of bongo drums has entered the Church.
Corrigendum:
Sorry folks — I just noticed a typo in my original post that said:
…the Scared Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared that the Church is in agreement with the local bishop…
I meant to say:
…the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared that the Church is in agreement with the local bishop…
Father
What do you think, that there is only one “John” out there in the world? There are millions like me and millions of others who see the problem and know the phony Catholicism that is being sold off today, to the harm on 1B souls
Those that are “traditional” continue to grow, except we dont have the huge resources of the church and are barely 20 years old and it takes time to get the money for new church’s and priests ordained the way they were before even that sacrament was changed
All I know is that today opens the big NYC pedophila court case that was moved to Pennsylvania, and with Cardinal Egan announcing about 30 church closings and schools, etc and when he was approached by an independent traditional group to purchase one of the church’s he said he would rather it become a mosque!
John,
Oh you of little faith…
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Innocencio, Why do you think that when Cardinal Egan was aproached to sell the church to a group who just wanted to worship the Lord Almighty in a manner that Pope Benedict completely aproves of,His Eminence responded by saying,”I’d rather it be turned into a mosque”Would this perchance have been a great insult to The Holy Fathers who organized great crusades to end desecration of the Holy Land.Or Pope St.Pius V,Who asked all in Christendom to pray the Holy Rosary for the defeat of the infidel,then organized a naval phalanx which defeated the Moslem horde at Lepanto.
I can understand why someone would question a statement like the above in light of our Holy Catholics Church teaching on respect for Gods House.God bless you
All I know is that today opens the big NYC pedophila court case that was moved to Pennsylvania, and with Cardinal Egan announcing about 30 church closings and schools, etc and when he was approached by an independent traditional group to purchase one of the church’s he said he would rather it become a mosque!
JOHN:
Regarding this problem of pedophilia in the Church, from all or most of the accounts, a majority of the offenders were priests who were of very old age and most of which most likely came out from the Pre-Vatican II days and the time of the Tridentine rite!
That’s why, in some cases, when the authorities were attempting to snatch the offender, that person either already keeled over or was just about to!
Even Chris Matthews said to Dennis Miller, during the time they were talking about the events surrounding Pope John Paul II, when Dennis was attempting to make a joke out of the pedophilia scandal, Chris had remarked that it wasn’t the young priests they should be worried about, it’s the old ones!
I don’t see how you can place all the pedophilia blame on the Novus Ordo Missae as well as on Vatican II given the circumstances (and I’m not merely referring to the above!).
Dan’s Dad,
John has very little faith if he thinks Christ is sleeping and the Bark of Peter is sinking.
Why don’t you provide the documentation so I can read what Cardinal Egan said. You gave what you think it means and if the documentation proves that is exactly what Cardinal Egan meant I would like to read it for myself.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Why do you think that when Cardinal Egan was aproached to sell the church to a group who just wanted to worship the Lord Almighty in a manner that Pope Benedict completely aproves of,His Eminence responded by saying,”I’d rather it be turned into a mosque”
Dan’s Dad:
You are doing the same thing that John is doing — taking the personal faults of the individual themselves and putting that on the entire Catholic Church, Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae!
The specific actions of the individuals themselves do not necessarily represent that of the entire Church itself!
And, although I apologize for your experience in terms of the attempts at confession, in the first instance, you must understand
(1) We have a crisis in the priesthood right now where some parishes end up with having only one priest in their midst and, therefore, they might not often have the luxury of having time for themselves (as in having a break for the day given the tremendous amount of responsibilities that become piled up on them due to the shortage of resources) and might be preoccupied with other duties that are on his plate!
(2) If you are going to be critical of the absolution a priest gives you, then I would first suggest you refer to Canon Law prior to unfairly criticizing a priest’s absolution to you. Mind you, even the priests in the Eastern Church perform absolutions in quite a different manner than the Western Church!
Esau,
I agree with you except as regards the absolution given by this priest. That absolution sounded totally invalid. The priest has to actually say “I absolve you” to absolve.
I myself never had such a bad experience, though I have had a priest laugh at my sins and say they are nothing. He didn’t even say they weren’t sins, just that I was being silly to worry about such things. Even were I a scrupulant this would be a bad approach. In his defence he was Brazilian so maybe they have different cultural standards in terms of laughing at people’s heartfelt confessions. All right maybe not.
However, the fact that there are bad priests in the Chuch can never justify the kind of disobedience and schism we see from our ultratraditionalist friends.
If your interpretation is correct, and no one knows this for sure, what Pope Paul VI is saying is that he is clearly acknowledging that there is a severe problem with what has transpired AFTER the council, with such problems as
“There is doubt, incertitude, problematic, disquiet, dissatisfaction, confrontation. There is no longer trust of the Church…” and from your interpretation (and if anyone has seen the politically correct translations of the NAB or the mass from the ICEL who knows if this is not slanted or compromised) but the reasons being
“We believe in something that is preternatural that has come into the world precisely to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to impede the Church from breaking into the hymn of joy at having renewed in fullness its awareness of itself”
So per the Vicar of Christ, there is something very bad within the church, the fruits of the council can not flourish, and it is all because of the devil….or the socio economic problems of the 1960’s?? I have heard so many lame excuses for the failure of this council you could stack them up from here to eternity. An ugly duckling will always be ugly no matter how much you try to dress it up. The same for this council and the new mass
Hmmmm….what about Vatican I-Council of Trent….or any of these other 20 or so councils. Was the Devil bent on destroying the fruits of those councils as well, or were those councils truly guided by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit that entered mens souls who had no political agenda and “Aggornimento” was not their ultimate goal, but protecting the church from her enemies instead of trying to bring the church into the Modern world (Modernism anyone??)instead of asking the Modern evil world to conform to true values. Faith and reverence has no timeframe or time period, it is transcendent, something the counci fathers especially John XXIII failed to realize
The priest has to actually say “I absolve you” to absolve.
J.R.
I think that Canon Law has to be referred to in this case. In fact, if you go into an Eastern Church (one united to Rome), the priest does not actually absolve in the manner: “I absolve you…” and, yet, their absolution is considered valid.
However, the fact that there are bad priests in the Chuch can never justify the kind of disobedience and schism we see from our ultratraditionalist friends.
Thanks, J.R., for actually stating this! It had to be said!
So per the Vicar of Christ, there is something very bad within the church, the fruits of the council can not flourish, and it is all because of the devil….or the socio economic problems of the 1960’s?? I have heard so many lame excuses for the failure of this council you could stack them up from here to eternity. An ugly duckling will always be ugly no matter how much you try to dress it up. The same for this council and the new mass
JOHN:
Did you even carefully read Jimmy’s post or even the rest of ours here???
It seems that despite of the evidence that folks have taken the precious time to present to you, you seem to IGNORE whatever anybody else says to you should their views run contrary to your: “JP II is the Devil, Vatican II is Satan’s Council, the Catholic Church is now a Pagan Religion” tirade!
+J.M.J+
>>>So per the Vicar of Christ, there is something very bad within the church, the fruits of the council can not flourish,
Where did the Pontiff say that the fruits of the Second Vatican Council cannot flourish at all because of the “smoke of Satan”? He just said that the devil was trying to undermine the good effects of the Council, not that he would fully succeed.
>>>Hmmmm….what about Vatican I-Council of Trent….or any of these other 20 or so councils. Was the Devil bent on destroying the fruits of those councils as well,
Yes, definitely; he’s sown confusion and discord following every Ecumenical Council. The Jansenists accused Trent of being a “Humanistic council,” much the same way some modern dissenters accuse Vatican II of being a “Modernist council.” Vatican I was followed by the Old Catholic schism, much the way Vatican II was followed by the SSPX schism.
>>>or were those councils truly guided by the Holy Spirit
They were ALL truly guided by the Holy Spirit, including Vatican II. Just because an Ecumenical Council is guided by God doesn’t mean that the devil won’t attack it. That’s what he does, attacks the works of God. If Vatican II were somehow “evil” then why would the devil attack it? If Satan casts out Satan then his kingdom is divided against itself and will not stand.
In Jesu et Maria,
dear “Im in the desert”,
following your instructions, I went to the diocesepb.org and typed medjugoje in their search box.
It found one listing in an acrobat file listing books perhaps available in the church library. Whilst that is a concern for me(I am not familiar with the book) your other references arise from google’s ‘helpful’ other purchased links by which enemies of the people of God destroy souls. A gentle warning note to the webmaster may be in order, providing alternative easy to use, and free search engines that respect the catholic faith. (maybe CatholicAnswers could provide some assistance?!!)
John:I think the bishop has a concern that the schismatic/protestant gospel of sedevacantists would destroy even more souls and lives. perhaps a better choice would have been a parking lot, a strip mall, or a field for gardens or weeds.;)
michael/stats: your words of railing accusation against the church are the equally wrong counterpoint to the railing distortions of the pro-abortion ‘catholics’. both paths led to death.
JOHN:
The following definitely is relevant in your case:
Many traditionalists believe he was speaking about the liturgical abuses and disordered conduct of clergy and hierarchy that would unfold in the future, along with the loss of so many vocations that followed the Council. In a sort of self-righteous pride, (Not unlike the prodigal son’s brother in the Gospel, and especially with those who are schismatics and sedevacantists, or borderline such.) this faction within ultra-traditionalism has difficulty understanding that they may have contributed to the further polarization extant in the Church.
They may not consider, if they believe this to be a prophetic statement, that Paul VI could have been concerned with the harm schismatics could do.
Oftentimes their virulent criticism of the papacy and hierarchy coupled with mockery of some of the authentic liturgical reforms create an even meaner division and hostility.
If the “remnant” is right, then charity and obedience ought to be the hallmark of their practice – despite the persecution they have endured.
If one visits some of the ultra-traditionalist sites on the web, one is just as scandalized by the content there as they are by the extreme liberal factions who promote an equal dissension on their side.
In this era of Divine Mercy we all must pray and strive for reconciliation and unity.
Pray for us O Holy Father Paul VI in these times of peril.
http://rome-ingcatholics.blogspot.com/2006_08_06_rome-ingcatholics_archive.html
Those calling themselves “traditionalists” and reject Vatican II are attacking the Catholic Church just as much as the “progressives.”
I’m done dealing with their bitterness and inability to be self-critical. The only thing I can do is pray for them.
Oh my
Not one person here could respond to my post without using such nasty rhetoric and long cut and paste jobs
I posed a simple question-If the Vicar of Christ is saying, as we seem to all agree, that the church is in such disaray as early as 1972 not even 7 full years after the close of the council, and that the “fruits” can not come forth because of the devil and as someone seemed to pull from all of this “socio economic issues” of the time-then maybe it was the council itself that was the problem? Maybe God did not let the Holy Spirit guide this council as he knew it would do harm to his church? One can ask to invoke the Holy Spirit, but if it is for evil or harmful acts, one would not suspect that the Holy Spirit would enter such souls
Esau,I went to confession to a priest who has been given the indult for the Tridentine mass and therefore the Sacrament of confession,this subsequent to the invalid novus ordo priest’s absolution.
Father Parkerson,he of the indult,informed me that this Latin rite Catholic priests,”MAY THE LORD FILL YOU WITH ABSOLUTION,AND PEACE,is a complete fabrication on his part.Father Parkerson proceeded to hear those sins again,as well as the new ones,whereupon he gave me the correct absolution.
Father Parkerson is in good standing with His Excellency Bishop Burbidge of Raleigh N.C.and told me he has heard of many such abusive,and invalid absolutions.It is not an isolated case.Also,Esau,how do you define schismatic,and ultratraditional Catholics.
Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos,the head of Ecclesia Dei has said that the faithful are allowed to assist at SSPX mass’s,as long as we do it out a deep reverence for the Tridentine Rite and do not think that the Novus Ordo is invalid,which it obviously is not,and we remain loyal to the Barque of Peter,which many do.
I hope for your sake you are not lumping these people in with the sedevacantists.It would not be providential for you to maintain this shortsighted view of The Mystical Body of Christ
Not one person here could respond to my post without using such nasty rhetoric and long cut and paste jobs
JOHN:
The responses are all there but you REFUSE to acknowledge them since your narrow-mindedness won’t acknowledge anything that is contrary to your INFALLIBLE teaching of Ultra-Traditionalism!
What’s interesting to note is that many Anti-Catholic friends of mine do not really have to do all the work themselves in attacking the Church since most of the work is actually done by people such as yourselves. In fact, most of the materials they utilize come off such websites that put down the Church in the manner that you have.
But, at the very least, they have an excuse in that they are not aware of the Fullness of Truth contained in the Catholic Church. On the other hand, you don’t have an excuse!
John 15:22 Jesus says: “If I had not spoken to them, they would have no sin; but now I have spoken to them, their sin remains.”
I hope for your sake you are not lumping these people in with the sedevacantists.It would not be providential for you to maintain this shortsighted view of The Mystical Body of Christ
Dan’s Dad:
Clearly, you have misunderstood my post. To make the statement as you have without understanding to whom you are speaking to, you attack me with such scurrilous allegations without even knowing anything about me.
By the way, I, too, have attended the Tridentine Rite where I live (up until the time when the priest who celebrated the Tridentine Masses retired).
And talk about lumping people together and a short-sighted view! In your post, you explicitly agreed with STATMAN’s view with your Stat man you are sadly correct statement and, thus, like he, gave evidence that you subscribe to the view that all of this was a result of Vatican II.
Esau,as Ive mentioned before,give me a call so I can understand to whom I am speaking Oh high and mighty one.I’ve posted my phone number before.Call it.We will speak,then I will know more about you.
You are all talk,and no action.
+J.M.J+
>>>Not one person here could respond to my post without using such nasty rhetoric and long cut and paste jobs
Exactly where is the “nasty rhetoric” in my short post responding to yours that had no cut-and-paste on it at all?
>>>I posed a simple question-If the Vicar of Christ is saying, as we seem to all agree, that the church is in such disaray as early as 1972 not even 7 full years after the close of the council, and that the “fruits” can not come forth because of the devil
Actually, we do not agree that Paul VI said that the fruits *cannot* come forth because of the devil. He meant that the devil was trying to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council and impede the Church (as he always does), not that he would fully succeed.
>>>then maybe it was the council itself that was the problem?
He doesn’t say that, in fact he says the opposite. Also, if the Second Vatican Council itself were somehow bad then why would the devil try to smother its “fruits”?
I also asked a simple question: Why would Satan try to undermine the Council unless it was a work of God? Would Satan try to cast out Satan? Why would he divide his own kingdom against itself?
In Jesu et Maria,
JOHN:
long cut and paste jobs — simply laughable considering all your past posts — it almost seemed in those posts that you would have actually gone ahead and pasted the entire web page from your favorite source websites if given the chance!
maybe it was the council itself that was the problem? Maybe God did not let the Holy Spirit guide this council as he knew it would do harm to his church? One can ask to invoke the Holy Spirit, but if it is for evil or harmful acts, one would not suspect that the Holy Spirit would enter such souls
What ‘evil’ exactly are you referring here specifically???
Who are you to declare such things as far as the Church is concerned? Are you the Anointed One of Christ for you to be able to make such remarks? Where does YOUR Authority come from?
I know that there is only ONE with such authority — it is He upon whom Christ gave such in Matthew 16:18 and to those who would become his Successors!
Did Christ say: “Peter, upon you I will build my Church and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it UNTIL come the 20th Century when this authority will now reside with JOHN (or whatever your name actually is) and it will be upon him that I will have the Holy Spirit guide into all Truth!”
That’s almost the equivalent of some Protestants who argue that the TRUE CHURCH did not exist until their denomination came into existence!
John,
Discussing this topic with you is like talking to a know-it-all teenager. You simply are not discussing so much as listening to yourself.
Many posters have given you very detailed answer to all of your questions. You ignore them.
Many posters have asked you direct questions. You ignore them.
You cut and paste from other websites and act as though they are your words. Please make your comments and just paste a link to whatever website you want.
Why not try to actually have a discussion and not only hear others but answer their questions?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Dan’s Dad,
Comboxes are group discussions. There is no reason for, and a lot of reasons against, taking the discussion outside of the comboxes.
Dan’s Dad,
Comboxes are group discussions. There is no reason for, and a lot of reasons against, taking the discussion outside of the comboxes.
THANKS MARY KAY! ;^)
I have heard so many lame excuses for the failure of this council you could stack them up from here to eternity.
John, no offense intended but the conclusions you have come to in your comments can speak only to the fact that you are not familiar with nor have you digested the documents of the council of Vat II. The documents are good and holy – shall we say the seeds intended to sprout into the fruits. But it is to the discredit of those ignorant of the documents’ truths or to their just plain disobedience that the intended fruitfulness has been stifled. That so many were coopted by the spirit of the world and its evil lord in these times should not be of such a surprise…esp. when one studies the predicted outcome for the “lesser” disobedience in comparison, mentioned during the times of LaSalette…using the Lord’s name in vain, cursing, and not keeping the Day of the Lord holy ….. a great famine!
JOHN:
Pay particular attention to Chris K’s comment:
But it is to the discredit of those ignorant of the documents’ truths or to their just plain disobedience that the intended fruitfulness has been stifled. That so many were coopted by the spirit of the world and its evil lord in these times should not be of such a surprise…
And to Rosemarie’s:
He doesn’t say that, in fact he says the opposite. Also, if the Second Vatican Council itself were somehow bad then why would the devil try to smother its “fruits”?
I also asked a simple question: Why would Satan try to undermine the Council unless it was a work of God? Would Satan try to cast out Satan? Why would he divide his own kingdom against itself?
The Devil is shrewd and cunning — as I had mentioned previously, he knows that it takes not only external antagonistic forces to topple down the Work of Christ, which is His Church; but that it would also take internal antagonistic forces as well to try to undo that which Christ established!
Others here as Innocencio, Ryan C, Bill912, Mary Kay and others have attempted to reason with you in order to resolve these matters of faith with you out of particular concern for your Catholic faith and have attempted to work these issues out with you, but instead of looking at these particular posts carefully and their relevant materials and analyzing objectively the reasoning and evidence contained therein, you throw it back into their faces, not even acknowledging that they do this out of care for you versus this hostile notion you keep of us, of our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II himself, and our Catholic Church!
Corrigendum:
JOHN:
Pay particular attention to Chris K’s comment:
But it is to the discredit of those ignorant of the documents’ truths or to their just plain disobedience that the intended fruitfulness has been stifled. That so many were coopted by the spirit of the world and its evil lord in these times should not be of such a surprise…
And to Rosemarie’s:
He doesn’t say that, in fact he says the opposite. Also, if the Second Vatican Council itself were somehow bad then why would the devil try to smother its “fruits”?
I also asked a simple question: Why would Satan try to undermine the Council unless it was a work of God? Would Satan try to cast out Satan? Why would he divide his own kingdom against itself?
The Devil is shrewd and cunning — as I had mentioned previously, he knows that it takes not only external antagonistic forces to topple down the Work of Christ, which is His Church; but that it would also take internal antagonistic forces as well to try to undo that which Christ established!
Others here as Innocencio, Ryan C, Bill912, Mary Kay and others have attempted to reason with you in order to resolve these matters of faith with you out of particular concern for your Catholic faith and have attempted to work these issues out with you, but instead of looking at these particular posts carefully and their relevant materials and analyzing objectively the reasoning and evidence contained therein, you throw it back into their faces, not even acknowledging that they do this out of care for you versus this hostile notion you keep of us, of our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II himself, and our Catholic Church!
Ackkk!!!
Sorry folks… for some reason, it wouldn’t allow all of Rosemarie’s quote into bold.
Here it is again (crossing fingers):
He doesn’t say that, in fact he says the opposite. Also, if the Second Vatican Council itself were somehow bad then why would the devil try to smother its “fruits”?
I also asked a simple question: Why would Satan try to undermine the Council unless it was a work of God? Would Satan try to cast out Satan? Why would he divide his own kingdom against itself?
Still didn’t happen! Even though I kept doing a “preview” each time and, in there, it showed up correctly!
Never mind then… talk about the smoke of Satan entering… oh well!
Perhaps we are looking at this issue as too much of an either/or situation. What if the “smoke of Satan” really is this doubt and distrust of the Church etc. coming from the secular culture and it really did pervert and obstruct the fruits of Vatican II, but at the same time Vatican II was a rather overly optimistic council that facilitated rather than suppressed the process of modernist tendencies creaping into the Church from outside.
This at least is my view. It’s not that the documents of Vatican II are evil or that it was not a legitimate council, more that it was ill-timed and perhaps ill-advised. At a time when the Church should probably have been hunkering down against an increasingly evil secular culture, we threw our arms open and tried to embrace the modern world. It would have been wonderful if the world had converted as a result, but not surprisingly it was the Church that was changed, made many times more vulnerable to the smoke of Satan by being in such an unstable, uncertain-of-itself state in the late 60’s and early 70’s of all times.
Not that I wish to impune the holiness of Bl. John XXIII. He could not have envisioned what would happen to the Church with his “little bit of fresh air” and remember that the secular culture was less obviously poisonous in the 1962 than it would be in 1972.
What if the “smoke of Satan” really is this doubt and distrust of the Church etc. coming from the secular culture and it really did pervert and obstruct the fruits of Vatican II, but at the same time Vatican II was a rather overly optimistic council that facilitated rather than suppressed the process of modernist tendencies creaping into the Church from outside.
J.R. Stoodley:
You may have a point there — especially with the former; however, regarding the latter, I would say that if there was any error to be found, it would more likely be with the execution of Vatican II’s “policy” than anything else.
You know how, like companies, everything depends on “execution”. The same can also be said in this case.
All in all, I find also that it seems more likely that much of the fault lay on some of the liberally-minded clergy already out there during the time (especially those who were the more disobedient hacks) who took advantage of Vatican II and started implementing their own initiatives and advancing their own agenda rather than the Church’s.
JRS, to say that Vatican II was “ill-timed and perhaps ill advised” is to say that the Holy Spirit didn’t know what He was doing.
Mary Kay,
It is not my understanding that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in such a way that He is directly responsible for the timing and content of every council.
Not that I wish to impune the holiness of Bl. John XXIII. He could not have envisioned what would happen to the Church with his “little bit of fresh air” and remember that the secular culture was less obviously poisonous in the 1962 than it would be in 1972.
Still, I cannot help but think that had we continued on the same path, continued to have the Latin Masses, not to actually have the Novus Ordo Missae as we have today; if that, itself, would not have lead to an even greater decline in the Church today.
If you think about it, who’s to say it wouldn’t have turned out for the worse? Sure, Ultras will try and argue with their statistics (assuming they’re even valid) that vocations and Church attendance were high during their time, but wasn’t this also a result of the culture at the time, which helped to foster such devotion.
I mean, think about. During those days, the culture was so conducive to the Catholic Faith that even Archbishop Sheen’s “Life is Worth Living” won an Emmy! Could you imagine that even happening in our world today?
In other words, Ultras are arguing with statistics that would only be relevant to the days of the past, but to assert those statistics in our world today and to assume that, had the rite of Mass continued in that same manner, that it would have been just as high would be ludicrous!
Think about it — you have certain variables now that were much different back then; there are even variables now that did not even exist during those days. In other words, those statistics would only apply to us had the external conditions remained constant, had these certain variables which existed then and helped to foster the Catholic Faith remained constant and continued even unto today; and, not to mention, inhibiting the fruits of Science being as they are today. Yet, we find ourselves in a much different situation with a much different culture, a much different environment, with new and ever-changing variables.
JRS, the accounts of Vatican II clearly indicate that the Holy Spirit prompted that council.
For you, perhaps this is an exercise in historical documents. For me, who grew up during those years, it was learning as they came out. Frequently that meant taking them for granted and not realizing that one day I would need to systematically organize them in order to explain to people unfamiliar with that time.
In a previous post, I suggested that you read a biography of John XXIII. I still think that’s a good suggestion for you.
The human voice transmits volumnes more than “comboxes”,Mary Kay.It would be infinitely more informative not to mention personable,and Christlike to actually speak to a man named Esau,or anyone else willing to throw his hat into the fray.
Black computer script is alien to the fraternity of mankind.
A voice,inflection,tone ,emotion projection and vocal modulation tell much about our fellow men.Why alienate what Jesus created? The Almighty stood toe to toe with Pilate and man to man looked him in the eye.
A voice,inflection,tone ,emotion projection and vocal modulation tell much about our fellow men.
You mean the very same elements used by ‘evil’ as well?
How do you think Con-Artists are so successful in their endeavors and all those who prosper out of such heinous social engineering enterprises?
You have fun talking to please yourself Esau.Are you a man or a robot.I’d like to meet you and discuss a heinous social engineering enterprise of eating a hot fudge sundae,with or without venison cubes.
Dan’s Dad, I would love if we could all discuss this in person face to face, but given that everyone here is separated by hundreds, if not thousands of miles, I’m glad that the Internet makes this possible.
Besides, long distance phone calls aren’t that much more personal than comboxes. And who’s going to pay long distance rates?
Gee, what a charming, mature guy! I can’t imagine why people wouldn’t want to call him up and chat with him!
Gee,its fun to produce untoward reactions from people like bill 912 its like following behind a bus full of kids and one is doo doo doodling his countenance at you,knowing full well he is seperated from the geegaw by the union made pane of glass and you are forced to take in fun lovin animation from skeets mcgillicudy.
If anyone read the news today, the Vatican condemned the US for not allowing Mexicans into the US, as the Vatican, in pushing forth modernism and the secular agenda, feel that no fences should be raised between nations or faiths, since Vatican II of course. It led me back to one of many speeches by JPII and his desire for his “New World Order ” (Masonic influenced anyone”?) The following was from JPII speech as posted on Zenit on January 10, 2000.
“In recent years there has been much talk of a “new world order”. The persevering action of far-sighted diplomats, and of multilateral diplomacy in particular, has resulted in a number of praiseworthy initiatives aimed at the building of an authentic “community of nations”. At present, for example, the Middle East Peace Process is continuing; the Chinese people are speaking to one another; the two Koreas are in dialogue; certain African countries are attempting to arrange meetings between rival factions; the government and armed groups in Colombia are trying to remain in contact. All this demonstrates a real desire to build a world based on brotherhood, in order to create, defend and spread peace all around us.
Regrettably, however, we must also acknowledge that the errors of the past are all too often being repeated: I am thinking of reactions based on group identity…”
Group identity-Is that what a Pope is supposed to say? Is that not heresy? Catholicism on the same footing as paganism?
Esau
How can SSPX be schismatic or even something to be avoided (unless you fear it) when the Vatican admitted and Canon law backs up the fact that SSPX fullfills ones Sunday obligation (and here is a cut and paste job-sorry all)
On September 27, 2002 , the Vatican’s Ecclesia Dei Commission, in response to someone who asked about attending chapels of the Society of Saint Pius X founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, wrote in a letter that:
Commissio Pontificia Ecclesia Dei
Romae
September 27, 2002
Dear Mr. :
We wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 14 August 2002 addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos along with the enclosures.
1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X.
2. …If your intention is simply to participate in Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.
3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
/s/ Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretarius
Comment:
The Letter is only reasonable considering the fact that the New Code even allows Catholics to receive the sacraments from Non-Catholics:
Canon 844(2): “Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically
or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid.”
Further more the Vatican also now admits, here and there, that the Society of Saint Pius X is not separated from the Catholic Church. Some one asked Cardinal Cassidy, who was Prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for Christian Unity, if his office should deal with the Society of Saint Pius X as a separate “church”. Cardinal Cassidy commented in a letter of March 25, 1994, that the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity “is not concerned with the Society of St. Pius X. The situation of the members of this Society is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory.” Thus the Vatican considers the Society of Saint Pius X to be an internal Church matter and not a group that is “outside of the Church”.
I got your back on that one John.Semper Fidelis Christus Rex.
“How can SSPX be schismatic or even something to be avoided (unless you fear it) when the Vatican admitted and Canon law backs up the fact that SSPX fullfills ones Sunday obligation”
Hi John,
This is another non sequitur. Whether a group is in schism and whether they have valid sacraments and you can fulfill your Sunday obligation in them are two different things. For example, if one has to one can fulfill one’s Sunday obligation at an Orthodox Church, and they have valid sacraments. But that doesn’t change the fact that (sadly) they’re still in schism.
Look at the way the question is hedged by the things you cited: “IF your intention is SIMPLY to participate in Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin” – “Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided.”
That the Vatican may “admit here and there” – whatever that means – does not change the fact that the bishops of SSPX are excommunicated, and that they rebel against the Church teachings in Nostra Aetea and Lumen Gentium. That by itself is cause for alarm, along with the anti-semitism they espouse on their own website:
“The Gospel teaches us, therefore, that the Jewish race brought upon themselves the curse that followed the crime of deicide…The curse is then the punishment for the hardhearted rebelliousness of a people that has refused the time of its visitation, that has refused to convert and to live a moral, spiritual life, directed towards heaven. This curse is the punishment of blindness to the things of God and eternity, of deafness to the call of conscience and to the love of good and hatred of evil which is the basis of all moral life, of spiritual paralysis, of total preoccupation with an earthly kingdom. It is this that sets them as a people in entire opposition with the Catholic Church and its supernatural plan for the salvation of souls.”
It’s not too far a step from this special castigation of the Jews and their “total preoccupation with an earthly kingdom” to crackpot theories of a Jewish conspiracy. And, indeed, one can find such anti-semitism among their adherents. Remember, John, by their fruits you shall know them!
Finally, if one looks around enough on the Internet, or even in real-life, one can see that the schismatic mentality encouraged by the SSPX can eventually lead to such things as sedevacantism, or a virtual form of it, where the Pope and the Magesterium are ignored.
John,
Pope John Paul II clearly stated that the five named clerics are excommunicated:
<>In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.
and that anyone who adheres to the schism is in schism:
In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.
ECCLESIA DEIOF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO
And you might want to check your catechism again but the pope is the visible head of the Church and his decision is above cardinal and even…yours.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Innocencio, you forgot that horrible prelate from campos brazil his Excellency Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer who brought shame upon his people by fighting modernism and forcing them to embrace marian devotion in the face of the diocesan prelate who hated devotional practices,reverant liturgies Tradition,how dare Bishop De Castro Mayer,bad boy,Anathema Sit.
Gee,its fun to produce untoward reactions from people like bill912…
Dan’s Dad:
Please! Bill912 was acting very charitably in his post considering the way you have behaved in your posts!
Remember all the way back in that previous thread where you actually pretended to be an 8th grader! — Gee, I wonder what would have made Bill912 say: “Gee, what a charming, mature guy! I can’t imagine why people wouldn’t want to call him up and chat with him!”
Based on how you’ve behaved, it’s no wonder why anyone would actually say this!
OKAY, JOHN, RIDDLE ME THIS: How did we get to the following post from you???? You’re trying to manipulate the previous discussion into the following for some reason either due to some attention deficit you have (if you have that, that’s okay since we can try to deal with that and still try to help you out if need be) or because you’re unable to refute our arguments in the previous discussion!
Esau
How can SSPX be schismatic or even something to be avoided (unless you fear it) when the Vatican admitted and Canon law backs up the fact that SSPX fullfills ones Sunday obligation…
I mean, this tactic of yours where you actually jump to another topic as a means of escaping the previous argument because you’re unable to deal with the facts that were actually presented before you wreaks of cowardice, if not, an inability to face facts!
However, again, if it is due to some attention deficit or some handicap you might have, that’s okay since we can deal with that.
JOHN:
I mean, this tactic of yours where you actually jump to another topic as a means of escaping the previous argument because you’re unable to deal with the facts that were actually presented before you wreaks of cowardice, if not, an inability to face facts!
However, again, if it is due to some attention deficit or some handicap you might have, that’s okay since we can deal with that.
Esau seem’s so willing to insult anyone with a love for Christ. Why e.,why e why good and jovial automaton of love dirigible of helium nandralone decoanate of aphid leavings afraid to acknowledge his fellow man with a real larynx speak oh harbinger of lofty doom I wants words Oh phantom of the cyber ether posthaste to nebulon,or dare one insinuate heaven couldst not be an option fair spartan one of only two hundred maybe Jehovahs witness buddy that he is can take a brave boy pill and say bye bye to wordy insultys and talk to widdle fun guy for a chwange.moo ma say mooma sy moo ma koo sa.
Dan’s Dad,
You and John deserve each other.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
And I thought I was immature.
Mary Kay, any recommendations on a good biography of John XIII? Not that I could read it till December/January at the earliest, probably not till this summer actually. It’s all stuff like Thoreau and Biology textbooks for me until then.
p.s., that immaturity comment was directed primarily at Dan’s Dad. I hope my dad doesn’t write stuff like that online somewhere. Sorry Dan, whoever you are.
JRS, you’ve shown much wisdom in these comboxes.
Hmmph, as for the bio, I’ll have to look around and ask the help of others. What I have at home is probably out of print. (I inherited my grandmother’s books.) Not that any one book will capture a particular time, but it’s a start. So let me do some digging and hopefully will have some suggestions for Christmas break.
Esau seem’s so willing to insult anyone with a love for Christ.
Insult? You mean people with attention deficit, with certain handicaps are considered an insult?
I’ll have you know that I’ve worked with such folks in the past and the last thing they are are an insult! They have more integrity and more of God’s goodness shining through them then both you and John will ever have! That’s not a judgment; that’s a fact! For God humbles the Proud and exalts the Humble!
Luke 14:11 Because every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Kindly take heed of the good actions of folks here who have tried to help such folks as you and John. They would not even presume to place upon themselves the Authority that was meant solely for Peter’s Successor upon whom Christ Himself placed upon him!
Also, how dare you accuse someone of insulting folks who have a love for Christ when you and your cohort in fact insult such good and holy people like Pope John Paul II!
I dare you to accomplish the very feats that he achieved for our Catholic Church — in spite of his old age, which can only bespeak of the guidance and strength that could only have come from the Christ himself! He did for Christ’s Church more than what both you and John put together could ever do either in this lifetime or even in an eternity!
“Forasmuch as, my Lord, this indictment is grounded upon an act of Parliament directly repugnant to the laws of God and His Holy Church, the supreme government of which, or of any part whereof, may no temporal prince presume by any law to take upon him, as rightfully belonging to the See of Rome, a spiritual pre-eminence by the mouth of Our Savior himself, personally present upon the earth, only to St. Peter and his successors, bishops of the same See, by special prerogative granted, it is therefore in law amongst Christian men insufficient to charge any Christian man.”
Esau, the only thing dan’s dad is trying to do is bait you. You’ve striven valiantly, but with someone who appears not to be acting in good faith.
Esau
I never heard of Pope Pius X talk of a “New World Order”. Sounds very masonic
And as far as the excommunications and attending SSPX masses, it seems to clearly contradict John Pauls new liberal code of canon law of 1983 clearly states :
The Letter is only reasonable considering the fact that the New Code even allows Catholics to receive the sacraments from Non-Catholics:
Canon 844(2): “Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically
or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid.”
So ecumenism works for all of these false faiths but not for real catholics (a/k/a Traditionalists?)
John,
We have beat your hobby horse to death. Let poor old Sliver rest in pieces.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Esau is all in a tizzy and proud of himself.I do not think Christ is proud of him as much,as he is, though. Esau my 3 boys say Hi,and the oldest Tom,says lighten up,and do some squats.
May God unburden you of your shackles,and may His peace fall like dew from Heaven on you and yours. Yours in St.Albert the Great,Dan,s Dad,also known as attention deficit disorder pop’s….where am I..who are you.
The Letter is only reasonable considering the fact that the New Code even allows Catholics to receive the sacraments from Non-Catholics:
Canon 844(2): “Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid.”
John,
Did it even occur to you that the “Non-Catholic” that it is referring to there are those priests in the Eastern Churches that are not united with Rome! That in the case of an emergency, should a Roman Catholic need to receive the sacrament in a place where there are no Catholic churches, they can go to an Eastern Church?
You do know that priests in the Eastern Churches although not united to Rome have a valid priesthood!
Esau, call The FSSP,District House,St.Peters House,Scranton P.A.,AT 570-842-4000,and ask for any priest.He will tell you,invariably,that any Catholic may assist at an SSPX church,if done for devotional reasons and not done out of spite for the newer rite,or The Vatican.
I am personally friends with one Fr.Poissant,and you can dial up his extension and speak with him if you like.He is very amenable to soothing discussion and can allay many of your fears.
In His Name,Dans Pater.
Esau, no it did not occur to John because apparently he didn’t read the entire paragraph.
It’s yet another example of John reading only far enough to think that it supports his obsession with attacking the Catholic Church instead of reading to see what the document really says.
You’ve given some wonderful answers Esau, but I think it’s time to let go of both John and Dan’s Dad. Both have shown either an inability or an unwillingness to engage in discussion.
Esau, bye the bye,I love our late Holy Father Pope John PaulII.He is largely responsible for my conversion from atheism.
Please do not make assumptions on ones attachment to this Pope or t’other.My uncle is a priest in the FSSP,was ordained by His Holiness in Rome In 1983,and has been interceding for our family since he breathed his last.
Thanks Mary Kay, Innocencio, Bill912, J.R. and others.
I think you’re right; this has gone long enough as it is.
God bless all.
+J.M.J+
Here’s the whole text of the speech John quoted from:
http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/documents/JPII-Diplomatics.html
So now JP2 was a Freemason, too? The calumny just keeps on coming….
In Jesu et Maria,
I never said His Holiness had any connection to freemasonry.He condemned it.
Stop trying to bait me.
One last clarification: Dan’s Dad, Rosemarie wasn’t baiting you. Her post said that John quoted.
Esau
So it is OK to receive sacraments from those Eastern priests not united with Rome and considered valid (are these not schismatics since 1054?)-but those versed and ordained as priests from an Archbishop in Lefebvre and ordained in the same sacramental rite that was passed down for centuries (until it was like all sacraments changed after Vatican II-imagine that, even the Sacraments had to be Modernized!!!)-this is not valid?
Sorry but you cant have it both ways
OK, it’s time for everyone to surrender their weapons and take a deep breath.
John,
No one here is arguing that their sacraments are not valid. You are confusing licitsness with validity and setting up a straw man.
John,
Please follow Brian’s advice and put down the broken splinters of your hobby horse and take a deep breath.
Then read, yes actually read, slowly what others post before you try riding your hobby horse through every post.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John,an SSPX priest’s ordination is valid,but illicit.He has the faculty for Baptism,and Confection of The Holy Eucharist,but he needs permission from the diocesan Bishop to hear cofessions and administer absolution.There are hardly any Ordinary’s that give this indult,I know of only one,in the state of Texas.
Obviously their mass is valid,and many are good and holy men who give inspirational and doctrinally sound homilys.Some do say things that border on the nutty and these sermons should be taken with a grain of salt.This being said the majority of the times I have assisted at Holy Mass,the rubrics have been impeccable,and the homilys right with The Magisterium.
If you get a chance,attend a Baptism with either the Fssp,orSSPX.They both use the older rite with the magnificant exorcism’s.The Churching of Women,blessing of the mother after childbirth and her child.And the really interesting Consecration of a child to The Immaculate Heart of Mary.The priest brings the newborn right up onto the altar of sacrifice and lays him on a special linen and with the parents,who are kneeling at the altar rail intones special prayers to Our Lady.
The time I went Fr. Novak put his finger in the baby’s mouth to keep her from crying.It was holy,beautiful,and so darned cute.
God Bless you John,and may Jesus love overcome you,hang in there brother.God’s in charge
JOHN:
READ READ READ — C-A-R-E-F-U-L-L-Y:
Canon 844(2): “Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful FOR WHOM IT IS PHYSICALLY OR MORALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO APPROACH A CATHOLIC MINISTER, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid.”
Thus, I said in my post: That in the case of an EMERGENCY, should a Roman Catholic need to receive the sacrament in a place where there are no Catholic churches, they can go to an Eastern Church!
In fact, was it not you who were the one who posted this point of Canon Law?
It would have been best that you READ IT YOURSELF FIRST before having challanged it!
…let alone having posted it!
Oh, John, the above was in response to your post:
So it is OK to receive sacraments from those Eastern priests not united with Rome and considered valid (are these not schismatics since 1054?)…
Remember — key word: EMERGENCY!
I think that’s why that point in Canon Law started: “Whenever necessity requires…”
Apologies, all. I had to resolve that point.
Esau,Take a jog around the block and calm down,maybe say a rosary.It usually works for me
God bless you.
Just curious Esau,are you a convert from Judaism? Because I am from atheism
Your name is not typical of a Christian’s name
God Bless you
DAN’S DAD AND JOHN.
Settle down, folks.
This is your Rule 1 warning.
+J.M.J+
>>>I never said His Holiness had any connection to freemasonry.He condemned it.
Stop trying to bait me.
MaryKay is right, Dan’s Dad. I was referring to John’s posts above where he said:
“It led me back to one of many speeches by JPII and his desire for his “New World Order ” (Masonic influenced anyone”?)” (posted at 5:36:53 PM)
and:
I never heard of Pope Pius X talk of a “New World Order”. Sounds very masonic (posted at 10:21:58 AM)
Perhaps you don’t know this, but on an earlier thread John stated numerous times that JP2 was a heretic and a Modernist. Now he’s apparently saying that the late Pontiff was “Masonic influenced.” That’s what I was talking about.
I’m glad you pointed out that the former Holy Father condemned freemasonry, though.
In Jesu et Maria,
“Now I know for a fact that it is a mortal sin,grave matter,but the rev. chastised me for thinking so and recommended I get spiritual counseling to make me get hip with the times.”
What was your sin? RULE 1 VIOLATION.
No I just question why the Bishops hatred and fear of the Indult and allowance of the TLM.
I once spoke to a real conservative politician (whose name I will not reveal) who was being blasted for all kinds of “isms”, and what he said I remember and belive to this day, that it is those that profess “liberalism” who are the most radical, violent, and nasty stubborn people you will ever debate, and it is actually those that are conservative (in this case Traditional) who are just trying to hang onto some semblance of what was once Catholic with so many throwing stones at them. One just needs to go to scripture and read what Our Lord said to his Apostles as to how the world will hate them as they hated he, and then one looks to the two Popes who in my opinion the world loved so much and were the only Popes in history to be named “Men of the Year” in John XXIII and JPII and one just needs to wonder why the world loved them so much..because they sold out the faith and could not carry the cross.
It is similar here on this blog and so many others (Amy Welborne and Mark Shea particular), if you say anything out of line about Nostre Aetate and Judaism or Islam, forget it, but keep bashing Traditionalists.
A traditional priest once said to my wife that if the Lord did not give us crosses, then we should be very worried. Well I guess holding fast to the faith and not compromising with “Being with the times” is a cross for many here and elsewhere that we shall gladly take up for Our Lord
Jimmy, please remove Mr Brockington’s lewd comment. Please!!
+J.M.J+
JP2 “couldn’t carry the cross?” What about his final years of physical decline and agony? If that wasn’t a cross….
Keep judging him, John. You’re obviously not going to stop judging the man’s heart and intentions, so just keep it up. But if you find the time somewhere in-between all that judgmentalism, maybe you should thank God that you didn’t have to carry the same cross JP2 bore. Because how do you know you’d be able to stand it yourself?
In Jesu et Maria,
John,
If someone is a true Traditionalist, they will follow the Church’s teaching in Nostre Aetate, and not bad mouth the Vatican II. For to be Traditional is to be obedient to the Magisterium of the Church that Christ founded. Traditionalists who obey the Church on such matters are not critisized on Mark Shea or Amy Welborn’s websites – in fact they often get an especially fair hearing on the latter.
God bless,
– Ryan
Amen Ryan!
Plus you won’t find all that much defense of Islam here. I hate to say it but John dosn’t seem to see reality the way we do. Persecution complex?
I started writing a nice charitable bit of advice to him but decided not to bother, I know he doesn’t want to listen to anyone else’s opinion. Sorry if this sounds real harsh but it is the unfortunate situation.
John,
Jimmy has warned you twice. Jimmy is very patient but tread lightly.
If the only thing you do is ride your hobby horse through every thread then don’t be suprised when you are disinvited.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Jimmy
First I did not see your first warning
Second-this is just what I was saying in my last post, that those that are liberal (Esau, Inocencio (she actually has a big heart), Rosemarie) and others throw barbs at me and I only respond with what I think are sound debate tactics, though not according to some. I have never personnally insulted one person on this blog ever (if I did I am sorry) as you can see from this thread and others I have been on. But as far as the Popes, we have to be able to discuss these men, it would be like having a discussion on politics and not being able to discuss Bush, Clinton etc. It does not work then. The new rite that was put in place after the end of Vatican II were put in place by mortal men flesh and blood with their own agendas and ideas. To think that could not err we are all just kidding ourselves
John,
The first time Jimmy warned you claimed “entrapment” so you did see it.
Your only point, over and over, is that Vatican II was nothing more than an agenda of men and not guided by the Holy Spirit. You don’t have the authority to decide that. The pope does and has now accept the rightful authority and admit that Vatican II is a valid council.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John,
Every pope and bishop has been a “mortal man of flesh and blood with their own agendas and ideas.” I don’t see what your point is there.
John, slow down.
For the moment, let’s forget about this “debate” about Vatican II.
For the moment, look at just your posts.
You said that you did not see Jimmy’s first warning. At first, I thought it was an indicatioin that you weren’t reading all that had been posted.
Then I looked it up. Jimmy’s first warning was on the Italian bleg thread on Nov. 12 at 9:23 am. You responded in the very next post at 10:02. You said that you understood but that if you were a lawyer, you would claim “entrapment.”
It’s not true that you did not see Jimmy’s first warning. I point that out not because I want to be “mean” but to show you that your responses are based on faulty information.
This is not about scoring debate points. You said in a previous post that you were concerned about what your children. You sound like a dad who wants what is good for his children.
Given that, I can understand that you want to address your questions about Vatican II. But John, you have to meet us halfway.
Why can’t John speak his mind,given that his language isn’t lewd,like mine.
He should be able to say whatever he wants.Christ did that whilst He was on Earth in His Human Body,and He continues to let us speak our minds now.
Discussion no matter how well,or ill placed should be permitted in all societies,lest we become like the communists
Dan’s Dad,
“Why can’t John speak his mind…”
Who said John can’t speak his mind?
“He should be able to say whatever he wants.”
If John wants to post comments on Jimmy’s blog then he needs to respect Jimmy’s rules.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John,
Are you a mortal man of flesh and blood with your own agenda and ideas? I am very interested in your answer.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
What are Jimmy’s rules?
Dan’s Dad,
Da Rulz
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Dan’s dad,
Why can’t John speak his mind
As Inocencio said, no one said that he couldn’t.
given that his language isn’t lewd,like mine.
You mention your “lewd language.” On Nov. 6, you said, “Look at the fruits of the new mass” and cited several behaviors that you indicated invalidated the Novus Ordo. Your “lewd language,” is that a fruit of attending the Tridentine Mass? If so, your logic would say that judging by the fruit, the Tridentine Mass was invalid.
Looking over your past posts with their effect of distracting from the main topic, I’d say you’re one of the following:
a) a troll
b) the convert you claim to be and are parrotting arguments you’ve heard others make but have no understanding yourself of the events involved
c) the 8th grader which you also claimed to be. In that case, you should spend your time studying instead of being on the computer so you learn how to participate constructively in a discussion.
Personally, I’m betting that you’re a troll.
He should be able to say whatever he wants.Christ did that whilst He was on Earth in His Human Body,and He continues to let us speak our minds now.
Discussion no matter how well,or ill placed should be permitted in all societies,lest we become like the communists
Crud, that’s what I get for not hitting preview. I meant to delete those last two sentences from DD as I did not intend to respond to them.
Mary Kay:
For the multiple choice test, if I chose (a), do I get to pick what kind of “troll”? ;^)
(Only kiddin’! You sure have great patience and charity, my beloved sistah in Christ!)
Innocencio:
About the comment Inocencio (she actually has a big heart), I know you do have a big heart based on your previous posts (which is why I enjoy seeing them among the many other great post-ers I see here in Jimmy’s blog; Jimmy, of course, being our top man here!), but I thought you told John back then when he accused you of being Ben Yachov’s wife (not sure who he was), that you were, in fact, a husband and father?
At any rate, you sure must be one great father based on the patience you’ve demonstrated in these here threads! You’ve got to teach me someday if and when I become one! It would sure help — especially given the times we live in!
God bless all!
Someone needs to reread James 3:10.
Esau,
I am a husband and a father by the grace of God. In fact Inocencio is also my father’s name and his father before him and my eldest son’s name.
But John has “declared and defined” that I am a woman, wife and liberal and nothing will change his mind, not even the facts.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Mary Kate, show me where I ever said that the Novus Ordo was invalid.I never did,I know it is valid.I assist at it as well as the Tridentine Rite
By “their fruits you shall know them”,is a quote from Our Lord and Savior,in describing the workings of The Holy Ghost,or the works of Satan in a man.There was no sarcasm intended here
Lastly why would you refer to me as a troll?You have never seen what I look like.And you should not judge another man. My proddings to call me aimed at various writers was so we could speak to each other.I find that hearing a mans voice go’s a long way to having a warm conversation with him.
Why would you want to insult me?I never said anything nasty or mean to you.
I told you before I was being goofy with some of the postings I am sorry that you do not want to act Christlike to me,even if you think I parrot what I have heard and I look like A troll
May Jesus fill you with His Love.
Dan’s Dad,
“In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, most often in the form of posting inflammatory, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate messages.”-wikipedia
This is what Mary Kay meant nothing more.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Innocencio:
God bless you, my friend!
It’s nice knowing that there are actually good Christian fathers out there such as yourself who have such a strong Catholic faith, a great heart and a true and fatherly love about them (with all the patience, charity and understanding that that actually all entails–especially in our day and age)!
On top of all that, you’re not just a father of one but of many! Thank God for that, too (though, my heart goes to you, my friend; but I’m sure it brings you many joys all things considered)! If only there were many fathers who have the same qualities as yourself, raising many children in a similar way and in the orthodox Catholic Faith, what an ideal world we might be able to bring about for the future!
God Bless!
Esau,
Thank you for your kind words, all glory to God. Please keep me and all fathers in your prayers.
I just realized that we commented at exactly the same time, weird.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Please keep me and all fathers in your prayers.
Don’t worry, I will!
I was just reading some stuff off the News this morning and remembered something that was said back in a past thread.
Someone had said then:
“Let’s think in a longer time frame and have more babies and bring them up with Orthodox ideals.”
I think it was Phil M.
At any rate, yes, prayers, like for many things, is essential, especially in the case for good fathers!
God bless!
Dan’s Dan,
Under the name Dan Hunter on Nov. 6 is your post, “Look at the fruits of the new mass… (Fr. McNamara) shows disrespect to the only Mass (Tridentine)that has saved countless souls…”
If you say that the Tridentine is “the only Mass that has saved countless souls,” the logical corollary is that the Novus Ordo does not save souls or in other words, is invalid.
I know very well the quote of “by the fruits you shall know them.” I used it in response to your citing it, as stated in my post.
Inocencio is quite right in that I meant troll in the sense of Internet troll. Given your unfamiliarity with that term, it appears that you are perhaps less practiced than some in Internet discussions.
If that’s the case, then you might also consider being a little less quick until you have a better sense of what is considered inflammatory and using humor. There’s a lot of humor in these threads, but as you’ve noted, it is different than in person.
If Internet unfamiliarity is part of this, it would be better to say that rather than being seen as a troll.
Mary Kate,in reference to my posting of Nov. 6,I made a mistake with punctuation as I am wont to do.
What I was trying to say was that the Tridentine mass was the only Mass,for the most part available to Latin Rite Catholics at the time of Lepanto,The Crusades,Spanish conquest of The America’s,and therefore was the only mass that could save souls.I apologize for the typographical error
As to Fruits ye shall know them,there was no double entendre intended.And yes it is quite obvious that I have no practice with internet quipboxes or whatever they ere called.this is no reason to belittle my efforts at expressing myself in a newer medium.
I and my family have experienced so much abuse as seen in the offering of the Novus Ordo Mass,that we have been hurt badly and cut to the quick at seeing Our Savior having to sustain this barrage of sacrilege in the one haven of safety that we have left.This is why I say the things I do.
My wife and our three children pray that we can once again attend a reverant mass without having to drive over 180 miles round trip.
Continue to pray for our Holy Father that he have the strength to forge through all the nonsense.God bless you all. Me the “Troll”
Dan’s Dad,
My name is Mary Kay, not Mary Kate. I overlooked it the first time, but I would ask that you at least get my name right.
I wasn’t belittling your relative unfamiliarity with comboxes. Rather, it explains “where you’re coming from.”
And I also understand your frustration with the way the Novus Ordo is sometimes celebrated. You’re not alone in that, not by a long shot. That’s probably the major reason for the indult and apparently soon, a universal indult.
You deserve much credit for both your 180 mile trip and tackling this new medium.
Inocencio and all
I would ask of you to all read the book “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber” by Father Ralph Wiltgin SVD, who was at the council for all 4 years and had documents upon documents of the 2150 Council Fathers, but whose most influential members were the periti from Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and France. This groups liberal interpration and their for the most part being minorities in largely Protestant countries. The infighting and jockeying for power, the silencing of Cardinal Ottavani and the American Jewish Committe, how the Jews even got into the schema on ecumenism (which is for Christian Unity), how the Dutch Cardinals were outraged at Paul VI for his insistence on calling Mary “Mother of the Church” that they penned it “Black Week”, how in the end of WWII, the WCC and the Jesuits and Dominicans had pushed forth ecuemenism with Protestants as the Nazi threat was defeated but still there, and in an effort to truly bring all of the non Catholic churc’s together, these “Observers” were allowed to review the schemas, comment on them, make recommendations and with communism and even atheism for the first time in council history not being condemned.
John,
I would ask you to answer my question.
I repeat: Are you a mortal man of flesh and blood with your own agenda and ideas?
I am very interested in your answer.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
St. Jude Pray for Us!
Also read “The Devastated Vineyard”,by Dietrich Von Hildebrand.
He is a mortal man of flesh and blood,with God’s idea’s,and agenda.
VII is also ambiguous in many texts which was manipulated by liberals and progressivisms.
B16, when he was Father Ratzinger even saw a liberal control of the Council:
“Father Ratzinger, the personal theologian of Cardinal Frings, while dining one day with a group, mentioned that the liberals had thought they would have a free hand at the council after obtaining the majority in the Council commissions. But in the speeches and voting in the Council hall, he said, they began to notice some resistance to their proposals, and consequently commission had to take this into consideration when revising the schemas.”
Rev. R.M. Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber (TAN, 1985), p. 150
The Rhine Flows into the Tiber is an excellent book on these accounts.
Here’s an example of some ambiguity that was already voted upon and approved by the council fathers that was corrected by the Pope (in some vain since his correction was suppose to go in the beginning of LG but they stuck it in the back):
“Meanwhile, thirty five cardinals and the superiors general of five very large religious orders had written to the pope stating that, while the text on collegiality in the schema had the appearance of presenting the moderate liberal view, it was in fact ambiguous, and might, after the close of the Council, be interpreted according to the extreme liberal view.
…….
Then one of the extreme liberals made the mistake of referring, in writing, to some these ambiguous passages, and indicating how they would be interpreted after the council. This paper fell into the hands of the aforesaid group of cardinals and superiors general, whose representative took it to the Pope. Pope Paul, realizing finally that he had been deceived, broke down and wept.”
Rev. R.M. Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber (TAN, 1985), pages 231-232
Jimmy. What the hell do you know about it, cowboy?
Happy New Year and Merry Christmas! to ALL
I just wanted to send everyone a bit of Christmas Cheer!
[b]Free mp3 tracks for download and streaming[/b]
[url=http://dn.vc/399]Free MP3 Portal[/url]
Free MP3 music downloads that are hundred percent legal. Select from over 1,152,427 free MP3’s, from a vast collection of genres. Stay up to date with current music news, discuss your favorite song and artist, add your music, and more.
[url=http://www.ecbrown.org/mp3/default.htm]Erik Brown’s MP3 Links[/url]
really have to put Erik’s site in the position of honour at the top of this web page, since it features an awesomely large collection of mp3 music site links arranged in an easy to use layout. If you’re looking for free music on the Internet, in a superb selection of eclectic, mainstream and world music genres, this has to be your first port of call. Absolutely!!
[IMG]http://kakvsegda.com/cnt/3.gif[/IMG]
Hello
For some people online flash games are a passing distraction to fill the hours between lunch and home time. For others online flash games are a passionate hobby that keeps glued to their monitors while they try and beat their last score. We’ve put together a list of the top ten best flash games ever, in no particular order. From simple animal cruelty to complex platform puzzles, these should keep you entertained all day long.
1. Beejeweled
[url=http://webhunt.in/res.php?key=b25saW5lLWZsYXNoLWdhbWVzLTE=][img]http://webhunt.in/online-flash-games-1.jpg[/img][/url]
Originally called Diamond Mine, this classic flash game involves moving multicoloured gems around in order to create sets of three. It’s simple, but incredibly addictive.
2. Chimgam
[url=http://webhunt.in/res.php?key=b25saW5lLWZsYXNoLWdhbWVzLTI=][img]http://webhunt.in/online-flash-games-2.jpg[/img][/url]
We’re not sure where this game came from — and we’re not sure we want to know. This is one of the craziest games we’ve ever played and one of the funniest. It’s not big and it’s not clever, but we can’t stop playing it.
3. Bow Man
[url=http://webhunt.in/res.php?key=b25saW5lLWZsYXNoLWdhbWVzLTM=][img]http://webhunt.in/online-flash-games-3.jpg[/img][/url]
Set in a time when a bow and arrow was the best way to stick it to the man — as opposed to playing silly games on company time — Bow Man challenges you to shoot your enemy by calculating the correct angle and power of your bow. Robin Hood eat your heart out.
4. Desktop Tower Defense
You’re sitting at your desk, avoiding work, on your fourth cup of tea when suddenly you’re attacked by a group of creeps. What do you do? You set up canons of course, and blow them to smithereens. Desktop Tower Defense is a personal favourite of ours and a must-play game.
5. Neopets Hasee Bounce
Dodging dung might not sound like fun, but as you’ve already found out playing Chimgam, it can be a blast. Hasee Bounce sees you control cute creatures that bounce in the air and eat doughnut fruit. If only doughnut fruit was real. Sigh.
[img]http://kakvsegda.com/cnt/6.gif[/img]
to be continued.
Paul VI saw liturgical abuse as “smoke of Satan”
“People who have been claiming the latter need to get their tin foil hats adjusted properly or go back on their meds.”
I absolutely agree. When my tin foil *helmet* (not merely a hat, mind you) isn’t tight enough, particularly over the ears, then things like this are much more difficult to interpret correctly.
Oh sure, go on scoff. They used to laugh at Magneto, too.
What a joke. More catholic lies, blasphemy against Jesus Christ. The holy spirit never entered the Beast System that is the catholic church. It has been corrupt from the day of it’s inception, a parasitical system who dotes on murder and mammon and no apostle/disciple/prophet or Believer in the Holy Bible EVER put forth one iota of effort into organizing or representing this murderous regim. Quit lying. You people are the true heretics. I would die for my Savior Lord Jesus Christ. Truth is you will….at the hands of the very Antichrist you are servant to and no Book of Life will pull you out of the terrible Works Doctrine lie.
TJ,
You are skating off the ice. If your visit is more than a drive-by, please take a few moments to familiarize yourself with Da Rulz. This is your first and only warning.