John Allen maintains that the motu proprio liberalizing the use of the Tridentine rite of Mass is real and should be out soon.
EXCERPT:
An April 3 letter from Cardinal Walter Kasper, who among other things heads the Vatican’s Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with Jews, responds to concerns from the International Council of Christians and Jews about the pre-Vatican II Mass, in light of controversial passages it contains regarding Judaism. The last sentence of Kasper’s letter, the text of which I have, is the key line: "While I do not know what the pope intends to state in his final text, it is clear that the decision that has been made cannot now be changed."
Kasper’s language clearly indicates that something definitive has happened. It adds to the confirmation given by the Vatican’s Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, on March 31 that a motu proprio from Benedict XVI, meaning a document under the pope’s personal authority, on the pre-Vatican II Mass is coming.
But when will it appear?
The hot tip now is April 30, the feast of St. Pius V on the Roman calendar, or May 5, the feast of Pius V on the older calendar.
Allen’s story points out that certain prayers in the Tridentine rite may offend interreligious sensibilities, and it will be interestng to see what, if anything, is done regarding them. While one of the most troublesome passages was removed by John XXIII, if the Holy See were to take swift action to alter more passages, it would undercut the effect of liberalizing the rite before it could have its impact.
I’m reading a book about scripture by Scott Hahn and he claims as one of the big benefits of the new mass the fact of the incorporation of the entire bible (so to speak) in the readings. I never realized that the OT was almost excuded in the Trinitine Mass. This part anyway seems a step backwards for sure.
Perhaps, as others have suggested, our future is a more elegant mix of the two Masses. This is what might have happened if the progressive element hadn’t been so “hell bent” on getting the Mass turned upside down TODAY.
Have you seen Jeff Miller’s Motu Proprio Random Date Generator?
It would be nice if the old Mass could be celebrated without special permission, but for two years we have had one date after another put out at The Date. Suppose it’s more like what Slowboy mentioned above: something that supports a mix of the two?
But I also saw a post somewhere (gosh, was it Catholic Pillow Fight?) that mentioned that this whole thing is becoming another division. The Latin People here, the Novus Ordo people there. Of course, I suppose those divisions already exist anyway.
What’s the over-under on delays from the current supposed date of the motu proprio? Is twenty-three too high? The one really encouraging thing for those wanting the motu proprio is that the media feel the need to start spreading lies about the Latin Mass being anti-semitic. Though the media don’t miss a chance to insult the Church, would they bother with the anti-semitic baloney if the motu proprio weren’t going to happen? This is very encouraging indeed!
Some of you might remember when we suffered through interminable reports of General Franco’s imminent death. Speculation about when he would die went on so long that when it finally happened, it became an instant joke. I’m getting that deja vu feeling all over again.
The Latin Mass as antisemitic??? Come on! The novus ordo revolutionaries must be desparate; they are getting “professional victims” to lobby the media for them….What’s next? The Latin mass was responsible for slavery? Gimme a break!
The liberalization of the Mass would, in my opinion, do much good for the church in removing some of the hostility we traditionalists feel toward the hierarchy that has opposed the legitimate wishes of JPII and Benedict XVI in granting the Indult. And to all those who support the novus ordo 100% — just think… you would not have to deal with whining traditionalists as much any more!
In the long run could the influence of the Tridentine Mass help restore the Novus Ordo to what it was meant to be? Maybe even make the Latin Novus Ordo Mass more popular?
A generation from now could the average parish have at least one of each on Sunday: vernacular Novus Ordo, Latin Novus Ordo, and Tridentine? Would something like that be a good thing or a bad thing?
And while we’re tossing out the elegant mixing of the masses idea: Would there be any merit to a Mass that follows the Tridentine rubrics but is in the vernacular? Or would that just be stupid?
Slowboy, the greater selection of Scripture in the 1970 Missal is something that’s been very helpful to me.
Christine, thanks for mentioning the MP Random Date Generator. That’s pretty much how I feel about it.
Rick, the earlier Missal wasn’t antisemitic, but there was some anti-semitic feeling. Pogroms, for example. Anti-semitic comments here in the US.
some things, but some have connected things such as the phrase “perfidious Jews” on Good Friday
And while we’re tossing out the elegant mixing of the masses idea: Would there be any merit to a Mass that follows the Tridentine rubrics but is in the vernacular? Or would that just be stupid?
In the NY Archdiocese, that’s all we had from about 1965 to 1970. So oviously, it not only is not stupid, there’s actually more of a precedence for it, than there is for the N.O. in Latin.
“Rick, the earlier Missal wasn’t antisemitic, but there was some anti-semitic feeling. Pogroms, for example. Anti-semitic comments here in the US.”
Mary Kay. Typing fast. Don’t understand. “Pograms, for example”
I know the real date for the motu proprio, but I’m not telling 🙂
There should not be any divisions between Catholics.
We all must acknowledge the truths of Christ and therefore His Mystical Body which is the Church.
The Classical Rite is a much denser and richer liturgy with greater content and the Sacrificial Nature of the Mass in much more evidence.This is what the sacrifice of the mass is all about.Sacrifice of Christ represented in an unbloody manner on the altar.
The Ordo Missae or Novus Ordo has deemphazized the outward acknowledgement of this sacrificial character.
Of course, it is still the same sacrifice of Calvary that takes place during every mass,Tridentine or Novus Ordo.But so many thousand,s have left the Church since its introduction.
What it has done for the Church is given us a greater apreciation for the Classical Mass and the undeniable sacred beauty which it manifests.
The Catholic Church has gone through a purification period lo these past 50 years and she will come out stronger and more brilliant on the other side of this loss of confidence in seminarys,religous orders and the Church in general,now that the mass that Pope St. Gregory and Pope St.Pius V made solid and codified will return to the fore of Catholic worship.
As far as a fear of anti-Semitic language in the Mass,It just is not there in the Missal of 1962.These fears are unwarranted.When we pray that the Jews eyes are opened,we are doing what the Church wants us to do, and that is to convert everyone to the true faith.We are commanded by Christ in charity to go forth and make disciples of all the nations.Just look at the great heritage we have of missionary work in the world and the shining saints this work produced.Francis Xavier in the Orient,the great Jesuits of the North,and South American missions.
And on and on.These brave men and women did not even bat an eye when they proclaimed that the Catholic Church is the true Church.They converted millions because they stood up for Christ and against the world and false religions.
We came from Judaism and it is connected to Catholicism and we are grateful to the fidelity of the Old Law Fathers to the one God,but Christ brought a New Covenant which completes and supercedes the Torah and Old Covenant.
We are called to convert the Jews,through Christ,just as we are called to an inner conversion ourselves.
God bless you.
Some of you might remember when we suffered through interminable reports of General Franco’s imminent death. Speculation about when he would die went on so long that when it finally happened, it became an instant joke. I’m getting that deja vu feeling all over again.
Hmmm… So in a few months I’ll be able to make news announcements saying, “And this just in… Pope Benedict’s motu proprio has still been issued.”
Great! This could revive my career!
Would there be any merit to a Mass that follows the Tridentine rubrics but is in the vernacular? Or would that just be stupid?
On the contrary, while I love Latin and think its preservation in the Church is extremely important, I rather think that this would be the perfect solution right now. No one’s asking me, however.
Would there be any merit to a Mass that follows the Tridentine rubrics but is in the vernacular? Or would that just be stupid?
On the contrary, while I love Latin and think its preservation in the Church is extremely important, I rather think that this would be the perfect solution right now. No one’s asking me, however.
Would there be any merit to a Mass that follows the Tridentine rubrics but is in the vernacular? Or would that just be stupid?
On the contrary, while I love Latin and think its preservation in the Church is extremely important, I rather think that this would be the perfect solution right now. No one’s asking me, however.
Slowboy —
About what you said:
…he claims as one of the big benefits of the new mass the fact of the incorporation of the entire bible (so to speak) in the readings.
As I’ve remarked in the past, the Tridentine rite only features just 1% of the Old Testament and 16.5% of the New Testament in its lectionary.
At Mass, they only have 1 Reading and 1 Gospel.
The Novus Ordo Mass has three with the Psalms in between there. It has three cycle of readings to cover most of Scripture.
The Novus Ordo has 13.5% of the Old Testament and 71.5% of the New Testament — a tremendous increase over that of the Tridentine.
However, I welcome the Tridentine rite as I believe it’s what’s needed especially during these times where liturgical abuse is rampant and respect for AUTHENTIC Catholic Tradition has been all but tossed by certain Catholics (both the Liberals and the Rad Trads) as some sort of ‘refuse’ from the Past meant for disposal.
That is, a genuine form of renewal might come about if elements of historical Catholic tradition were to once again be prominent in Catholic Liturgy.
Thank God for Pope Benedict XVI!
I’ve always gotten the impression that certain people and groups are trying to lock Pope Benedict on a certain course or timetable and that this is the way that Vatican politics have always worked.
Is the pope allowed to change his mind and not go forward with the motu propio? Is he allowed to delay it? Are some Church figures worried that either might happen? Are they nervous that an announcement won’t take the precise form that they wish? In my mind, this isn’t a done deal until it is officially announced. Are people building up so much anticipation that anything less than their expectations would be a profund disappointment?
I’ve always gotten the impression that certain people and groups are trying to lock Pope Benedict on a certain course or timetable and that this is the way that Vatican politics have always worked.
Is the pope allowed to change his mind and not go forward with the motu propio? Is he allowed to delay it? Are some Church figures worried that either might happen? Are they nervous that an announcement won’t take the precise form that they wish? In my mind, this isn’t a done deal until it is officially announced. Are people building up so much anticipation that anything less than their expectations would be a profound disappointment?
I wish the Holy See would say something about a release date or at least announce the document publicly (as they did with his first Encyclical). I feel like it’s going to just drop like a bomb when it is released, with no warning. Then again, the media will probably have a fit no matter what.
Ah, Chevy, great minds and memories run alike!
Anthony,
Great questions!
Unfortunately, there is heavy opposition against the Motu Proprio — especially from clergy who seem to have such disdain for elements of the past, saying that it is but a backward step.
As heroic a figure Pope Benedict XVI is, I fear that even those in the curia might take measures to see that certain intentions of and efforts by his holiness are stifled.
Personally I’ll take any Mass whether vernacular or latin, novus ordo or tridentine where the mindset is to celebrate the sacrament as fully as possible.
I hate how the prevailing attitude toward Mass is to do only the minimum of what the rubrics say is absolutely mandatory and then leave out or change as much as you can get away with. I can’t understand why priests choose to celebrate Mass that way. I would think they would hate such a stripped down Mass and would want it to be as special as possible.
If the motu proprio happens, I don’t think every parish would adopt a Tridentine Mass. But I hope it would have a residual effect of encouraging a greater range of lower to higher Masses. Right now the choices I have at my parish are: a flat, uninspiring vigil Mass with a gospel choir; a flat, uninspiring Mass with no choir; a flat, uninspiring Mass with a children’s choir; a flat, uninspiring Mass with a hippie guitarist; or a flat, uninspiring Mass with an organist.
Brian —
LOVE your post above.
About your comment:
I hate how the prevailing attitude toward Mass is to do only the minimum of what the rubrics say is absolutely mandatory and then leave out or change as much as you can get away with. I can’t understand why priests choose to celebrate Mass that way.
Unfortunately, the prevalent attitude by certain rogue priests/laity out there is that Mass is nothing but a ‘service’ wherein the wishes and desires of those attending must be catered to and the priest has to provide a form of ‘entertainment’ pleasing to the crowd versus what’s actually pleasing to (not to mention, ‘established’ by) Christ, our Saviour.
Everybody today is on ‘self’ mode.
Mass has, in the same way, become ‘about me’ and not about Christ.
Catholicism/Christianity has all but become ‘a necessary fiction’ for folks in order to make them feel better about themselves. Does anybody really live according to the Gospels? Hell no! Does anybody really do what Christ had asked his followers? Hell no!
Yet, when it comes to using Christianity as some sort of self-help product to boost the egos and make folks feel better about who they are, they’re all for it.
As Pope Benedict XVI had alluded to at World Youth Day, Christianity has become a ‘consumer product’.
Pope Benedict XVI was right in what he said then:
“Yet, if it is pushed too far, religion becomes almost a consumer product. People choose what they like, and some are even able to make a profit from it.”
“But religion constructed on a ‘do-it-yourself’ basis cannot ultimately help us,” he said.
I don’t quite understand why we think that the liberalization of the use of the Tridentine mass is going to make things any better, if the ‘things’ we are speaking of are the rampant liturgical abuses. If I may offer up an oracle of my own: I predict that immediately after the liberalization of the Tridentine mass (should it ever come) we will begin to see some of the most horrifically abused Tridentine masses ever. In short, it’ll look only slightly worse than it did immediately before Vatican II (which no one bothers to read). Shortly thereafter, some backwards priest will have the idea to MIX the two masses ad hoc, and thus create an even more severe abuse. The problem isn’t the mass, mass has NEVER been a problem, the problem is total lack of obedience. That goes for all the ‘traditionalists’ (since when did Tradition include disobedience to the current magesterium?) and for all the people out there who strum guitars and sing “We Rise from Ashes” at the Novus Ordo.
How long until I am forced to sit through a Tridentine mass in a circular church while someone strums a guitar and sings, off key, a vernacular ‘worship song’ written by a Protestant that can only be tortured into theological conformity by some bizarre interpretation? I’d much rather be able to go to a Novus Ordo said respectfully, reverently, appropriately, with both Latin and Vernacular and no horrific music. If bringing back the Tridentine mass fosters that, then praise God. If not though, I have a fear that for the next few years/decades we’re in for even more abuses. All I really want is to go to a liturgy that obeys Sacrosanctum Concilium, and is said with reverence. I think in that regard, as St. Paul says, “I have the Spirit.”
Slowboy posted:
“reading a book about scripture by Scott Hahn and he claims as one of the big benefits of the new mass the fact of the incorporation of the entire bible (so to speak) in the readings. I never realized that the OT was almost excuded in the Trinitine Mass. This part anyway seems a step backwards for sure. ”
Gee, Scott Hahn an ex protestant minister on your source for Catholic liturgy
Possibly try reading a book titled simply “The Mass” written by Father Adrian Fortescue, before there even was Novus Ordo (imagine that!!) with no bias and the true organic development of the One True Mass that only ADDED prayers to combat the threats to the church at that time, not delete 35 prayers and altar the rest as the New Mass has done.
And by the way, I have no idea what Scott Hahn is saying that the New Mass incorporates all of the OT and the Old mass does not as it shoots a hole directly into all of the NO supporters who cry and cry that the New Mass is indeed organic.
I guess that the reading of the secret, psalms, etc in the Tridentine mass is from some Testament Scott Hahn knows nothing about.
“If the motu proprio happens, I don’t think every parish would adopt a Tridentine Mass”
I don’t think every parish would adopt a Latin Mass, either, but some will. In order to attend a TLM now I would have to drive several hours. If, after the Motu Proprio, even just a few parishes closer by adopt a Latin Mass, that may open up my options considerably. What if people begin to “vote with their feet” in favor of parishes with the TLM?
Ordinarily, I am of the mindset that you stick with the parish closest to home, unless there is really something rotten going on. But to give my family (at last) a taste of the Latin heritage of the Church… the reverence, the sense of meaningful ritual… that might be worth a little drive.
That fact might put pressure on those parishes who DON’T care for the TLM to adopt one anyway, just to compete. Of course, one might not expect them to put their whole heart into it… it might become (in those “yeah, we have the TLM, too” places) a pale ghost of what it could be.
Maybe B16 should go to a synagogue and kiss a Torah much like JPII had a penchant for kissing Korans to prove that the TLM is not antisemitic and appease them. After all the V2 church in the name of ecumania has to first check with every faith including vodoo witch doctors on up to make sure that whatever we do or say does not offend them! I wonder if Jesus had thought like that would there even be a church today, or the Apostles
Such a shame
“I predict that immediately after the liberalization of the Tridentine mass (should it ever come) we will begin to see some of the most horrifically abused Tridentine masses ever. In short, it’ll look only slightly worse than it did immediately before Vatican II (which no one bothers to read). ”
Well, I pray you are wrong, but it is certainly a strong possibility… and KUDOS for pointing out the FACT that liturgical abuse was common BEFORE VatII. There are many ways to abuse the liturgy, and drums and dancers represent only one end of the spectrum.
Esau, I wholeheartedly agree with just about everything you said. Except the “certain rogue priests/laity” part. In my experience most parishes don’t celebrate Mass well. It’s certain brave priests/laity who celebrate it well rather than certain rogue priests who don’t.
Mass has, in the same way, become ‘about me’ and not about Christ.
I understand why people think this way, but I don’t understand why they still come to Mass. When I thought I was A-OK and knew everything and didn’t need to listen to those frumpy old bishops at the Vatican, I stopped going to Mass. If I believed in God it was very faint and He tended to agree with everything I thought and did – so what did I need the Church for? To me that seems like the logical response and I don’t think I would have found my faith if I didn’t first fall away from the Church. On the other hand, getting together during prime Sunday morning sleeping time and holding hands and patting ourselves on the back doesn’t seem like a logical reason to go to Mass to me.
But to give my family (at last) a taste of the Latin heritage of the Church… the reverence, the sense of meaningful ritual… that might be worth a little drive.
GOD BLESS YOU, TIM J.!
I had attended the Indult TLM in the past myself until the priest that celebrated it retired.
If you ever do get the chance, you’ll, at the very least, get a taste of the traditional past.
Of course, you might want to get a heads-up of when to sit and when to stand first prior to attending one.
I remember the first time I had attended way back when, I was rather taken aback since these motions are quite unlike the cues in the Novus Ordo and the sit/stand/kneel motions might come off sudden and abrupt the first time around.
Also, make certain you have a Missal since they only have one cycle of readings and do only 1 Reading, 1 Gospel — entirely different from the Novus Ordo where the Novus Ordo actually has 3 cycles of readings versus just the one and, thus, covers the bible more than the Tridentine does.
MP RSN.
A three year cycle of readings is too long. The one year cycle made more sense, because it allowed the entire life of Christ to be lived mystically in one liturgical year. The three year cycle was hastily arranged and replaced about a thousand years of tradition. I definitely think that it was a bad idea. In the Tridentine Mass, there was usually a Pauline epistle or other Scriptural reading, and then a reading from the Gospel. That makes good sense in the traditional context of the liturgy, which is focused not so much on Scriptural exegesis as the living of Christ’s life liturgically.
I heard that B16 kissed a copy of Joel Osteen’s new book!!
He sat by and did NOTHING while Charlotte Church went all Britney-floozie on us.
He also changed the drapes and carpeting in the Papal Apartments! What further need have we of witnesses?!?!
The Tridentine mass is full of The Old Testament.
Prayers at the foot of the altar,the Judica me which is Psalm 42.
The Graduals the Collects,the Secret prayers or Super Oblato.The Epistle many times is from the book of Wisdom,Daniel,Isaias.The Tract.
The very sacrificial nature hearkens back to the Temple and the priest in the Holies.
The various rites of incensation take their foundation in the Temple ceremonies.
The “Dirigatur”,at the incensing of the offerings at High Mass is Psalm 140:2-4.
The Lavabo is Psalm 25:6-12.
The Sanctus.
On and on. The Tridentine Mass is laden with the beauty of the Old testament.
It is all acessable in the missal it is all catechetical in its nature .It is all uplifting and enough for our offerings of self,and The Lamb, through the Alter Christus to the High Priest Himself.
God bless you.
The one year cycle made more sense, because it allowed the entire life of Christ to be lived mystically in one liturgical year. The three year cycle was hastily arranged and replaced about a thousand years of tradition. I definitely think that it was a bad idea.
James:
I’ve got to say, you bring up a valid argument.
There are actually those who have indicated that the three cycles is, in fact, too long where especially in this age of prevailing short attention spans, folks hardly even pay attention to the 2 Readings and 1 Gospel at Mass anyway and can’t even recall just what was read at the Novus Ordo Mass.
Though, I still find some merit (if one actually takes it seriously) to the three cycles since it does cover such a huge portion of the bible.
However, I can see the valid viewpoints of some others where it has been stated that the catechism was better reinforced with the one cycle in the Tridentine though due to it being annually repeated.
Ordinarily, I am of the mindset that you stick with the parish closest to home, unless there is really something rotten going on. But to give my family (at last) a taste of the Latin heritage of the Church… the reverence, the sense of meaningful ritual… that might be worth a little drive.
Tim, I’m of the same mindset. My parish has no pews, no stained glass, no anything. The only way you can tell it’s not Protestant is the Crucifix. But I feel it’s my duty to participate in and give my money to the parish I live in. So I try to always wear a sportscoat and tie and do small things to show signs of reference without purposely drawing attention to myself. Hopefully it’ll rub off on people, I know I’ve found that it’s strengthened my own faith. I don’t expect that such a church would would ever offer a Tridentine Mass, but hopefully, as you said, the pressure from other parishes would make at least one of the Sunday Masses a little more reverent.
“GOD BLESS YOU, TIM J.!”
Well, God bless you right back, brother!
Brian said: “Right now the choices I have at my parish are: a flat, uninspiring vigil Mass with a gospel choir; a flat, uninspiring Mass with no choir; a flat, uninspiring Mass with a children’s choir; a flat, uninspiring Mass with a hippie guitarist; or a flat, uninspiring Mass with an organist.”
I can understand people being upset with flagrant liturgical abuses, but setting those specific cases aside, is it not up to us to be “inspired” at Mass? Should we be expecting the Mass to inspire us, or should we simply be attending Mass to worship our Lord, and be fed spiritually? I frankly don’t understand what people find so inspiring about Latin. Is it just because it’s different and exotic? Like when I took Spanish lessons, people kept asking me to say something in Spanish, because it was different to them? Some talk about NO Masses being about “entertaining” the people, but the same could be said about Latin Masses. Some people, for whatever reason, find Latin entertaining. It certainly isn’t more reverent. Reverence comes from within, not from what language a person is speaking. Same with homilies; the quality depends on the priest saying it. The Mass in which he says it makes no difference; priests won’t suddenly crank up the quality of their homilies because some Latin is being spoken.
More reverence in Mass would be nice, but it has to come from each of us individually, not done for us by a certain form of liturgy. People can be just as bored and inattentive (perhaps even more so) in a Latin Mass as a vernacular.
Snowman:
This is why I found Tim J.’s comments very meaningful since it encompasses my sentiments for the Latin Mass.
Tim J. said:
But to give my family (at last) a taste of the Latin heritage of the Church… the reverence, the sense of meaningful ritual… that might be worth a little drive.
If you consider the long history of the Latin Mass in the history of the Catholic Church since even the days of the early church, this, therefore, bridges us with our distant past as Christians, with the heroic saints and martyrs who celebrated in this manner throughout a greater part of Church history, that should, in fact, be looked upon, remembered and revered as part of our Catholic heritage.
Actually, a sense of the exotic cuts pretty close to the appeal of Latin…
“Exotic; alien: being or from or characteristic of another place or part of the world; “alien customs”; “exotic plants in a greenhouse”; “exotic cuisine”
“strikingly strange or unusual; “an exotic hair style”; “protons, neutrons, electrons and all their exotic variants”; “the exotic landscape of a dead planet”
The idea is that the Truth of Church teaching and the liturgy really DOES come from a distant place, and really is (I think G.K. Chesterton would agree) “strikingly strange”.
The idea of the Church being unified by a common language also touches very strongly on the real nature of “catholicity”… we are all primarily citizens of a very exotic country, indeed. We are really only temporary residents of out native countries here on Earth.
Snowman,
I never said I needed a Latin Mass. But I would like a Mass that’s celebrated as if we actually believed Jesus himself was physically present. I live near Washington, DC and have been to Mass at the National Shrine a few times. It’s vernacular novus ordo, but it’s how Mass is supposed to be celebrated. That’s the type of thing I would like to see rather than the “Ok, let’s get this over with” attitude that’s present at my parish (and I suspect many others). Maybe if we celebrated Mass more like we meant it, that nasty little statistic concerning the number of Catholics who believe in transubstantiation would start to turn back the other way.
Though, I still find some merit (if one actually takes it seriously) to the three cycles since it does cover such a huge portion of the bible.
Clearly the Fathers and Doctors of the Latin Church weren’t concerned about this. Why do you assume a priori that the mass should cover a huge portion of the Bible? In fact it seems like a Protestant idea to me that a big part of “going to Church” is to get through the Bible and have someone explain every part to me.
The new breviary also contains huge portions of scripture. At the risk of making it even longer, why not make the Divine Office on a several-year track instead of the Mass? That seems to be the place for “getting your Bible in” anyway, not necessarily during the Holy Sacrifice.
Before the 60s you could pick up collections of sermons by St Gregory the Great, by St Bonaventure, by many others throughout the centuries, on any given sunday, and read a sermon on the same gospel you just heard at mass. There was real continuity, not just of worship, but also of exegesis, meditation on the liturgy, etc. Now that the cycle is disrupted and “reformed” that’s no longer true. All the old theological and devotional materials pre-VII are “out of date” in a way that wasn’t true before. I think that’s a shame, and I’d personally be happy to go back to reading the rest of the Bible outside of Mass.
Though, I still find some merit (if one actually takes it seriously) to the three cycles since it does cover such a huge portion of the bible.
Clearly the Fathers and Doctors of the Latin Church weren’t concerned about this. Why do you assume a priori that the mass should cover a huge portion of the Bible? In fact it seems like a Protestant idea to me that a big part of “going to Church” is to get through the Bible and have someone explain every part to me.
The new breviary also contains huge portions of scripture. At the risk of making it even longer, why not make the Divine Office on a several-year track instead of the Mass? That seems to be the place for “getting your Bible in” anyway, not necessarily during the Holy Sacrifice.
Before the 60s you could pick up collections of sermons by St Gregory the Great, by St Bonaventure, by many others throughout the centuries, on any given sunday, and read a sermon on the same gospel you just heard at mass. There was real continuity, not just of worship, but also of exegesis, meditation on the liturgy, etc. Now that the cycle is disrupted and “reformed” that’s no longer true. All the old theological and devotional materials pre-VII are “out of date” in a way that wasn’t true before. I think that’s a shame, and I’d personally be happy to go back to reading the rest of the Bible outside of Mass.
Though, I still find some merit (if one actually takes it seriously) to the three cycles since it does cover such a huge portion of the bible.
Clearly the Fathers and Doctors of the Latin Church weren’t concerned about this. Why do you assume a priori that the mass should cover a huge portion of the Bible? In fact it seems like a Protestant idea to me that a big part of “going to Church” is to get through the Bible and have someone explain every part to me.
The new breviary also contains huge portions of scripture. At the risk of making it even longer, why not make the Divine Office on a several-year track instead of the Mass? That seems to be the place for “getting your Bible in” anyway, not necessarily during the Holy Sacrifice.
Before the 60s you could pick up collections of sermons by St Gregory the Great, by St Bonaventure, by many others throughout the centuries, on any given sunday, and read a sermon on the same gospel you just heard at mass. There was real continuity, not just of worship, but also of exegesis, meditation on the liturgy, etc. Now that the cycle is disrupted and “reformed” that’s no longer true. All the old theological and devotional materials pre-VII are “out of date” in a way that wasn’t true before. I think that’s a shame, and I’d personally be happy to go back to reading the rest of the Bible outside of Mass.
Brian —
About what you said:
Esau, I wholeheartedly agree with just about everything you said. Except the “certain rogue priests/laity” part. In my experience most parishes don’t celebrate Mass well. It’s certain brave priests/laity who celebrate it well rather than certain rogue priests who don’t.
Actually, I was pointing out that the liturgical abuse that we see rampant these days is more often than not due to such rogue priests/laity out there.
I understand why people think this way, but I don’t understand why they still come to Mass. When I thought I was A-OK and knew everything and didn’t need to listen to those frumpy old bishops at the Vatican, I stopped going to Mass. If I believed in God it was very faint and He tended to agree with everything I thought and did – so what did I need the Church for? To me that seems like the logical response and I don’t think I would have found my faith if I didn’t first fall away from the Church.
I really get where you’re coming from here!
I, myself, don’t understand why such folks still continue to attend if that’s indeed the case.
For that matter, I don’t even understand the need to remain a Catholic — especially those folks who actually seem to disagree with almost every dogma of the Church and actually think that the Eucharist is nothing more than bread and not actually the body & blood of Our Lord!
On the other hand, getting together during prime Sunday morning sleeping time and holding hands and patting ourselves on the back doesn’t seem like a logical reason to go to Mass to me.
This is one of the things that can turn people off — the fact that it seems the Mass has become more of a SOCIAL event rather than giving attention where attention is due: to the Holy Sacrifice of Mass and Our Lord Himself!
Though, I still find some merit (if one actually takes it seriously) to the three cycles since it does cover such a huge portion of the bible.
“Clearly the Fathers and Doctors of the Latin Church weren’t concerned about this. Why do you assume a priori that the mass should cover a huge portion of the Bible? In fact it seems like a Protestant idea to me that a big part of “going to Church” is to get through the Bible and have someone explain every part to me.”
Michael Sullivan:
Didn’t you even take notice of the other things I said?
Like:
“I’ve got to say, you bring up a valid argument.
There are actually those who have indicated that the three cycles is, in fact, too long where especially in this age of prevailing short attention spans, folks hardly even pay attention to the 2 Readings and 1 Gospel at Mass anyway and can’t even recall just what was read at the Novus Ordo Mass.”
AND
“However, I can see the valid viewpoints of some others where it has been stated that the catechism was better reinforced with the one cycle in the Tridentine though due to it being annually repeated.”
Before the 60s you could pick up collections of sermons by St Gregory the Great, by St Bonaventure, by many others throughout the centuries, on any given sunday, and read a sermon on the same gospel you just heard at mass. There was real continuity, not just of worship, but also of exegesis, meditation on the liturgy, etc. Now that the cycle is disrupted and “reformed” that’s no longer true.
Michael Sullivan:
That’s NOT entirely true.
I, in fact, devote myself to not only the Horae but also to the Benedictine breviary and on both accounts, they often contain sermons of the Fathers and other such Patristic writings that bear great relevance to the reading and even Gospel said at Mass that day.
Ed Peters – There was a comment at the end of John Allen’s piece where a woman claimed that the SSPX is not schismatic, even though Archbishop Lefebrve is… she said to ask any respected canon lawyer and they would agree. Do you? What is their status? (if you have already written about this, perhaps you can direct me there) Thanks!
I’ll add my speculation:
Is there a feast date for St. Pius X?
Or on Pentecost.
2010.
🙂
Michael posted:
“Clearly the Fathers and Doctors of the Latin Church weren’t concerned about this. Why do you assume a priori that the mass should cover a huge portion of the Bible? In fact it seems like a Protestant idea to me that a big part of “going to Church” is to get through the Bible and have someone explain every part to me.”
Exactly! But dont forget Scott Hahn is a former protestant minister and many here like Esau are former protestants, and the NO mass was implemented to please just such as sect bent on sola scriptura
Read Adrian Fortescue’s book filled with true Latin and Greek and the true organic development of the liturgy, not the Bugnini mass that is being sold off today
Exactly! But dont forget Scott Hahn is a former protestant minister and many here like Esau are former protestants, and the NO mass was implemented to please just such as sect bent on sola scriptura
YES — Our dastardly PLOT has been uncovered!
Scott Hahn, Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples, and all us Protestant Converts are aiming to TAKE OVER THE CHURCH!!!
HAHAHAHHAHAHHHAA!!!!!
John — I’m a former Protestant and I’m not “bent on sola scriptura.” In fact, it seems so unbiblical now that I wonder how I ever could have believed in it.
But that reminds me, I should call Scott Hahn, head of the Protestant Plot to Take Over the Catholic Church (PPTOCC, or HAHAHAHAHAHA!!). I still haven’t gotten my secret decoder ring. *sigh*
You mean the same Adrian Fortescue, author of the articles on Liturgy for the Catholic Encyclopedia, who described the canon in the Tridentine rite as being a dramatic change from what it was before?
More precisely: “the canon has not only been changed but dramatically so.”
Hence:
This brings us back to the most difficult question: Why and when was the Roman Liturgy changed from what we see in Justin Martyr to that of Gregory I? The change is radical, especially as regards the most important element of the Mass, the Canon.
At Rome, the Eucharistic prayer was fundamentally changed and recast at some uncertain period between the fourth and the sixth and seventh centuries… Of the various theories suggested to account for this it seems reasonable to say: “We must then admit that between the years 400 and 500 a great transformation was made in the Roman Canon” (Euch. u. Busssakr., 86).
The part removed from the ellipse stated simply that “[d]uring the same time the prayers of the faithful before the Offertory disappeared, the kiss of peace was transferred to after the Consecration, and the Epiklesis was omitted or mutilated into our “Supplices” prayer” (Fortescue: Catholic Encyclopedia article “Liturgy of the Mass” c. 1913).
This is a little off topic, but the comments about all the Protestant converts made me think of it. Where have the staunch cradle to grave Catholics gone? It seems nearly everyone I know who’s Catholic is either a convert or revert, while most cradle Catholics are either “Catholic” or no longer associate themselves with the Church.
(Note: PPTOCC Secret Decoder Ring Required)
(Note: PPTOCC Secret Decoder Ring Required)
(Note: PPTOCC Secret Decoder Ring Required)
The point is that many partisans of the novus ordo (including converts like Scott Hahn — who is a fine, upstanding man) have treated us traditionalists like we want something that has been left behind. This attitude — similar to the 19th century idea of progress — has interpreted church history in a decidedly “Whig” direction. The point is that if we had been born three hundred years (or 1000 years) ago we would have had the trid in Latin. This sutained countless Catholics and Catholic saints for years. The novus ordo types who are so hostile to the Tridentine mass are, therefore, out of line with the historical experience of the church. If they would have been born years ago, they would have — according to their own logic and admissions — opposed the very liturgy that fed countless saints. That is what traditionalists like myself find so distasteful about the novus ordo partisans who are also orthodox Catholics. You folks should be our biggest supporters, yet you seem to be our enemies and ally with the heterodox liberals on the fundamental issues of the mass.
I’m a cradle Catholic.
And I think that since the other Liturgies also use less of the OT, going back to the TLM’s usage of a 1 year cycle like the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (the one that comes to my mind) is a good thing.
The OT is used more for Vespers and the like.
You folks should be our biggest supporters, yet you seem to be our enemies and ally with the heterodox liberals on the fundamental issues of the mass.
Rick:
Where in my posts have I OPPOSED the Motu Proprio or even the TLM???
If anything, I have promoted it!
I guess that the reading of the secret, psalms, etc in the Tridentine mass is from some Testament Scott Hahn knows nothing about
John,
Please save your ignorant vitrol for those who deserve it: like me. I paraphrased Scott Hahn from without a backward glance to see how close I came to his actual quote. I did not mean to imply that he has said the NO is “better” than the Tri’D. His statement was closer to this: Few Catholics seek exposure to the bible outside of the mass and the change in the readings is an improvement.
Since I have heard no statement from him about the masses I will not speculate, something you might consider yourself.
Rick,
Again, the issue I have is that “the tridentine mass sustained Catholics for years”. Our Lord in the Eucharist is what sustained Catholics for years, and he is as available to us now in the NO as he was before in the tridentine Mass. The issue for many of us who seem hostile to the tridentine Mass (and I count myself among them) is that it seems like more emphasis is placed on the rites than on the Lordby some. This is particularly evident with those like “John” who posted above, who worships the tridentine liturgy rather than worshipping God. Granted, he is an extreme example of this form of idolatry, but it’s out there.
As well, there’s the disdain many “trads” have for the NO. I remember a recent discussion on this same topic, a woman posted that she had to attend an SSPX mass, because there was no latin mass in the area she was visiting. So, she has put worshipping in Latin above obedience to Christ and His Church, by supporting schism.
Tim J. and Esau made a good point, that it is about re-introducing some of the Church’s heritage back into the liturgy, and I can support that. I’m actually quite a history buff. But I worry that it’s rewarding those who place their preference of rites over obedience to the Church. I’d love to see more reverence, but I think it needs to come from within us, not done for us through Latin liturgy. I’m as annoyed as anyone about things like grown men who come to mass in shorts and sandals, or with sunglasses propped on top of their heads, and that sort of attitude. But I don’t think people will magically become more reverent with the re-introduction of Latin. People are people, and I’ve decided that it’s best to just accept those who come to Mass without the “right” attitude, and just work on making sure I have a good attitude and am focused on Christ. It’s much better for my mental health, and hopefully will keep me from becoming like “John”.
Exactly! But dont forget Scott Hahn is a former protestant minister and many here like Esau are former protestants, and the NO mass was implemented to please just such as sect bent on sola scriptura
No use in a continued ‘COVER-UP’.
We’ve been EXPOSED.
Protestant converts are joining the Catholic Church not to go over to Catholicism, but actually to TAKE OVER the Catholic Church!
In fact, that’s why the Motu Proprio is being delayed!
Our PPTOCC SECRET AGENTS have been active in Rome to make sure this doesn’t happen.
In fact, our Double-Agent in these here United States was none other than —- drum roll — FR. FESSIO!!!
(Now you know why he got fired! He was OUR 007!)
… cue in ‘James Bond’ theme …
I wasn’t aware that we “Novus Ordo supporters” were at war with the “traditionalists” at all. I realize it’s difficult, but it’s not productive to get paranoid. Especially when you’re about to WIN BIG! Nah, you’re supposed to be practicing being gracious winners in the pope stakes. 🙂
I also wasn’t aware that we Catholics who’ve been going to Mass every Sunday practically since our infant baptisms had vanished. I’m sorry that we don’t insist on telling everyone our story of how we never left, but it’s not as if there’s a great deal to tell.
“And I got mad about this thing that happened, but then I offered it up.” “I thought about sleeping in, but I got up instead.” “Actually, I always liked going to Mass, so I liked it at college too.” Ooh, page-turners!
Also, it seems rather rude to make a point of such things. I mean, God gave me the grace of being raised Catholic, and God gave me the gift of faith. All this was an undeserved gift. If anything, I should be ashamed that I haven’t cooperated any better than I have, given all the graces shed upon me.
The typical Novus ordo rejoinder, which you can find above, is that traditionalists worship the latin mass rather than God — in other words, forms are not really important. Then, in the next breath, these novus ordo partisans long for more reverence in the novus ordo liturgy. So on the one hand, I am a bad Catholic for insisting that the traditional form of the liturgy — the one basically (with a few minor differences) in place since the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great — more fully expresses the truths of the Catholic faith than does the novus ordo. Then, on the other hand, the conservative partisans of the novus ordo have to establish their orthodoxy by claiming to demand more “traditional” piety and reverence from their liberal compatriots — who more ardently support the novus ordo than any of the normal conservative cheerleaders. I call this the “Hegelian game” — the conservatives try to posit themselves as the moderate alternative to two extremes. By posturing themselves as such, they can simply refuse to debate the relevant issues with traditionalists. It is the condescension of such a position that I most despise.
If liturgy is important — as conservative CLAIM to believe — if tradition is important — as conservatives BELIEVE it is — then the liturgical debate is THE most important debate among orthodox Catholics today! Don’t marginalize me by trying to throw me into the “traditionalist ghetto.” That is why the mortu proprio is so important. It will bring the traditionalist position out of the rhetorical ghetto in which it has been consigned by liberal hierarchy and the conservatives who support them on liturgical questions.
Again, Rick, where in all my posts have I OPPOSED the Motu Proprio and/or the TLM?
You said:
Don’t marginalize me by trying to throw me into the “traditionalist ghetto.”
Well, same thing goes for you — Don’t marginalize me by trying to throw me into the “Conservative ghetto”!
Never mind the fact that I used to ATTEND THE INDULT when it was offered at a distant parish until the priest who celebrated it RETIRED!
“Conservative” and “liberal” are political terms. They have nothing to do with the Church.
“Conservative” and “liberal” are political terms. They have nothing to do with the Church.
EXACTLY, bill912!
What these people don’t realize is that CATHOLICISM is NOT comprised of such POLITICAL FACTIONS!
It is THE CHURCH Christ himself established, which we owe DUE OBEDIENCE!
Rick, if your rant was addressing my post, you’re mssing the point. I’m not saying liturgy is not important, I’m saying among some (particularly those who insist on Latin, to the point of going to schismatic Masses) have placed liturgy above obedience to the Church, and seem to have missed the whole point of Mass (“Why do you call me Lord, but don’t do as I have commanded you?” – Jesus, 30 AD). I don’t have a problem with reverence, but I believe it comes from each of us individually, it can’t be done for us. In all honesty, if you can’t worship God reverently in a NO Mass, I don’t see how you can worship Him reverently in a Tridentine Mass. It seems to me that people are relying too heavily on the Mass to be reverent for them. And again, that’s what I was getting at with the comment about men going to Church dressed for the beach – reverance should come from the individual, it can’t be done for them by a priest speaking in Latin. People can daydream and check out women/men just as easily at a Lain Mass as at NO Mass.
And, I’m not saying this about all “trads”, but I get the impression some (and I shouldn’t keep pointing out John, but he comes across as particularly bitter and mean-spirited in his posts) seem to be trying to solve the problem of individual irreverence by isolating themselves from the “beach boys”. If there are both NO and Latin Masses, I think many feel that the less devout will find it easier to stay with the Mass they know, and the elites will be rid of the riff-raff that populates NO Masses and makes them seem less reverent compared to Latin Masses. Needless to say, I don’t think that’s a good approach.
Ah! The old canard about liberal and conservative terminology…. My dear Esau and Bill, of course the concepts of liberal and conservative are appropriate in discussing positions within the Church. I assume that you are an orthodox Catholic. I assure you that I am as well. Now, disagreements among orthodox Catholics concerning Church disciplines and the ways in which Catholics adhere to traditional forms of piety and worship can be classified (and are classified) in terms of “traditionalist” and “conservative.” “Liberals” are usually, though not always, heterodox Catholics who see little use for traditional disciplinary forms. The terms liberal and conservative are used to delineate positions respective to the Church’s disciplinary policies, as you well know.
Esau, I do not know anything about you…therefore, I am not accusing you of anything. I am simply responding to the dozen or so conservatives I have had questioning my orthodoxy for the past 8 years that I have been attending an Indult mass.
A while ago, my wife was at a seminar a well-known priest (often featured on EWTN) gave over a Friday night and Saturday. The conclusion of the program was supposed to be his celebration of the Mass, however, a back injury prohibited him from saying the Mass, and about 40 minutes prior to its start, it was announced that another priest would say the Mass. At this announcement, my wife noticed a lot of people around her making the decision to leave, saying things like “Well, if Fr. ______ won’t say the Mass, we’ll just go, may we can go out to dinner, etc.”
This cult of personality disturbed her. Jesus would be present, and in light of that, the presence, or absence, of this priest seemed insignificant.
Equally disturbing is a cult of liturgy. Jesus will present to us in the Mass, no matter what liturgy is used or what direction the priest faces.
Alleluia, Alleluia, he is risen.
“…as you well know.”
Wrong!
Your statement implies that I am a liar.
Snowman,
I understand your point. Of course, personal disposition is important and necessary.
JD,
I too dislike the cult of personality and do not support it in any way.
Sorry about my rant, Snowman, but the point is that the onus is not solely on the individual. The rite itself — the form of the liturgy — is an important component to creating a certain disposition in the worshipper. That is why Gregorian chant, beautiful artwork, and reverent liturgy can make the participation in a liturgy unforgetteable. Snowman, to place all the burden on the individual seems to me to be excessive. A few months ago I went to a Novus to fulfill my Sunday obligation (because I was out of town). I doubt that many pious Catholics I know (and I am not particularly pious or holy) could have worshipped reverently at the completely anti-liturgical ceremony I witnessed. Form is important. It should support traditional piety. It seems to me that the novus usually does not support traditional piety and even when said perfectly and reverently — for example, by the priests of EWTN — is not as traditional or reverent as the Tridentine mass.
St. Augustine was a convert… does that mean I should be in the market for a new patron saint, John? After all, his teachings MUST have been polluted with the errors of Manicheaism… yeah, that’s it… Augustine was a Gnostic sympathizer…
Bill,
I am not calling you a liar. I am simply saying that “conservative” and “liberal” and “Traditionalist” are common terms in Catholic discussions and have well-established meanings.
Snowman DOES have a point —
Jesus did not place His AUTHORITY on a ‘MASS’ but, in fact, on a person: Peter, as well as his Successors.
Did not Mt 16:18 say:
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
as well as:
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
I believe Snowman’s citation:
‘Why do you call me Lord, but don’t do as I have commanded you?’
…speaks to the heart of the issue — that Rad Trads should be obeying the Traditional Teachings of the Church, which is TO BE OBEDIENT to Christ by BEING OBEDIENT to His Vicar!
“the three year cycle is too long”
Sigh.
The Church has spoken that Scripture and Eucharist are so closely interrelated to be one act of worship. That’s not the exact phrase, but close enough.
Those who harp and criticize the 1970 Missal (Novus Ordo) – not the liturgical abuses, but the Missal itself – why can’t you get it through your heads that you are criticizing Church teaching and that you are to accept, or at least be open enough to not dismiss out of hand, Church teaching. Why, why, do you think you know more than the Church?
I said that the terms have no place in the Church. You said that they do have a place in the Church “as you well know”. If you weren’t calling me a liar, what was the meaning of those words?
Rick asks:
“What’s next? The Latin mass was responsible for slavery? Gimme a break!”
This is unbelievable and clairvoyant. Check out this story on CNN: Latin Mass Very Likely Cause of Slavery, Experts Say
Bill,
I assumed that you knew how the words were usually used in discourse and that you were trying to enforce another point.
I apologize if my words implied that you were a liar. I do not know you, therefore, I would have no grounds on which to accuse you of anything. Again, I apologize.
Mary Kay,
Please refer to the Church’s distinction between doctrine and discipline. If we are wrong for criticizing the novus, then those who in the 1960s criticized the Tridentine mass were likewise wrong.
Rick, who are you saying are “those who in the 1960s criticized the Tridentine mass?”
Thank you, but I know the difference between doctrine and discipline. It’s a straw man argument here.
My husband and I have recently had to make the difficult decision to change parishes – liturgical abuses were becoming a spiritual stumbling block for him. I watched him grow more depressed and bitter, and I think both our prayer lives were suffering (pun intended).
Now after every Mass at our new parish, so often the first thing I say to my husband is “I love Jesus.” Before, I always felt like crying after Mass in pain – now I cry for joy!
I know that Jesus is present at Mass here just as he was present at my former parish, but to attend Mass celebrated by a priest who loves the faith is such a great blessing!
I know from personal experience that the (ir)reverence of the liturgy can be a powerful factor in one’s spiritual life. But will a universal indult really make reverent Masses more available? It seems to me that priests who would say the Tridentine Mass are already likely saying reverent Novus Ordo Masses.
Instead, the universal indult would enable priests whose bishops haven’t given them permission to say the old Mass to do so. This seems to me to encourage division between the priests and their ordinary and may make it difficult for bishops to make sure that only priests are properly prepared preside at the Tridentine Mass.
I think it would be a great blessing if the Tridentine Mass were more available to the faithful who have a real spiritual need for it. But I’m not sure that a universal indult is the right way to do it. We need faithful bishops who listen to the needs of their flock, not a way to bypass the bishops.
Come on, Holy Spirit! Show us your stuff!
Mary KAy — Refer to the liturgical movement before Vatican II and those who called for the TRidentine mass to be altered prior to 1970….There is no straw man here.
Maureen,
I’m sorry, I meant no offense. In fact, if anything I envy those whose faith hasn’t wavered since baptism. Maybe (and hopefully) my experience is local to my generation (I’m in my mid 20’s) and the diocese where I grew up. Although I was raised Catholic, I never knew that anyone actually was orthodox. From my family to religious education to even some priests the message was something like “God loves you, you don’t really need to do [fill in controversial Church teaching here].” Is some of the fault mine? Yes. But the story is the pretty much the same for everyone I grew up with, which makes it seem to me the problem is larger than a personal one. I hope it’s local to the area I grew up, but I suspect it’s not.
Now that I’m playing catchup, I’m looking for role models in my parish and they’re hard to find. My friends think I’ve rejected the truth of science in favor of some make believe God. My family thinks I’m crazy for trying to submit to the Authority of the Church. And getting guys in my KofC council to volunteer is like pulling teeth.
Faith is more than a personal thing, it’s social. I long for a culture that supports it. I apologize for offending you. I’m looking for more people who have had Catholic faith their whole lives, not trying to put them down.
Rick, I know something of the liturgical movement before Vatican II. Whether you do or not is uncertain, given your lack of details or sources to back up your opinion.
Just because the Tridentine Rite is coming back does not mean the Church stays stuck.
This is not another error which is archaelogic conservativism, which do everything old, like taking Communion in the hand and celebrating on a table surrounded by the faithful.
No. You keep on perfecting things.
Holy Communion was stoped being given by hand in the 1st Century, it latter stopped being taken home. But then some wierd stuff happend.
Holy Communion was at one point a once a year thing.
The Church perfects its human side over time.
The Liturgy gets more beutiful.
So the Tridentine will just but things back in a decent position. From there you can perfect it.
The NO Mass is certainly valid and licit. It can be argued though that it is not heretical but heritisizing. Why? Because it can give a bad impression that the readings are more important than Holy Communion, the priest is a showman and that this a community offering. Not really, it is the incruent renovation of the Sacrifice of the Cross. IT IS OUR LORD OFFERING HIMSELF. Not the people. It also opens itself to more protestant influence. The TR is more safer in that sense. But certainly it cannot stay at that. It will keep on being perfected, because the merits of the blood of Our Lord are infinite.
Just like the Middle Ages were being guided by the Holy Spirit and producing a Catholic Civilization, the old stuff is good, but we must build on that. True progress is neccesary, but not progressivism.
The Holy Spirit will decide when and how things happen. Divine Providence allows for Man to bury himself, but God keeps on intervining.
Let us just pray He does so soon.
And He will. Just have confidence.
Brian, if you’re looking for orthodox Catholics in DC, Madonna House has a field house on or near Capitol Hill.
It can be argued though that it is not heretical but heritisizing. Why? Because it can give a bad impression that the readings are more important than Holy Communion, the priest is a showman and that this a community offering
Some Day, where that happens, it’s a reflection of the priest celebrating Mass. The 1970 Missal does not intrinsically or inherently do any of those things.
Mary Kay, you asserted that those who criticize the Novis Ordo are criticizing Church teaching. As Rick correctly pointed out, that would imply that those who criticized the 1962 missal also attacked Church teaching. That’s not a straw man argument, unless you don’t think anyone criticized this Mass. And if no one criticized this Mass . . . then why was it changed? Generally speaking, radical changes aren’t undergone when everyone is content with something.
Also, the change in the Missal is not a change in “teaching,” meaning a change in discipline.
Neither of intrinsically nor inherently were said.
It can’t be, because it would be a heretical thing.
I never said it was…that is a heresy.
I said which is the only legit argument I’ve ever heard is that it is heretisizing. That means it implies heresy but does not say it.
It is like trying to grab a bar a soap, you think you can grab it and destroy it but it slips.
But that does not mean you shouldn’t attend it.
It is The Liturgy of the Church and that is there is to it. Until said otherwise, that is the ordinary rite.
I myself have only been to a T.R. Mass like 10 times (it was an old priest celebrating, he had dispensation).
Some Day, on what basis do you say that the 1970 Missal “implies heresy?” I hope you will one day realize the ramifications of your statement that the ordinary Mass “implies heresy.”
that would imply that those who criticized the 1962 missal also attacked Church teaching
Paul, neither you nor Rick have answered my question. Who are you saying “criticized the 1962 Missal?”
Is that like statues of Mary imply idolatry?
I think that too often the debate over Novus Ordo and Tridentine becomes an either/or question, when maybe a more fitting Catholic answer is both/and. Those who support the Novus Ordo get wrongly grouped in with cafeteria Catholics and those who support Tridentine get wrongly grouped in with radical Traditionalists. Is it bad to have both easily available? Then maybe we can unite on the issue everyone agrees with – getting rid of liturgical abuses.
Thanks, Mary Kay, I’ll look into it.
Oh for heaven’s sakes! This MP is getting like Nessie and Bigfoot…lots of sightings but no conclusive documentation. I’ll believe it when I see it. I’m sure it is right behind the new Sacramentary, the new new lectionary, and the Parousia. Call be a doubter…but come on…
Fr.,
I think it will come out, but not for the best of reasons. As I have stated before, the False Right has done more damage than outspoken leftists.
Our Lord battled the False Right more than the Left. If there is a sudden reactionary wave, it must be observed with caution. Could it be because it is an inspiration of the Holy Spirit, or the forces that be have a False Right movementation about to happen?
=====
No Jack not like that.
That implies they are dignant of veneration.
Maybe later I’ll make an exposition on how the N.O. can be legitametely objected to.
But that is delicate and words need to be precise.
And although I can dominate English better than any other of the languages I know, by religious formation has not been in English.
Trust me on this though, I am no Rad Trad.
I do what is neccesary to fight the good fight.
If it means not shocking people and holding hands during the Our Father or giving the sign of peace I will. Sectarian mentalities never got anything good. Bashing the progressivists openly can only cause problems. For now. If you cut off the progressivists, you lose the majority of the faithful. If you prohibit certain imperfections, you’ll have a schism. And everyone who knows something worth knowing knows that schism has been around the corner for many countries.
Our U.S. is one of them. Cardinal Arinze said in a private consultation that “we correct the American bishops, but no one listens…”.
So prudence is key here in the fight against the Sons of Darkness. Esspecially the ones who are diguised as Sons of the Light.
MK,
Read Paul’s post again…he explains it clearly.
“Oh for heaven’s sakes! This MP is getting like Nessie and Bigfoot…lots of sightings but no conclusive documentation. I’ll believe it when I see it.”
You and plenty of others. There may be a method to this, though. Since the rumors started, people have begun to think through the implications, hash out their response, BEFORE the BIG ANNOUNCEMENT. It softens things up, a bit. Gives folks a chance to mull things over while they wait for the other shoe to drop. It’s a little frustrating, but makes sense, too.
Can you picture the reaction if B16 had just dropped it out of the blue with no hint beforehand? Could you even imagine the secular media response? Hyperbole heaped on exaggeration, heaped on error, and all covered with a thick gravy of ignorance. It will be bad enough when it DOES happen (please God).
Rick, no it’s not clear who either you or Paul are referring to. The word “those” is an indefinite pronoun. All I’m asking is that you specify who you are referring to.
Forgive me for changing the subject ever so briefly, but can someone fill me in on what the objectionable items, such as that removed by John XXIII, were?
Some Day:
How can you imply that the Novus Ordo Missae is heretical or even inspires heresy?
If that was the case, I don’t think that it would’ve been put in place by Pope Paul VI in the first place.
Not only that, but it would’ve defeated the very promise that came from Christ’s own lips — that the Gates of Hell wouldn’t prevail against the Church!
Our Lord suffered at the hands of the pontiff of the times Caiphas.
So you cannot automatically assume every leader is a good one.
Now I am not saying anything against any Pontiff.
And infallibility is not an insurance that every act of a Pontiff is correct. He could solemnly proclaim that baseball is the best sport ever. But it isn’t. So liturgy is not always perfect. It is however not heretical. That is why I am careful in saying it implies but not in itself heretical. Esau you know very well that not all men of the Church are holy.
And you know what Saint Augustine said that the best men live in the monasteries…and so do the worst ones.
The worst enemies of the Church are the internal ones.
As a very recent convert (count weeks..) may I make suggestion? And please excuse my lack of RC word craft! I’m learning more and more everyday!!!
Scenarios and misunderstandings such as this recent concern about the language used in regard to the Jews will continue because most people in the media – and I think many in the Church don’t actually know what the texts actually say and no one is taking the time to supply the texts to the parties what really need to read them and so put the matter to rest.
I have heard of this language problem years ago and was told that in 1962 the issue was resolved. That the new Good Friday general intercessions, in particular the three prayers, for the Jewish people; for those who do not believe in Christ; and for those who do not believe in God, were no longer offensive and laid no “blood guilt”. Reading my missal (Daily Roman Missal, ed. J. Socias) I see this is true – but what confuses me, most likely confuses others, is there seems to be a general misunderstanding and lack of knowledge as to what are the approved TLM texts that will be used, if and when Pope Benedict releases his MP.
Perhaps being a recent convert I find all the various information regarding changes to the Sacred Liturgy, texts, and missals very confusing. What would help many people is a brief, clear exposition on what are the approved TLM texts that will be used, and what exactly is said in the texts.
Having someone provide the actual texts would clarify the matter, put to rest people’s fears, and supply the masses with the needed information. (Or at least a link to the texts…)
Forgive me if I am just too new at this – at times it is sensory and info overload! Believe me, I do appreciate people’s help.
Many thanks !! Grace and peace.
John,
I’m glad you agreed with my comments above. Esau is right to point out that there are still many instances of overlap between the new calandar and cycle of readings and the old, and the writings of the Fathers and Doctors are still useful for studying and meditating on the readings of the Mass; but he’s wrong if he fails to recognize an important discontinuity.
Nevertheless, John, your comments about ex-Protestants are beside the point. I was born and raised a Protestant myself and converted to the Church when I was 18 years old. Whether one is a convert or not is no guide at all to whether one has retained Protestant ideas and sensibilites; and in fact I’ve known many “cradle Catholics” who had a deeply ingrained Protestant sense due to the surrounding ethos and bad teaching and upbringing. I wanted to suggest that any lingering ideas of the Mass as a big Bible study were off the mark and smacked of a Protestant view of worship; but again, whether or not anyone used to be a Protestant is irrelevant. What matters is what they think now.
John,
I’m glad you agreed with my comments above. Esau is right to point out that there are still many instances of overlap between the new calandar and cycle of readings and the old, and the writings of the Fathers and Doctors are still useful for studying and meditating on the readings of the Mass; but he’s wrong if he fails to recognize an important discontinuity.
Nevertheless, John, your comments about ex-Protestants are beside the point. I was born and raised a Protestant myself and converted to the Church when I was 18 years old. Whether one is a convert or not is no guide at all to whether one has retained Protestant ideas and sensibilites; and in fact I’ve known many “cradle Catholics” who had a deeply ingrained Protestant sense due to the surrounding ethos and bad teaching and upbringing. I wanted to suggest that any lingering ideas of the Mass as a big Bible study were off the mark and smacked of a Protestant view of worship; but again, whether or not anyone used to be a Protestant is irrelevant. What matters is what they think now.
John,
I’m glad you agreed with my comments above. Esau is right to point out that there are still many instances of overlap between the new calandar and cycle of readings and the old, and the writings of the Fathers and Doctors are still useful for studying and meditating on the readings of the Mass; but he’s wrong if he fails to recognize an important discontinuity.
Nevertheless, John, your comments about ex-Protestants are beside the point. I was born and raised a Protestant myself and converted to the Church when I was 18 years old. Whether one is a convert or not is no guide at all to whether one has retained Protestant ideas and sensibilites; and in fact I’ve known many “cradle Catholics” who had a deeply ingrained Protestant sense due to the surrounding ethos and bad teaching and upbringing. I wanted to suggest that any lingering ideas of the Mass as a big Bible study were off the mark and smacked of a Protestant view of worship; but again, whether or not anyone used to be a Protestant is irrelevant. What matters is what they think now.
Just realized in my above posting I mistakenly noted the Daily Roman Missal edited by Socias as the 1962 Tridentine Missal while in fact it is the NO missal…I got confused a bit having just ordered the 62 missal from Aquinas & More the other day ! So, while I am just a recent convert, and might be excused this faux pas, (please!) imagine how the media and other faiths can get lost figuring all this out!
I believe posting the actual text from the approved TLM would clarify this issue for many non-Catholics and new rubes like me!
Again, many thanks for your help.
PS Always wanting to learn more, can anyone suggest books on the history of the liturgy, etc, etc….
Grace and peace.
Kanehoe, doing a Snoopy happy dance to welcome you into the Church!
It’s always good to read your posts. How refreshing to see someone seeking to base their discussion on the actual texts. If only more both journalist in the media and people in combox discussions were like you.
You asked what texts would be used. The MP isn’t about a changed text, but permission to use the earlier Missal.
A history of the liturgy is a bigger question. There are some books describing Vatican II, but I don’t have a specific title at hand. I know you’ve done some reading, but not sure if you’ve read the Vatican II documents themselves. They would be a good place to start.
Shane, your question isn’t off topic. It’s not that the earlier Missal was found “objectionable.”
Some Day, your post has some basic misunderstandings.
Our Lord suffered at the hands of the pontiff of the times Caiphas. So you cannot automatically assume every leader is a good one.
Caiaphas as not a pontiff. The question is not about “every leader” but the Church which Jesus said the gates of Hell would not prevail against. He was referring to apostolic succession, of which Peter was the first pope.
Now I am not saying anything against any Pontiff.
Maybe you should read up and see which specific popes were not shining examples and place them in a specific time in history.
And infallibility is not an insurance that every act of a Pontiff is correct. He could solemnly proclaim that baseball is the best sport ever. But it isn’t. So liturgy is not always perfect.
We’re not talking about the pope’s opinion on baseball. We had the discussion on Church authority and infallibility just recently on a different thread. There are several levels of Church authority, but no where is it said that Catholics only have to believe what is infallible and disregard the rest. When the Church says that the 1970 Missal is the normative, ordinary Missal, Catholics are required to accept that. For those attached to the earlier Missal, an indult was granted.
Mary Kay, you’re being deliberately obtuse. If you want names, how about the hundreds of Cardinals who worked to produce Sancrosanctum Conciliam? Let’s just take the word “criticize” out of the discussion. Clearly, these individuals felt that something was lacking with the Tridentine Mass (rightly or wrongly), and so they elected to make some alterations. We’ll leave aside the issue of how what they proposed and what got implemented diverge, but clearly they changed the Mass, no? This was a change in discipline. Even if we allow that they did not use harsh rhetoric against the traditional Mass, clearly they had to have spoken out against it, no?
Now, I happen to agree with the basic point you are making. I prefer the Tridentine Mass, but I’m not about to attack the Novus Ordo. When someone came into the National Shrine bookstore a few years agao and called it the “Micky Mouse” Mass, it really bothered me. But your post seemed to impy to criticize in any way the Novus ordo was an act of disobedience, which to me seems wrong. If that’s not what you were saying, then I apologize for misinterpreting your remarks.
Leah-
I’ve made that same point to this crowd before. It’s a good point, but it gets ignored, because, as I’ve recently come to realize, Jimmy’s comboxes are much more a place where people decide their positions by at first suggesting radical ones, sticking with them for a while, and eventually going away. I love Jimmy’s blog, but the comboxes are, for the most part, just a salon for a largely cantankerous crowd.
What Mary Kay asks for is specificity and one who declines to be specific accuses her of “being deliberately obtuse”. Sigh.
Bill, how much more specific can I be? I think we’re too focused on the “criticism” aspect. Clearly, people had issues with the old Mass or it would not have been changed. All I am saying is that there is nothing wrong with expressing objections with the style of the Mass, as an entire Council proved by changing its structure.
I’m also not disagreeing with the sentiment that we should not attack the Mass. And I would say there are indeed people on here and other blogs who show absolutely no respect whatsoever for the Novus Ordo, and that is wrong. But having some problems with the Mass is not akin to, say, objecting to the Church’s teachings on contraception and abortion.
Just to clarify where I’m coming from: If Mary Kay is talking about foundational criticisms, meaning that her beef is with people who attack the basic foundations of the Novus Ordo as illegitimate, then she’s right. I doubt very much (though I don’t know for sure) that those who wanted to reform the Traditional Mass attacked its very foundations. The Council Fathers merely wanted to intitiate reforms in order to address problems such as irreverent or hastily done liturgies. They did not have a fundamental beef with the Mass per se, as some (thought not all or even most) critics have with the 1970 reform.
So, I think we’re basically on the same page, and I take back my “obtuse” comment and stick it back on myself.
“…how much more specific can I be?”
Naming some specific people. Such as: “I am talking about X, Y, and Z”
Motu Proprio — The Second Coming. The Third Coming. The Fourth Coming.
Man, some people would make the JWs blush in regards to predictions.
BTW, I think Cardinal Kasper’s remarks have been taken out of context. Eisegesis is always bad. JWs learned this well.
Bill: reference my 6:59 follow-up.
If the question is who thought the 1962 Missal had some problems and wanted change, the answer is every individual, specifically the Pope, involved in Sancrosanctum Conciliam.
If the question is who attacked the foundations of the TM, the answer is: no one to my knowledge, and Mary Kay’s initial objection is merited.
“The worst enemies of the Church are the internal ones.”
Amen. Wish it were not so, but it is.
Bill, thanks!
Paul, thanks for clarifying. You and I are pretty much on the same page. But I’ve heard such a um, er, such a variety of views (including conspiracy theories), that I wanted to know where Rick and James were coming from.
I agree with what you said and yes, you’re right about the discipline rather than teaching. I’m just tired of combox comments bashing the 1970 Missal. And a painful knee gave me less patience than usual.
Rick, you would benefit from taking your own advice and re-reading Paul’s comments as he says it very well.
Rick posted:
“That is what traditionalists like myself find so distasteful about the novus ordo partisans who are also orthodox Catholics. You folks should be our biggest supporters, yet you seem to be our enemies and ally with the heterodox liberals on the fundamental issues of the mass.”
So true! Imagine so many laity and clergy AGAINST taking the HIGH road with respect to liturgy, sacraments, customs and teachings-when the church founded by Christ who suffered on the cross and the Apostles and martyrs and you have little babies here saying they dont want to use a missal, like the priest facing them, want communion in the hand, dont want to kneel, want 35 prayers eliminated from the organic TLM to make the mass more “vibrant and appealing” not to mention shorter and in line with Protestants, and so on
What ever happened to sacrifice? A bunch of cry babies. That is why if our end means is to be saved and to obtain sancifying grace (do they even teach that in Catechism anymored-No as I am a produce of the Vatican II catechism and had to relearn it later in life with the Baltimore catechism at a true traditional church by nuns) then why are so many so against having to actually worship as those did for centuries? IT is because they have been infected with secularism and ecumenism and evil to a large extent as it was always the intention of the Protestants and opponents of the church to destroy the mass and he finally did so with what you have today
John
Talk about cry-babies; I think those who constantly cry that one particular liturgy (which doesn’t go back to St Peter, which was a product of its times, which developed aspects in relation to the culture of its time, which was seen by conservatives of ITS time as liberal) isn’t being used all over are the ones who are the babies. They have not grown up; they want it their way or the high way. They don’t know how to sacrifice their own desires for the sake of communion; they will be constantly judging what goes on in a given Liturgy, making lists of abuses, forgetting the first abuse: their own spiritual side is lacking. He who goes to make lists of abuses never see their own. Why is it?
Communion in the hand — if that is an abuse (it isn’t) then many saints abused Christ. Dont’ tell me this piety of “I can’t touch Christ.” Well, does Christ float over your tongue, not touching it, and down into your body, never once merging with you, never once making you one in body with him? Really?
John (and Rick): obedience to the Church.
John (and Rick): obedience to the Church.
Mary Kay:
That’s WRONG and you KNOW it!
In Matthew 16:18, it clearly said that Jesus gave His AUTHORITY to the TRIDENTINE MASS, and NOT St. Peter NOR his successors!
Jesus said:
“…And Upon the Tridentine Mass, I will build MY CHURCH and the Gates of Hell will NOT prevail AGAINST IT!”
In fact, that’s why hundreds of Martyrs and Saints like Saint Thomas More gave their very lives — NOT for the sake of the Vicar of Christ and Christ’s Own Church — but for the TRIDENTINE MASS!
The RAD TRADS are RIGHT!
SCREW the POPE AND the CHURCH!
If they don’t want to LISTEN to OUR INFALLIBLE WORD — then SO BE IT!
The TRADITIONAL TEACHINGS of the Catholic Church, including the Baltimore Catecism, says that the Pope is NOT to be Obeyed when members of the Catholic Church disagree with him and, in fact, the Laity have the AUTHORITY to DECLARE them HERETICS and APOSTATES!
The traditional latin mass anti-semitic? Please. More from the bureaucrats especially, among the Jews, I pity them.
“You folks should be our biggest supporters, yet you seem to be our enemies”
I support the Church Christ established through His Vicar on earth. You support the Pope and I will support you. Reject his authority, and you reject me as an “ally”.
You keep saying you don’t reject his authority, but the outrageous attacks continue.
Is Christ made present – the Eucharist truly confected – in the Novus Ordo Mass, or not? Make up your mind, because if He is present (whether you happen to like the Mass or not) then you had best fall on your knees and keep silent.
Thumbs up, or thumbs down? Yes or No? Christ’s Body and Blood in the N.O. Mass, or not? If Christ is there, why are you attacking the Holy Mass? What does anyone gain from your stirring up dissent between the bretheren?
If, OTOH, you DON’T believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are made present in the N.O. Mass, then have the stones to say it straight out.
I’m tired of the “Okay, the Novus Ordo Mass is a valid Mass, but it’s the work of Satan” because that’s just quite literally damnable nonsense.
THE TRUE TRADITIONAL TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Did Christ give the Church full authority?
Christ gave the Church full authority and power, saying, “As the Father has sent me, I also send you” (John 20:21).
As a father who goes away on a journey leaves all his power and authority to the mother, so Christ upon leaving the earth gave to His Church full power and authority to carry on His work. “He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me” (Luke 10:16).
The authority of the Church is NOT restricted to matters of doctrine and belief, but to whatever is necessary for the good of the Church and its members.
Thus the Church lays down laws concerning fasting and abstinence, keeping of Sundays and holydays, worship, and administration of the sacraments.
The members of the Church MUST observe whatever laws and regulations it makes.
Authority in some form is necessary for every organization; without it members could not be directed to their common purpose.
Every society lays down rules for its members.
Those who do not wish to keep them are excluded from it.
Without authority the Church could not fulfill its divine purpose.
The denominations that broke from the unity of the Church denied its authority.
Having no head to obey, they Split and resplit into hundreds of churches.
“Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam”
(Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church)
The modestly slight turn the Holy Father is rumored to have made toward traditional Catholicism should cause no one worry.
Remember, it is your fathers’, grandfathers’, and great-great-great-great grandfathers’ Mass. It is the Mass of the Saints. To those who harbor concern about the ancient Mass and anti-Semitism, realize that those who de-Catholicized the most, namely break-off mainline Protestants, had and have had the constant problem of hatred in their ranks (KKK, anyone?).
The ancient liturgy is Jewish to the core: centrality of the tabernacle, the directional prayer along with the priest, the Psalms, and on and on all point to our glorious Jewish patrimony. The Most Beautiful Thing This Side of Heaven is, all at once, an intense longing for the God of Abraham.
As for divisions within a parish should more congregants decide they’d want to worship in the traditional Rite, you could be right … but those divisions are MORE pronounced now with Spanish, Tagalog, English, etc. Masses making little churches within a Church.
The traditional Mass will UNIFY those communities, with everyone praying toward the liturgical East, and everyone prayerfully worshiping in the same language.
Pax tecum,
+Craig Kelso
There are divisions in the church and always have been. For two thousand years the church has tangled with everything from gnosticism to modernism in her ranks. While I have no problem with the Motu Proprio, let’s not make the return of the Latin Mass on a wider scale a panacea for all that ails us. The Mass of Paul VI is not intrinsically evil, alright? It isn’t as if several other things did not happen concurrent with the institution of the Mass of Paul VI that have wreaked havoc on society and the church…like the sexual revolution, to name just one.
People have tried in the last few decades to figure what would bring about a restoration of the Catholic values that once prevailed in the Church of this country. While they certainly can be argued as improvements (putting the tabernacle back in the center, restoration of popular devotions and Eucharistic Adoration, and the re-embracing of part of our heritage in the Latin Mass), they will hardly cure all that is wrong. It will take much harder steps: cleansing our entire educational appartus, the removal of liberalism from our clerics, the refutation of modernism in how we view the development of doctrine and teaching, and the shifting of a Catholic laity that has followed the example of the world and incorporated its thinking into how it sets its priorities.
Think the latter is not a problem? Just ask yourself: If it comes between a non-liturgical Church event (oh what the heck…even a liturgical) and a sports event (even a practice), which do you think will win out? Think changing the ritual of the Mass is going to turn that tide? Again, no problem with the Motu Proprio, but the abuses and ill-formed morality, practice, and priorities aren’t going to go away (or even be dented) by the Motu Proprio. WE have much bigger fish to fry.
Some quotes worth noting:
“With the New Liturgy, non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with the same prayers of the Catholic Church.”Max ThurianProtestant Minister of Taizé”
…nothing in the renewed Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant.”M. G. SiegvaltProtestant Professor of Dogmatic Theology, Strasbourg.
Hmmmm….wonder why the Jewish, Protestants, and so on LOVE the New Mass, because it is NOT catholic!
Some quotes worth noting:
“With the New Liturgy, non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with the same prayers of the Catholic Church.”Max ThurianProtestant Minister of Taizé”
…nothing in the renewed Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant.”M. G. SiegvaltProtestant Professor of Dogmatic Theology, Strasbourg.
Hmmmm….wonder why the Jewish, Protestants, and so on LOVE the New Mass, because it is NOT catholic!
These people are either quite obviously not very good Protestants or have never read through the Pauline Missal. There sure as heck was something every few minutes that bothered me as a Protestant when I first went to Mass.
John,
We all know how to use Google, we can all find some professor to support any position. Quotes are nothing without any evidence supporting the credibility of the people making them.
But while you’re quoting, here’s my $.02…
…nothing in the renewed Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant.”M. G. SiegvaltProtestant Professor of Dogmatic Theology, Strasbourg.
Why should Protests feel troubled by the Mass? In fact, they should feel called to it. Their faith is strong enough that they believe despite not having the fullness of the Truth. In this sense, Mass should feel like a homecoming to them.
“Some quotes worth noting…”
Now whose quoting Protestants to bolster his arguments? Do you really make decisions about your faith based on what outsiders say about it?
I understand a lot of Prots enjoy watching Midnight Mass from St. Peter’s at Christmas. Should we be alarmed? Should we take immediate action to make it more offensive to their sensibilities? Your logic is like swiss cheese. Or Limburgher, rather.
I’m done with you. Go haunt some hardcore conservative Lutheran blog… you should have a lot more in common with them. Maybe you can all agree that the Pope is the Anti-Christ…
John,
Those quotes, like you, have no authority to declare or define.
Your poor understanding of the nature of the Church just makes me pity you.
May God have mercy on all our souls.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Just a few examples of things no “good Protestant” ought to be comfortable with during the Pauline Mass:
“I ask the blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you my brothers and sisters to pray for me to the Lord our God.”
“Let us pray, friends, that this, our Sacrifice, may be acceptable…”
“We offer you this Holy and ever-living Sacrifice…”
“Grant that by his merits and death,
and through faith in his blood,
we and all your Church may receive forgiveness of our sins and all other benefits of his passion.”
Obviously a great deal of the Mass will not be problematic to Protestants, given that orthodox Catholicism shares a tremendous deal with Protestantism.
FR BP: Not so single you out because I have seen comments like this on this and other blogs, but who exactly is saying that it will be a panacea? I for one am excited, but I don’t think this will in and of itself produce drastic change. Perhaps this can be thought of as similar to the recent abortion decision of SCOTUS – a small step, but at least one in the right direction. But otherwise I totally agree with your remarks.
This is how I feel about it. I do think that the Tridentine Mass is better than the Novus Ordo. I have been to beautiful, reverent liturgies – the National Shrine, as mentioned above, and the Latin Novus Ordo as done at my parish. But neither is as spiritually moving as the TM’s I have been to.
But I can see how there could have been problems that needed to be fixed. Even in my experience I have seen “rushed” liturgies, though I have witnessed tham just as much, if not more, at Novus Ordo services. And I do like the additional scriptural readings, though John is correct in pointing out all the other OT references in the TM.
I can see how some form of blended Mass might be the best solution. Personally, I’d keep as much Latin as possible because it is the language of the Church. One of the things that impresses me about Jewish services is that they have maintained Hebrew through all this time. Even the reform synagogues keep most of the prayers in Hebrew. The use of Latin marks communion not only with the entirety of the present world, but also through time to our ancestors. That’s a powerful element lacking today.
However it is done, I do think a liturgical reform can be a spark that addresses some of the concerns that FR RP expresses. But it’s just that, a spark. But if we re-orient the liturgy, maybe, just maybe, we can re-orient the souls of a few folks sitting in the pews as well.
Without wishing to bring down a hailstorm of criticism, is it not correct that the Tridentine rite contains several rather glaring theological errors?
Some Quotes Worth Noting from the Traditional Teachings of the Church (Pre-Vatican II):
Christ gave the Church full authority and power, saying, “As the Father has sent me, I also send you” (John 20:21).
As a father who goes away on a journey leaves all his power and authority to the mother, so Christ upon leaving the earth gave to His Church full power and authority to carry on His work. “He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me” (Luke 10:16).
The authority of the Church is NOT restricted to matters of doctrine and belief, but to whatever is necessary for the good of the Church and its members.
The members of the Church MUST observe whatever laws and regulations it makes.
Some Quotes Worth Noting from John:
A Catholic, therefore, would owe no obedience to someone who does not truly possess the Church’s authority or teaches error. Condemnations from the V-2 hierarchy shouldn’t worry those that hold fast tothe faith anymore than one would worry about being condemned by local Anglican or Lutheran bishop
Posted by: John | Oct 18, 2006 1:43:25 PM
The council and the teachings of the Pope were clearly apostasy!!
Posted by: John | Mar 9, 2007 4:28:08 PM
The New Mass itself is damned
Posted by: John | Mar 29, 2007 4:50:33 PM
In such a situation they are obliged to disobey those who falsely speak in Peter’s name. To obey modernist and heretical “popes” is to declare that they are “one hierarchical person” with our Lord and hence that Christ teaches falsely – quod absit!
Posted by: John | Oct 16, 2006 3:27:41 AM
Traditional?
You Decide!
However, as far as the TRADITIONAL Pre-Vatican II teachings went:
“A church which at any time denies an apostolic doctrine, discards the sacrament of Holy Orders, or breaks away from obedience to the Pope, ceases to be apostolic.”
Suffice it to say:
Where Peter is, there is the True Church founded by Our Lord.
Paul Zummo —
About your comments:
Personally, I’d keep as much Latin as possible because it is the language of the Church. One of the things that impresses me about Jewish services is that they have maintained Hebrew through all this time. Even the reform synagogues keep most of the prayers in Hebrew. The use of Latin marks communion not only with the entirety of the present world, but also through time to our ancestors. That’s a powerful element lacking today.
I feel exactly the same way!
I believe it helps to bridge us with our Christian past.
This was one thing I wished that Latin would have become to all Catholics — a unifying language — that not only the Language of the Church as far as its official documents goes, but, even more, the language of its people.
Just imagine if Catholics were actually unified in this manner — not to mention, a language that has been a part of its heritage, its very history, since the days of the early church; what a unifying element that would be!?!
Now, imagine if we all celebrated similarly a reverent Liturgy, too? Not to mention, one that comes from our past?
You see, the problem I have with Rad Trads is not their devotion to the TLM, but the fact that they would actually deny the very heart of Tradition itself; that is, the very Authority of the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff.
CINQO DE PIUS!
Not to mention the fact that Rad Trads often claim an Authority that isn’t theirs to begin with — an Authority that rightly belongs to those in the Church, more precisely, the Pope and its Bishops, the very Successors of the Apostles.
This goes against the very heart of Tradition.
It would do us some good to remember the actual traditional teachings of the Pre-Vatican II Church which taught:
From among His disciples Our Lord chose twelve Apostles, and gave them special training. He sent them forth to teach His doctrines, saying, “As the Father has sent me, I also send you.”
The Apostles were the foundation of the True Church. Christ gave them all power and authority, saying, “He who hears you hears me: he who rejects you rejects me.”
Did Christ intend that this power should be exercised by the Apostles alone?
No, Christ intended that this power should be exercised also by their successors, the bishops of the Church.
Did Christ give special power in His Church to any one of the Apostles?
Christ gave special power in His Church to Peter, by making him the head of the Apostles and the chief teacher and ruler of the entire Church.
Did Christ intend that the special power of chief teacher and ruler of the entire Church should be exercised by Peter alone?
Christ did not intend that the special power of chief teacher and ruler of the entire Church should be exercised by Peter alone, but intended that this power should be passed down to his successor, the Pope, Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth, and the visible Head of the Church.
Did Christ establish many Churches?
Christ established only one Church, to continue till the end of time.
As God is one, He established one Church, which He commanded all men to obey and to follow in the way of salvation.
I wonder how many dioceses make Latin Novus Ordo Masses available to the faithful? Of course, you don’t need an indult to have Mass in Latin. (My parish has English NO, Latin NO, and Tridentine Masses.)
Having Mass in Latin also solves many of the language differences in the parish – of course, here, the readings and homily are in English. But it’s a better deal than the multi-lingual Masses I’ve been to when you need a worship aid to follow along as we switch from one language to the next. In these liturgies I’ve been to the homily was still only in English.
“CINQO DE PIUS!”
Your point being…?
I can see how some form of blended Mass might be the best solution.
I’m starting to think that the creation of such a Mass might be worthwhile.
I wonder what the reaction would be if Pope Benedict announced the creation of a liturgical commission (or whatever the suitable body is) to revise the Roman Missal and that the Tridentine Mass will be permitted until that revision is complete.
I am also curious as to if this interest in the Latin Mass is confined primarily to the U.S. and Western Europe.
Shane,
What are these,”theological errors”,which you refer to in the Missal of Pope St.Pius V?
Mary Kay,what is the worlds best sport?
And all,If we could ask St.Ambrose of Milan,Pope St.Gregory,Pope St.Pius V,”What do they think of how most Catholic mass’s are offered,and celebrated,liturgically speaking, in 2007″?
What do you think their responses would be.
Just curious.
God bless you all.
Vatican Council I stated clearly that the “Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles.”
Herresy, or whatever clearly favors heresy, cannot be matter for obedience. Obedience is at the service of Faith and not Faith at the service of obedience
“One must obey God before men.” (Acts of the Apostles 5,29)
Dan Hunter:
It was, in fact, St. Ambrose who said in the fourth century:
“Where Peter is, there is the Church.”
“One must obey God before men.” (Acts of the Apostles 5,29)
What are the chief powers of the Pope?
The Pope has supreme and complete power and jurisdiction to decide questions of faith and morals and to arrange the discipline of the universal Church.
1. The power of the Pope extends over every single church, every single bishop and pastor, every one of the faithful.
He may appoint and depose bishops, call councils, make and unmake laws, send missionaries, confer distinctions, privileges, and dispensations, and reserve sins to his own tribunal.
2. The Pope is the supreme judge; to him belongs the last appeal in all cases.
The Pope is the “teacher of all Christians”, the “chief shepherd of the shepherds and their flocks”.
“Peter, standing up with the Eleven, lifted up his voice and spoke out to them …” (Acts 2:14). The word “Pope” is derived from the Latin term papa, which means “Father”.
3. The Pope is independent of every temporal sovereign and of every spiritual power. He is responsible only to God.
Now — question:
Where did it actually say in the above Pre-Vatican II traditional teachings that such Authority and Power belonged to John and/or his rag tag of heretics — I mean — Rad Trads?
I have such mixed feelings about Latin in the Mass.
On the one hand, I greatly appreciate the universality of it. I, too, have been to multi-language Liturgies and find them to be… well… I think they’re terrible. I also can deeply appreciate the reflection that Jewish services are still help in Hebrew – I hadn’t thought of that until I saw someone point it out a few weeks ago.
That being said, I also recognize the profound and positive impact that the vernacular Missal has had. I certainly would not be Catholic today if the Mass was still in Latin, and from what I understand of his story, such a fantastic member of the Church as Dr. Hahn may not be either. I think its fair to say that there are countless who may never have been able to hear the message of the Church – or been open to it – without the vernacular Liturgy. In many ways, one could say that the vernacular Liturgy is responsible for saving countless souls.
There may be an accessibility to the Latin Mass if one desires to attend, but to the curious or uninformed it can be very intimidating and uninviting. Certainly one can say that a person ought to choose a faith for truth as opposed to the language, and this is a very valid point. However, what matters is saving souls, not whether souls are saved for the most altruistic reasons. If a given person would not investigate the Church simply because of the language, that is his error indeed, but wouldn’t it be better for him to end up in Heaven because the language was not a barrier, even if it never should be anyways?
Furthermore, I can attest that openmindedness is a Grace that one often receives only through the Sacraments and through less formal means in Christ’s Church. I would likely have been rather closed to the Church were the Mass only in Latin, and being so closed I would not have had the opportunities to receive the Gracethat led me to open my mind, which is now far more open, in the proper Christian sense, than before. It was only by being at least somewhat comfortable with the Mass that I was able to go with a friend a few times and actually receive the Grace to open my mind to the Church as a whole.
I think far too often, these points are rather underscored. Let us not forget that this is, more or less, the reason the Church first instituted Latin as the Liturgical norm in the first place when moving away from Greek.
The NO mass was a fabrication of Bugnini and six Protestant ministers collaborating with him in making up the New Mass (George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian).
The New Mass was made in accordance with the Protestant definition of the Mass: “The Lord’s Supper or Mass is a sacred synaxis or assembly of the people of God which gathers together under the presidence of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.” (Par. 7 Introd. to the New Missal, defining the New Mass, 4/6/69).
Very Protestant indeed, no matter how hard one throws the word sacrifice around or whatever, the new mass is clearly an appeasement of the Protestants and one has to question with the abuse that is taking place from the liturgy to the clergy if grace is being bestowed on all who attend
Esau posted:
Dan Hunter:
It was, in fact, St. Ambrose who said in the fourth century:
“Where Peter is, there is the Church.”
Hey Esau, is this not the same St Ambrose whom the present Pope just rolled over and threw limbo out the window (St Ambrose taught that un baptised babies went to hell)
Esau the ever hypocrite!!
“One must obey God before men.” (Acts of the Apostles 5,29)
That is exactly the verse used by Martin Luther to justify the Reformation. Finally, all doubt has been removed: RadTrads are Protestants, just like the Old Catholics before them and the original Protestants before them.
Mr. Hunter,
I do not know what the supposed errors of the Tridentine rite are. My post which referred to them was phrased in an uncertain/inquisitive way because of this; I was hoping someone who knows what I am talking about might chime in.
I pose the question because I have been told this by a very orthodox priest who celebrated the Tridentine rite when he was first ordained, and because I have heard it from other sources whom I would not expect in the slightest to simply make it up.
“Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles.”
John, if the Church is teaching “heresy, or whatever clearly favors heresy” than it isn’t the Church that Christ founded. Please, as I’ve asked you on another thread, show me then where the true Church is. I will follow the true Church.
John, I believe that you may be showing your ignorance, or perhaps just an error. Did you really mean to say the Pope roled over St. Amrbose (though he in no way rejected Limbo as a possibility), or were you thinking of St. Augustine, who was far more the champion of Limbo and the damnation of the unbaptized than most, if not all, of the other fathers.
Esau,
Please answer my question.
Yes St.Peter and his successors are the Vicars of Christ on earth,but what do you think that the above mentioned clerics would think when they see,as I am sure they do,a clown mass offered in what looks like a Taj Mahoney…I mean gymnasium.
I am not referring to an reverently celebrated Pauline mass like one you would see in Hanceville,but ones you would see in the Diocese of Rochester or most of the world.
God bless you.
I’ve asked you on another thread, show me then where the true Church is
You’d have to be a follower of John to find it.
Esau posted:
Dan Hunter:
It was, in fact, St. Ambrose who said in the fourth century:
“Where Peter is, there is the Church.”
Hey Esau, is this not the same St Ambrose whom the present Pope just rolled over and threw limbo out the window (St Ambrose taught that un baptised babies went to hell)
Esau the ever hypocrite!!
Unlike you, Saint Ambrose adhered to TRUE TRADITION and OBEYED Christ and His Church, and was NOT such a liar.
Ambrose would’ve certainly obeyed the Vicar of Christ unlike Protestants such as yourselves and the Rad Trads.
As rightly taught by Pre-Vatican II traditional teachings:
The supremacy of the Bishop of Rome over all Christendom has been disputed because of the
perversity of men and the power of evil. It has been denied by unruly sons!
Yes St.Peter and his successors are the Vicars of Christ on earth,but what do you think that the above mentioned clerics would think when they see,as I am sure they do,a clown mass offered in what looks like a Taj Mahoney…I mean gymnasium.
Dan, I think you make a logical fallacy in comparing a reverently celebrated TLM to an irreverently celebrated NO. Everyone in here is against liturgical abuses. You’ve got to compare apples to apples.
has been disputed because of the perversity of men and the power of evil. It has been denied by unruly sons!
That’s what some Protestants says about Catholics.
Mark posted:
“I’ve asked you on another thread, show me then where the true Church is
You’d have to be a follower of John to find it.”
Mark-If you know your catechism, there are 4 marks that the church must have to be true
One
Holy
Apostolic
Catholic
Is she really One with each Bishop teaching and doing as they please?
Is she still Holy and Apostolic? Are conversions even something the church believes in any more when she teaches us that the Jews are our “elder brothers”, that all faiths contain truth and that it is OK now to give Our Lords body under JPII’s new canon law to Protestants with the permission not from Rome, but from a Bishop?
The church is not defined by numbers or anything for that matter. For example, during the Aryan heresy, a group of Bishops cast from the church’s and preaching in the countryside kept the church alive and consecrated new priests to carry on their work till the church emerged from eclipse
If you think that having your children learn their catechism from a 3x divorced woman who believes in contraception and has a live in man as they do here in NY, then great, send them there to obtain the defenses needed in this world. And lets not even discuss the 50% homosexual priesthood where you cant even let your son stay after with the priest because you fear he is being abused, and then the priest gets covered up by his Bishop and get shuffled off to another parish. Just this week another case this week came out on Long Island where catholic youth ministers were abusing children with the Priest in full knowledge.
If you would rather give them the real teachings, true mass where the teachings, the mass, the catechism etc are exactly the same from one church to another than find your local Traditional Catholic church. They may have small differences as to whether to use a 1962 missal or 1948 (as SSPX and SSPV), but at least they are on the same page. If you are lucky to find an Indult mass and send your children to be catechised in a Traditional church as we have done, then you are then really lucky
You can make all of the jokes you want about me, but there is no denying the eclipse that is taking place today and to expose your children to this wishy washy ever chaning all faiths are equal non-sense teaching is just shameful for anyone to do who is a parent (Esau-that leaves you out)
Tim, shhh! The new carpet and drapes are part of The Secret Code for the decoder rings.
Shane, when someone makes a comment like “theological errors in the Tridentine Mass,” ask them for specifics so that you’re not left guessing what they meant. I also like the Mass in the vernacular, but also like the universality of Latin. IMHO, Catholics should be bilingual in Mass parts, familiar and comfortable with either the vernacular or Latin.
The people who said that the 3 year cycle is “too long” are entitled to their opinion, but I think it’s one of the best things about the 1970 Missal.
Off the top of my head (and probably so close to the surface because we’re in the 3rd week of Easter), I like that Holy Week focuses on the Suffering Servant songs, that the Holy Thursday readings focus on the institutin of the Eucharist and the priesthood and the entire Octave has Resurrection appearances.
Then there are the OT readings that probably were never read in the Tridentine cycle which hit me more profoundly in the context of Mass: the call of Samuel, Elijah feeling so tired that he can’t go on and angel appears, giving sustenance to get up and get going, and a reading from Jeremiah (the “You duped me Lord” one) which I happened to be the lector. It hit me like the proverbial ton of bricks and what probably sounded like pacing was my trying to simply finish the reading. All three are in Ordinary Time and probably would not have been considered important enough or central enough, but which had a profound impact on me.
John, You continue to give me evidence that the Church I believe in is not the true Church. You don’t need to keep piling it on. I’m willing to accept this evidence if you show me the Church that Christ founded.
show me then where the true Church is
The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.
Kanehoe, my apologies. Somehow I missed Jimmy’s last paragraph. (actually, what probably happened is that my eyes glazed over at yet another rumor about the MP)
I’d have to look it up to be sure, but my guess is that what John XXIII removed was the yearly Good Friday petition for “the perfidious Jews.” The petition is now something about conversion of the Jews, read just before the petition for the conversion of the nations.
Esau,
Not to sound wierd or anything, but the Church does not have complete authority to change everything. I say this because affirmations of doctrine need to be precise.
The Church cannot change what is Divine Right.
That is why you can’t change the fact that women are not priests. It is not delegated to the Church, it is a Divine Institution. The manner of ordinations in the liturgical sense is. The only thing immutable is that there must be material and form. The priest could be wearing a clown suit and it is valid. But not a woman or a non-baptized male.
Just to make things clear.
Not to sound wierd or anything, but the Church does not have complete authority to change everything. I say this because affirmations of doctrine need to be precise.
Some Day:
Where have I actually stated this?
What I am saying is that the TRUE TRADITION of the Church teaches that Obedience to the Pope is first and foremost.
Again — PAY HEED:
The Apostles were the foundation of the True Church. Christ gave them all power and authority, saying, “He who hears you hears me: he who rejects you rejects me.”
Speaking of a stubborn man, He said: “If he refuse to hear even the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen” (Matt. 18:17). And He promised his disciples: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).
Did Christ intend that this power should be exercised by the Apostles alone?
No, Christ intended that this power should be exercised also by their successors, the bishops of the Church.
Did Christ give special power in His Church to any one of the Apostles?
Christ gave special power in His Church to Peter, by making him the head of the Apostles and the chief teacher and ruler of the entire Church.
The Catholic Church gives the primacy of honor and jurisdiction to Peter and to his successors.
As God is one, He established one Church, which He commanded all men to obey and to follow in the way of salvation.
Now, nowhere in Traditional Catholic Teaching does it say that the Authority, by default, falls upon those who disagree and reject the Pope and his authority as Vicar of Christ.
If that was the case, then the Protestants would, thus, rightly possess such authority.
Now, since you and John are rebelling against the Church in such a manner that you DENY the very Authority of the Pope, then do it under the right title ‘Protestant’ but don’t call yourselves ‘Traditional’! At least, our separated brethren are honest enough to admit themselves as ‘Protestants’ and don’t mask themselves as ‘Catholics’!
Mary Kay posted:
“I’d have to look it up to be sure, but my guess is that what John XXIII removed was the yearly Good Friday petition for “the perfidious Jews.” The petition is now something about conversion of the Jews, read just before the petition for the conversion of the nations.”
Let me make this easy for you, and tell me if the prayer below, still said at every Benediction in Traditional Catholic church’s and abolished by John XXIII is anti semitic, anti Moslem or just following in the Apostolic tradition of the church. Know that this prayer was promulgated by a Pope, if I recall Pius XI and of course done away with by John XXIII who like much of the church after V2 could care less what Popes before them put forth and what was doctrinal, infallible, dogma or whatever. If it did not fit into their “new church” of ecumenism, it was out:
Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus
Most sweet Jesus, Redeemer of the human race, look down upon us humbly prostrate before Thine altar. We are Thine, and Thine we wish to be; but to be more surely united with Thee, behold, each one of us freely consecrates himself today to Thy most Sacred Heart.
Many indeed have never known Thee; many too, despising Thy precepts, have rejected Thee. Have mercy on them all, most merciful Jesus, and draw them to Thy Sacred Heart.
Be Thou King, O Lord, not only of the faithful who have never forsaken Thee, but also of the prodigal children who have abandoned Thee; grant that they may quickly return to their Father’s house lest they die of wretchedness and hunger.
Be Thou King of those who are deceived by erroneous opinion, or whom discord keeps aloof, and call them back to the harbor of truth and the unity of faith, so that soon there may be but one flock and one Shepherd.
Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolotry or of Islamism, and refuse not to draw them all into the light and kingdom of God.
Turn Thine eyes of mercy towards the children of that race, once Thy chosen people. Of old, they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may It now descend upon them as a laver of redemption and of life.
Grant , O Lord, to Thy Church assurance of freedom and immunity from harm; give peace and order to all nations, and make the earth resound from pole to pole with one cry: Praise be to the Divine Heart that wrought our salvation; to It be glory and honor forever. Amen.
Pope Pius XI
Feast of Christ the King
December 11, 1925
________________________________________
World Muslims…………………….1,155,109,000
World Catholics…………………..1,044,236,000
Total World population…………….6,080,000,000
% of Muslims…………………….. 19.0
% of Catholics…………………… 17.2
Islam annual growth rate (1994-95)…. 6.40% (from U.N.)
Christian growth rate (1994-95)……. 1.46% (from U.N.)
Growth of Islamism:
North America (1989-1998)………………. 25%
Africa……………………………….. 2.15%
Asia…………………………………. 12.57%
Europe……………………………….. 142.35%
Latin America…………………………. 4.73%
Australia…………………………….. 257.01%
Among every four humans in the world, one of them is a Muslim. Muslims have increased by over 235% in the last 50 years up to nearly 1.6 billion. By comparison, Christians have increased by only 47%. Hinduism, 117% and Buddhism 63%. Islam is the second largest religious group in France, Great Britain and the U.S.
___________________________
See?
___________________________
See?
___________________________
See?
.
John, what is your source that John XXIII abolished that particular prayer as anti-semitic?
Mary
John’s source is, at least in part, Jimmy Akin who said that John XXIII removed such a prayer. He ought to provide the evidence that this prayer is the one in question.
And the people I spoke to did give me examples of theological error, I simply didn’t care enough at the time to store them too steadfastly in my memory.
John,
I understand where you are coming from with your concerns and I deeply sympathize with you, but it also seems as though you are making a lot of invalid, Protestant/Secular style arguments and perhaps, more importantly, rejecting the Catholic Church out of emotional reasons rather than intellectual.
Let me first call you on the carpet, perhaps, for your use of the priest abuse scandal. That is far from a valid argument, and I have a feeling you know it but simply got carried away in your post. If you are uninformed on this point, I apologize, and will simply give you this information:
Research has shown that 10x as many elementary school teachers abuse children than priests, often with the same scandalous shuffling around and hiding of this fact by administrators. Protestant ministers and Jewish Rabbis are just about equally as likely to abuse a child as priests, and in the Jewish world the shuffling around of Rabbis for this reason is reportedly much worse than that which has occured in the Church.
Aside from that, to reject the Church on these grounds would require rejecting the pre-Tridentine Church, which was absolutely rife with scandals, immoral priests, bishops, and popes.
Just because you will find a lot of heretical educators or even priests or bishops in the Church, that does not mean that the Church itself is not the Church of God. Even Christ Himself put together an imperfect Church, temporally speaking. His original 12 had Judas in it. We know from the Scriptures and the early fathers that there was heresy all over the place in the early Church, including some coming from those who did officially belong to Her. Some of them,like Tertullian, broke of schismatically, but a great deal of the rest remained in the Church without ever formally stepping aside.
You mention the Arian heresy, but at no time did any substantial number of the Arian heretics actually cease to be a part of the Church, at least not until after Nicaea. They were simply erroneous members of the Church, just like we have today. The important thing is that the Church Herself – either in the person of the Pope or in the consensus of the bishops – never taught Arianism. A great number of individual bishops may have, but this does not constitute the teachings of the Church.
Today, a number of bishops – let us suggest even the majority of them! (though this may be an exaggeration) – hold to erroneous teachings. This does not mean that the Church Herself does, however.
I will end on this note: Boniface VIII taught – perhaps infallibly – that “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Unum Sanctum) If Benedict XVI is the Roman Pontiff, then how can you reject his authority as you seem to? You say that we owe obedience to God and not man, but Boniface VIII seems to see no difference when it comes to the Pontiff. If we are not required to be subject to Benedict XVI, then where is the real pope to whom we must submit? And, if no such figure can be pointed to, then how can we be expected to obey this teaching and how can anyone at all be saved?
Great news!
Christine
TheWorld…IMHO
The Tridentine mass is just plain more grace imbued than the mass of 1969.
End of story.
God Bless Elena,Mom,Dad,Mary Jane,Andrew,Claire,Pope Benedict,Father Kung,Father Greeley,Mary Kay,John,and Esau,Father Novak,Father Parkerson and Bishop Burbidge.
Viva Christo Rey!
Shane:
I found out (as did Esquire in the past) the Source of John’s (jtnova@optline.net) recent remarks.
John JTNOVA’s “Pope” Says: Benedict XVI Prepares to Suppress Limbo and Promulgate a New Heresy.
My question to John is:
Just where in ‘Limbo’ did Sanborn obtain Papal Authority????
How very ‘Traditional’!
I’d recommend reading Bugnini’s “The Reform of the Liturgy (1948-1975)”. It’s not for the faint of heart, weighing in at almost 1000 pages, but I read it because the only thing I ever hear bout Bugnini is the hysterical “Freemason!” charges. They might well be true, but I decided I would give the man the benefit of the doubt and read his side of the story.
For those who want specific names of those who criticized the Tridentine missal, Bugnini is one, and he lists the membership of every relevant liturgical committee and meeting of the Consilium, and the names of others with criticisms emerge. This isn’t to take a side in the combox war, just to point out that this is one comprehensive resource that will provide pretty complete information.
It is interesting to read Bugnini’s take on the reform since he really is the architect of the reform. It is a mine of information. It gave me more sympathy for what he was wanting to accomplish with the reform, but I still came away thinking that the reform was too radical and there was too much change for change’s sake. One criticism of the New Mass, levelled by none other than one Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, that it is “an on-the-spot production”, seems very much borne out when reading this tome.
That said, I am firmly in the camp that the New Mass has been a “mixed blessing.” I do think the greater availability of the vernacular has been positive, though the radical revision of the Missal was not necessary to accomplish that. While I think it went much too far, the revision of the calendar has helped return emphasis to the Season by being less obscured by saint’s days.
My overall assessment is that the genuine motives of the liturgical reformers were noble, but that the execution of their reform was far too radical in such a short span of time, which produced the disorientation and the unfortunate by-product of the experimental period – endless experimentation, even after it was supposed to end.
God bless you all.
Josh, thanks for your comments and book suggestion. Is it still in print and available?
Again, my asking for specifics was more to get some common ground for discussion.
To say that Bugnini was the “architect of the reform” and “for what he was wanting to accomplish with the reform” and “the genuine motives of the liturgical reformers” is like saying the Conclave is simply a political election. Both put an overemphasis on the human part and both have no room for the Holy Spirit.
You’ll find nearly universal agreement that the changes were too fast with little or no preparation or explanation.
I don’t agree with everything you said, but I’m glad you said it in a way that leaves room for discussion.
Esau posted:
“My question to John is:
Just where in ‘Limbo’ did Sanborn obtain Papal Authority????
How very ‘Traditional’!”
Who may I ask is Sanborn and esau, out yourlack of knowledge and ability to discuss are you once again resorting to posting comboxers personal e-mail addresses?
Esau-Are you going to be the next Virgina Tech crazy going and killing those that dont agree with you, many here now see not only Red flags but your insanity is obvious. You need to seek out a good mental health professional for your own good
Shane:
Vatican I was called in 1870 to clearly spell out what the Pope can and can not do. Note it took 1870 years to do this because history has shown that there were some horrible popes in the past. But with some solid popes up to 1870 the time was right to do so.
But the council made it very clear that the Pope can not change or invent already defined dogma or church teaching. The Popes starting with John XXIII and Vatican II have done nothing but.
Ecumenism was denounced as something that must be avoided, the Catholic church and salvation as the only means for such, limbo in councils before B16 decided to do away with this and original sin for that matter, and the list grows
There have been many theologians who are in so called schismatic camps (and who else would you expect to actually stand up and write such????-Mahoney??? Duh Esau!!) who have made excellent arguments for what JPII had done in his pontificate as being heresy and apostate. The arguments are very valid and one day will be addressed. Now one can “obey” and have your kid dress up like a Moslem on ecumenical day in the Catholic schools as they do today (Bishop Sheen himself said it is better to avoid catholic schools and send your children to public where at least they dont pretend to be Catholic). The wolf in sheeps clothing, which the church and many clergy today are so much more dangerous than someone who is outright hateful of the church and all she stood for
What you have today after V2 is a new church. My grandparents at the end of their life repeated constantly that the church today is nothing like what they grew up in and that if they were to walk into the church without knowing it was “Catholic” they would not have recognized it.-So is that the ONE-HOLY-CATHOLIC-APOSTOLIC church that is to never change in order to be the CHURCH Christ founded? Obviously NOT.
Would if she was to walk into a SSPX chapel and hear the sermon and teachings? I would say yes. So decide for yourself back to your basic Catechism-which of the two bears to 4 marks in order to be the One True Church? The church of koran kissing and clown masses? Hand holding and charismatics? Dont think so
So is that the ONE-HOLY-CATHOLIC-APOSTOLIC church that is to never change in order to be the CHURCH Christ founded? Obviously NOT.
John, if the Roman Catholic Church of today is obviously not the Church that Christ founded, please – for the sake of my soul and the souls of everyone in here – show us the ONE-HOLY-CATHOLIC-APOSTOLIC Church.
Brian posted:
“John, if the Roman Catholic Church of today is obviously not the Church that Christ founded, please – for the sake of my soul and the souls of everyone in here – show us the ONE-HOLY-CATHOLIC-APOSTOLIC Church.”
Brian-she is in eclipse right now, waiting to be restored back to her rightful place as Christ’s bride
I dont foresee the Bride of Christ who died on the cross for our sins and the Apostles whom all but one died a martyrs death as well as almost all of the early Popes-follow a vicar of Christ such as JPII who believed in kissing Korans and handing over our Lord’s body to those who are not members of his church as the eucharist is now shared in “hospitality sessions” much like the pharises handed our Lord over to be crucified.
We wait and follow true teachings of the church until all things are restored in Christ. The Gates of Hell can never prevail but that is at the end of time, our Lord never said the church would not be in eclipse or stray, just that she would prevail at the END of time
Brian-she is in eclipse right now, waiting to be restored back to her rightful place as Christ’s bride
So are you going to restore Her by standing outside and throwing stones at the windows? The Church, no matter how run down, is still Christ’s Church. Her foundation and framework, built with the Truth, are still in tact. The rest can be fixed. So Please… put down that stone, pick up a hammer, and come join us.
John,
If your grandmother could walk into a SSPX church, she would see… EXCOMMUNICATED SCHISMATIC priests! Also, she would see… schismatic parishiners that are in rebellion against the Church (kind of like in a Baptist church or an Anglican church). The only difference would be that the holy orders are valid (kind of like the Old Catholics that splintered off).
Tim
Who may I ask is Sanborn and esau, out yourlack of knowledge and ability to discuss are you once again resorting to posting comboxers personal e-mail addresses?
Esau-Are you going to be the next Virgina Tech crazy going and killing those that dont agree with you, many here now see not only Red flags but your insanity is obvious. You need to seek out a good mental health professional for your own good
WoW, John!
Whenever you’re UNABLE to REFUTE my arguments, you AGAIN RESORT TO PERSONAL ATTACKS AS USUAL!
Again, how is DISOBEDIENCE to Papal Authority, DECLARING Popes Heretics/Apostates ‘TRADITIONAL’???
Also, what is Sanborn that you give him such OBEDIENCE?
Yes — I found out (as did Esquire in past threads) your sources for your current and recent comments.
Not to mention the fact that you COULD NOT even REFUTE any of the Citations I provided from Pre-Vatican II Teachings of REAL TRADITIONAL TEACHINGS of the Catholic Church!
Many here as well in the past have remarked how EXACTLY ALIKE you and MARTIN LUTHER are in both WORD and ACTION!
But, like the Pharisees, you REFUSE to pay attention to your own HYPOCRISY!
Protestant Converts will NOT be the Source of the Catholic Church’s DOWNFALL here in America — it will be brought about by so-called CATHOLICS like you who are NOTHING but CLOSET PROTESTANTS!
It is YOU whose INSANITY is QUITE APPARENT if you don’t see the SIMILARITIES between you and Luther and CONTINUE to call what you believe in ‘TRADITIONAL’!
PRE-VATICAN II BALTIMORE CATECHISM TEACHES:
John says that he, in fact, respects the Baltimore Catechism and actually follows it.
Where is ‘Tradition’ in John’s remarks?
‘Tradition’ teaches:
1. Obedience, which disposes us to do the will of our superiors. Obedience consists not only in doing what is commanded by our superior, but in being willing to do what is commanded. One who grumbles and murmurs while doing what his mother asks him to do is not obedient.
Obedience is a virtue only when one subjects his will to that of another for God’s sake, not for material or natural motives. Christ is the model of obedience, for He obeyed completely and lovingly, even to the death of the Cross. “An obedient man shall speak of victory” (Prov. 21:28).
Yet, John says:
…a small group like myself refuse to buy this hogwash of so called obedience.
Posted by: John | Apr 25, 2007 2:06:41 PM
The REAL ‘Traditional Teachings’ of the Catholic Church (via the BALTIMORE CATECHISM) says:
A church which at any time denies an apostolic doctrine, discards the sacrament of Holy Orders, or breaks away from obedience to the Pope, ceases to be apostolic. It becomes a dead branch broken off from the parent vine which is Christ Himself: “I am the vine: you are the branches” (John 15:5).
John becomes nothing more than a DEAD BRANCH and MUST BE DISCARDED as such.
“Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam”
Please show me any so called mainstream faith, Islam, judaism, etc that has had a “Vatican II” reform and have remained viable as a faith? Once a faith can be changed at the whim of the people, it becomes unstable and evenually written off as the church is slowly going in that direction after Vatican II. Clergy abuse, scandal, a banal liturgy, questionable sacraments, attendance in the gutter and an uncatechised laity
I ask someone who has children if they want their children being exposed to what is being sold off
As far as the four marks, I love when I am discussing parishes with someone and they say “Oh, I stopped going to St. _____ because of this or that and now I go to a more “orthodox” or whatever, etc. We are not even talking about diocese to diocese, church to church different brands of Catholicism is being sold and taught. People shop for church’s now like others do for clothes or Protestants for a minister!
Traditionalists are not schismatic because they never left the church, it is the “church” that CHANGED and left them!! Quite possibly they themselves are the One True Church as they do hold the 4 marks I learned in my catechism!
Traditionalists are not schismatic because they never left the church, it is the “church” that CHANGED and left them!! Quite possibly they themselves are the One True Church as they do hold the 4 marks I learned in my catechism!
The Schismatics has ALL 4 MARKS OF THE CHURCH and, therefore, they ARE the ONE TRUE CHURCH????
Hmmmm… Let’s see:
The APOSTOLIC Church has these qualities:
1. Our Saviour gave pre-eminience to Peter over the other Apostles: “I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). “Strengthen thy brethren” (Luke 22:32). “Feed my lambs; feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17).
The CATHOLIC CHURCH possesses this and, therefore, ‘APOSTOLIC’:
1. The Catholic Church gives the primacy of honor and jurisdiction to Peter and to his successors.
However, Protestant Churches:
1. Other Christian communions deny Peter’s supremacy over the other Apostles.
Now, which of the categories in the above Pre-Vatican II teachings matches with the ‘church’ of the Schismatics?
Right from #1, the Schismatics are DISPROVED as being the ONE TRUE CHURCH since it FAILS to acknowledge the #1 REQUIREMENT, the very HEART of TRADITION — the Pope!
Apparently, either you had a LOUSY TEACHER, John, or you are merely a LOUSY STUDENT!
I actually believe the latter. Why?
For one, apparently you didn’t learn from past threads wherein I brought up Fortescue (who you deem of such high authority here) who, in fact, said some things about the Tridentine rite that you failed to acknowledge on this thread.
>Traditionalists are not schismatic because they never left the church, it is the “church” that CHANGED and left them!!
Real traditionalists have a Pope. Real traditionalists accept the Church’s authority. Real traditionalists don’t worship the mirror.
Real traditionalists don’t say “The gates of hell have prevailed over the Church”
Fake traditionalists don’t have a Pope. Or have one who is not Benedict XVI. Fake traditionalists worship the mirror. Fake traditionalists claim the gates of hell have prevailed over the Church.
Fake traditionalists reject the Church’s authority (and are really protestants)
Waitaminute, why is that so-called sheep GROWLING? 🙂
Clergy abuse, scandal, a banal liturgy, questionable sacraments, attendance in the gutter and an uncatechised laity
John, we’re all against these things. They are the results of sinners in the Church, but they aren’t the Church itself. But you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Where would the Church be if men like St. Athanasius or St. Charles Borromeo chose the easy road and became schismatic instead of sticking to the Truth and fighting against all odds for reform?
JIMMY AKIN or TIM J:
I find John’s alignment of Esau and Virginia Tech very disturbing. Please see this comment.
I’m bothered by the sentence that begins:
Esau-Are you going to be the next…
I’d request a censure of that post.
Thank you.
Sorry. The link doesn’t work.
The URL is: http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/04/ja_motu_proprio.html#c67670278
Smoky –
That’s not something I can do, but I’m sure Jimmy will look at it as soon as he gets the chance.
I grew tired of John lo-o-o-ong ago, but one of the things I admire about Jimmy is the fact that he does not haunt his own combox (a trait I need better to emmulate, but I can’t seem to keep my mouth shut). He lets the discussion unfold, and is more than indulgent of those who might get the bums rush on other blogs. This can lead both to very lively debate and to eye-rolling tedium as the hobby horses show up (yet again) predictably leaving behind them what horses normally leave behind.
Jimmy will do what he thinks best. Until then, y’all watch your step…
Smoky:
Thanks for your charity in these matters, but that’s how John gets when he’s unable to refute people’s arguments — he resorts to such personal attacks, as have been seen in the past when he did the same against Innocencio, Ryan C., bill912, Mary Kay, Rosemarie and a host of other such individuals who are genuine Catholics and defend the True Church.
I feel sorry though for those victims who’ve suffered as a result of the senseless violence at Virginia Tech who might incidentally come across such thoughtless remarks as John’s.
Of course, John cares nothing for these victims and would go to the extent of exploiting their tremendous suffering just so he can, in his badly disturbed mind, advance an already sorry argument — though it does nothing to advance his argument at all.
BobCatholic said it best above:
“Real traditionalists have a Pope. Real traditionalists accept the Church’s authority. Real traditionalists don’t worship the mirror.
Real traditionalists don’t say “The gates of hell have prevailed over the Church”
Fake traditionalists don’t have a Pope. Or have one who is not Benedict XVI. Fake traditionalists worship the mirror. Fake traditionalists claim the gates of hell have prevailed over the Church.
Fake traditionalists reject the Church’s authority (and are really protestants)
Waitaminute, why is that so-called sheep GROWLING? :)”
Posted by: BobCatholic | Apr 26, 2007 10:41:01 AM
BRAVO BobCatholic!
A True Traditionalist and NOT a ‘Mirror-Worshipper’!
(By the way BobCatholic, any chance you can post up that ‘No Mirror-Worshipping’ cartoon I found at your great website on Jimmy Akin’s blog? I LOVED that!)
Tim,
His Eminence Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos has said on several occasions,that assistance at an SSPX church fullfills ones Sunday obligation.
He also said that,”The bishops priests and faithful of the SSPX are NOT schismatics.”
Get your facts straight.
God bless you.
“The bishops priests and faithful of the SSPX are NOT schismatics”
Actually, that’s true. they are not technically, formally “schismatics”… it’s just that the Bishops have all been suspended and excommunicated.
So, everything is *just fine*.
Cardinal Hoyos added;
“…It is Archbishop Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act.”
It is heresy to teach that the Novus Ordo is not a valid Mass.
Incidentally, you all DO realize that Archbishop Lefebvre SIGNED the documents of the Second Vatican Council?
Tim
Get your facts straight.
the bishops and priests of the sspx teach that the Novus Ordo mass IS VALID.
I have heard our pastor Father Kenneth Novak say repeatedly that the Novus Ordo mass and sacraments are valid.
The difference is the Novus Ordo liturgy is greatly watered down and banal.
God bLESS YOU.
“the bishops and priests of the sspx teach that the Novus Ordo mass IS VALID”
Good. I never said they didn’t. Get your facts straight.
But plenty of TLM enthusiasts make the charge regularly, here and elsewhere. They are heretics spreading heresy.
Just so everyone knows that.
God bless you, too.
I am a recent convert (count weeks) trying to figure out a few things. I have been looking for the actual texts that seems to be making so much smoke lately and have found the following – sorry for the length of this posting!
Can you all help me with the following questions regarding a few of the Prayers for Good Friday? While there are three prayers in #1 I am really more interested in the prayer for the Jews, as that is the one that seems to be making the news. I do realize that the Koran calls for killing of infidels, (ouch!!) and that some older synagogue prayers (said by the men) thank God for not being born a woman, among other things (double ouch!!!). Seems like everybody’s got a prayer that’s “off” for others!
Anyway, your help in answering the following questions would be really appreciated. I used bold print to set off my questions. Please remember I am a recent convert and don’t have the same “cradle” knowledge that many of you have – it kinda hurts when someone calls me “woefully ignorant” because I am asking questions and trying to learn (triple ouch!!!) Thanks for your help!
1. ARE THE FOLLOWING GOOD FRIDAY PRAYERS FROM THE MISSAL OF 1953 OR FROM AN EARLIER MISSAL?
Let us pray also for heretics and schismatics: that our Lord and God would be pleased to rescue them from their errors; and recall them to our holy mother the Catholic and Apostolic Church. Let us pray. Let us kneel. Arise. Almighty and eternal God, Who savest all, and wouldest that no one should perish: look on the souls that are led astray by the deceit of the devil: that having set aside all heretical evil, the hearts of those that err may repent and return to the unity of Thy truth. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Who livest and reignest with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost, through all endless ages. Amen.
Let us pray also for the faithless Jews: that our God and Lord may remove the veil from their hearts; that they also may acknowledge Our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us pray. (Here the congregation does not kneel) Almighty and Eternal God, Who dost not exclude from Thy mercy even the faithless Jews: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of Thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same Lord Jesus Christ, Who livest and reignest with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost, through all endless ages. Amen.
Let us pray also for the pagans: that Almighty God take away iniquity from their hearts: that leaving aside their idols they may be converted to the true and living God, and His only Son, Jesus Christ our God and Lord. Let us pray. Let us kneel. Arise. Almighty and Eternal God, Who seekest always, not the death, but the life of sinners: mercifully hear our prayer, and deliver them from the worship of idols: and admit them into Thy holy Church for the praise and glory of Thy Name. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Who livest and reignest with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost, through all endless ages. Amen.
2. IF THE ABOVE PRAYERS DATE PRIOR TO 1955, DOES ANYONE HAVE THE TEXT OF THE CHANGES MADE BY PIUS XII WHEN HE REVISED THE HOLY WEEK LITURGY IN 1955? IF ANYONE HAS A COPY COULD PLEASE POST THEM OR SEND A LINK???
3. WHAT IS THE DATE OF THIS NEXT PRAYER? IS THIS THE CHANGE MADE BY JOHN XXIII IN 1959-60??
Let us pray also for the Jews; that out God and Lord would remove the veil from their hearts: that they may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ
Let us pray.
Almighty and everlasting God, Who drivest not away from Thy mercy even the Jews: hear our prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy truth, which is Christ, they may be rescued from their darkness. Through Christ our Lord Amen.
4. I THINK THIS NEST ONE IS THE PRAYER FROM THE 1967 MISSAL. IS THIS THE CORRECT DATE?
Let us also pray that our God and Lord will look kindly on the Jews, so that they too may acknowledge the Redeemer of all, Jesus Christ our Lord. . . . Almighty and eternal God, you made the promises to Abraham and his descendants. In your goodness hear the prayers of your Church so that the people whom from of old you made your own may come to the fullness of redemption.
5. TAKEN FROM MY COPY OF THE ROMAN MISSAL (ed. Socias)THIS IS THE CURRENT PRAYER USED ON GOOD FRIDAY:
For the Jewish people
Let us pray
for the Jewish people,
the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name
and in faithfulness to his covenant.
Almighty and eternal God,
long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity,
Listen to your Church as we pray
that the people you first made your own
may arrive at the fullness of redemption,
We ask this through Christ our Lord.
Amen.
6. WOULD THE PRAYER FROM 1959-60 (see #3 above) BE THE ONE THAT WOULD BE USED IN THE TLM WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO IN THE UPCOMING MP?
THANKS!!
Mary Kay: Thanks for the dance!!
John,
In all charity,
why won’t you answer any of the questions that are posed to you? I wrote a pretty lenghty post to you, and most of what it said you at least give the impression you have ignored. I’m especially curious about your thoughts about Unum Sanctum.
For any lurkers, Dan Hunter’s comments about the Novus Ordo are as accurate as the sun rising in the north.
Tim posted:
“”the bishops and priests of the sspx teach that the Novus Ordo mass IS VALID”
Good. I never said they didn’t. Get your facts straight.
But plenty of TLM enthusiasts make the charge regularly, here and elsewhere. They are heretics spreading heresy.”
I can only laugh at the hatred those of the Novus Ordo Vatican II church have for Traditionalists. When it comes to Protestants, you have Cardinal Kasper and V2 all in love with them. Moslems, you have JPII kissing their Koran and B16 (because he actually said the truth and then realized this was not in line with ecumania) was scared and prayed with Imam’s toward mecca. Vodoo, Buddist pagan idols placed on altars of sacrifice at both Fatima and Assissi are all documented events
Traditionalists? Hated
Why? Because they didnt buy into and go along with the sellout
The hatred Esau and many have here for Traditionalists, like Tim J just joined Esau, is not because they are so called “schismatics”. IT is because thousands each day are learning about the sellout and are awakened to what is really going on. Like the spouse who does not want to belive their spouse is cheating on them or the ostridge with their head in the sand, you refuse to wake up and demand tradition and Orthodox teachings from the Pontiff on down. Would Jesus if he was alive today kiss the Koran? Pray towards mecca? I dont think so. But you instead take your anger out on those that refuse to go along with the big sellout
So eventually you will wake up when Vatican III teaches that it is OK to worship in a mosque, that we should not only hold moslems in “high esteem” as Nostre Aetate teaches us to, but that they are equal to us. Or Jews who deny Jesus all together but we have JPII praying with them in a temple and so on. Have these faith reciprocated and prayed in a church? I never saw that or even heard of that. I know that the Jewish rabbis when at Assissi demanded that all crucifixes be removed from their dwellings.
So keep on your merry way
“I can only laugh at the hatred those of the Novus Ordo Vatican II church have for Traditionalists.”
Is that the same Vatican II that Archbishop LeFebvre signed off on? Or am I thinking of another Vatican II?
John:
Again — you REFUSED to answer my questions.
How is it that what you believe ‘Traditional’?
As the BALTIMORE CATECHISM teaches:
Only the Catholic Church possesses the marks of the Church established by Christ; that is, Unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity.
Let’s just go over the latter — APOSTOLICITY:
Why is the Catholic Church apostolic?
The Catholic Church is apostolic because it was founded by Christ on the Apostles, and, according to His divine will, has always been governed by their lawful successors.
Apostolicity is easily proved by the facts of history. If a church cannot trace back its history lawfully in an unbroken line step by step to the Apostles, it is NOT the True Church.
Pope Benedict XVI, our present Pope, is the direct successor of St. Peter.
He is the lawful successor of the Pope who preceded him; and thus each Pope lawfully succeeded the one before him, until we reach St. Peter, the first Pope, chosen by Christ Himself.
If your SCHISMATIC church is the TRUE church, then where is your Pope???
As Saint Ambrose rightly said:
“Where Peter is, there is the Church.”
Esau,
Calm down, you put me on the same plane as John.
That is an insult. I am a faithful son of the Church who is esspecially devoted to the Pope. Regardless if it is Alexander VI or St. Peter.
SO DON’T EVER PUT ME WITH A FALSE RIGHT SCHISMATIC LIKE JOHN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please 🙁
Esau,
Please recall that CAPS=SHOUTING on the internet. If you read your statements aloud, would you shout the parts that are in caps?
Esau posted:
“John:
Again — you REFUSED to answer my questions.
How is it that what you believe ‘Traditional’?
Esau-that is very easy. I am a Traditionalist because:
I refuse to believe that truth lies OUTSIDE the Catholic church (Lumen Gentium)
I am a Traditionalist because I dont believe that Moslems and Catholics worship the same God as JPII preached as “Allah” would not tell Moslems to fly a plane into the WTC which I witnessed
I am a Traditionalist because I dont believe in the Vatican II teaching that:
“It is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren.”
Decree on Ecumenism, #8.
Where pre-Vatican II it was infallibly taught that :
“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.”
Pope Benedict XIV, De Synodo Bk. VI, Chap. 5, Art. 2, 1748.
I am a Traditionalist because Pre Vatican II it was taught:
[It is an error to say that] “in the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way to eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation.”
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Error #16, Dec. 8, 1864.
When after Vatican II it was taught:
“The brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion… these actions… can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation.”
Decree on Ecumenism, #3.
I am a traditionalist because pre vatican II it was taught that:
“It is not fitting that the Church of God be changed according to the fluctuations of worldly necessity.”
Pope Pius VI, Quod Aliquantum, Mar. 10, 1791.
Where after Vatican II it is now taught:
“the Church… can and ought to be enriched by the development of human social life… so that she may… adjust it [the Constitution of the Church] more successfully to our times.”
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #44.
”
I am a Traditionalist because Pre Vatican II it was taught:
No man can serve two masters, for to please one amounts to contemning the other…It is a high crime indeed to withdraw allegiance from God in order to please men.”
Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiæ Christianæ, #6&7, Jan. 10, 1890.
Where Vatican II taught:
“Christians cannot yearn for anything more ardently than to serve the men of the modern world.”
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #93.
I am a Tradionalist because Pre Vatican II Popes taught:
“About the ‘Rights of Man’ as they are called, the people have heard enough; it is time they should hear of the rights of God.”
Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi, #13, Nov. 1, 1900.
Where in Vatican II it is now taught:
“The Church proclaims the rights of man.”
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #41.
I am a Traditionalist because On Religious Liberty, the Pre V2 church taught:
“They do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls…namely that ‘liberty of conscience and of worship is a right proper to every man, and should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society.’ ”
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, #3, Dec. 8, 1864.
Where at Vatican II it was taught:
“The human person has the right to religious freedom…this right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right.”
Declaration on Religious Freedom, #2.
I am as Traditionalist because Pre V2 it was taught:
[It is an error to say that] “in this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever.”
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, Error #77, Dec. 8, 1864.
Where Vatican II taught:
“a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people…the profession or repudiation of any religion…government is not to act…in an unfair spirit of partisanship.”
Declaration on Religious Freedom, #6&7.
I am a Traditionalist because Pre Vatican II it was taught:
“Men who really believe in God must… understand that differing modes of worship… cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God.”
Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, #31, Nov. 1, 1885.
Where Vatican II now teaches:
“The right of all… religious bodies to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice.”
Declaration on Religious Freedom, #4&6.
Collegiality
I am a Traditionalist because Pre Vatican II taught:
“The authority of Peter and his successors is plenary and supreme …the bishops… do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #14, June 29, 1896.
Where Vatican II now teaches:
“Together with its head, the Roman Pontiff… the episcopal order is the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church.”
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, #22.
I am a Traditionalist because On Truth, the Pre Vatican II church taught:
“Christ has entrusted His Church with all truth.”
Pope Pius XII, Mar. 9, 1956.
Where now Vatican II teachest:
“Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth.”
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #1
So what is it Esau-Do you go along with all of these clear defections and continue to blast those that refuse to, or continue along the sellout route? You seem much to smart to not see the issue at hand, as many others here are as well
Some Day:
I had to get that out of you — I hope you’ll understand. We need faithful priests — especially during these dark times.
Authentic Catholicism seems hopeless in the United States, given the heretical elements that attack it from both the left as well as the false right.
I am hoping, as clergy, you will be one of those who will fight against such elements and defend the True Church, the Catholic Church — established by Christ, glorified by the blood of countless Martyrs and Saints who fought to preserve her, the Teachings of Christ and ‘T’radition, for the greater glory of God, time immemorial!
A.M.D.G.
Don’t worry, I know clearly what is what in the Church. ( At least to argue efficiently)
What I said is perfectly legit. And mind you, it is me saying what could be argued. Not specifically I would argue.
Some Day:
I’m glad you know.
Mind you, if you ever get deeper, make sure you do not side so quickly with one or the other.
Like John, from their exterior, they may seem Traditional, but when their mouths open and their ideas ultimately revealed, it is as venemously heretical as the left; but even worse — since they come under the guise of traditional Catholicism.
May Our Lord Guide & Protect You.
A.M.D.G.
Esau posted:
“Like John, from their exterior, they may seem Traditional, but when their mouths open and their ideas ultimately revealed, it is as venemously heretical as the left; but even worse — since they come under the guise of traditional Catholicism.”
So Esau you fail to explain the above clear, concise and documented contradictions in church teaching from before Vatican II and then after. How can that be???? Please explain to me, and note these are just a few. There are by many accounts hundreds of such that border on heresy, and we are not even begining to touch on the changes in liturgy, sacraments, canon law (marriage for example and annulments as well as the distribution of the eucharist), catechism and actions of the pope on dowm.
For example, please explain, Was Pope Pius IX wrong or is the “Degree on Ecumenism” wrong? How can they contradict eachother?
Pius XII right or the “Church in the Modern world” right?
Which is it????????????????????
John,
The pope and the counsel do not contradict each other. You think they do.
More heresy as published today on Zenit the Vatican News Agency, congratulating the Buddhists on their festival. Would Pius X do such? Any Pope before V2? Clear defection. Congratulating those who are PAGAN ESAU!!
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=106578
Date: 2007-04-25
Vatican Message to Buddhists
“May We Continue to Contribute Toward Peace and Harmony”
VATICAN CITY, APRIL 25, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is the message written by Cardinal Paul Poupard, president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, to Buddhists on the occasion of their feast of Vesakh, which commemorates the principal events in Buddha’s life.
The letter was published today by the Vatican press office.
In some countries, including Sri Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia and Korea, the date of the feast varies and it will be celebrated between May 2-31. In other countries, including Japan and Taiwan, the feast was celebrated April 8.
* * *
Christians and Buddhists: educating communities to live in harmony and peace
Dear Buddhist Friends,
1. On the occasion of the festival of Vesakh, I am writing to Buddhist communities in different parts of the world to convey my own good wishes, as well as those of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.
2. We, Catholics and Buddhists, enjoy a good relationship and our contacts, collaboration and implementation of diverse programmes have helped to deepen our understanding of each other. Dialogue is the sure path to fruitful interreligious relations. It deepens respect and nurtures the desire to live in harmony with others.
3. The Second Vatican Council teaches that the entire human race shares a common origin and a common destiny: God, our Creator and the goal of our earthly pilgrimage. Similarly, Pope Benedict XVI, in his 2007 Message for the World Day of Peace, observed: “As one created in the image of God, each individual human being has the dignity of a person; he or she is not just something, but someone, capable of self-knowledge, self-possession, free self-giving and entering into communion with others” (n. 2).
4. Building a community requires concrete gestures which reflect the respect for the dignity of others. Furthermore, as religious people, we are convinced that “there is a moral logic which is built into human life and which makes possible dialogue between individuals and peoples” (ibid, n. 3). Yet, there are people today who still need to learn about others and other people’s beliefs in order to overcome prejudices and misunderstandings. This sad reality, if it is to be overcome, demands much effort on the part of both civic and religious leaders. Even in places where people experience daily the ravages of war, fuelled by sentiments of hatred and vengeance, trust can be restored. Together we can help to create the space and the opportunities for people to talk, listen, share regrets and offer forgiveness for each other’s past mistakes.
5. Education for peace is a responsibility which must be borne by all sectors of society. Of course, this starts in ordinary homes where the family, the fundamental pillar of society, strives to transmit traditional and sound values to children by a deliberate effort to inform their consciences. The younger generations deserve and indeed thrive upon value-based education which reinforces respect, acceptance, compassion and equality. It is important therefore that schools, both government and faith-based, do all possible to support parents in the delicate but satisfying task of raising children to appreciate all that is good and true.
6. The media’s power to shape minds, especially of the young, cannot be underestimated. While the irresponsible elements within it are increasingly being recognized for what they are, it is also the case that much good can be effected through quality productions and educational programmes. When people working within the media exercise their moral conscience, it is possible to dispel ignorance and impart knowledge, preserve social values, and portray the transcendental dimension of life which arises from the spiritual nature of all people. Religious believers serve society admirably by collaborating in such projects for the common good.
7. Ultimately, the aim of true education is to bring the individual to encounter the ultimate purpose of life. This motivates the person to serve broken humanity. Together may we continue to contribute towards peace and harmony in our society and the world. We Catholics join you with our heartfelt greetings as you celebrate this feast and I wish you once again a happy Vesakh.
Paul Cardinal Poupard
President
Archbishop Pier Luigi Celata
Secretary
John,
I will try to answer your questions concerning certain Vatican II teachings, and I’ll try to fill my words with the spirit of Christ as much as I can. I ask you simply to approach them with an open mind – not a mind that is by any means ready to abandon your positions, but one that at least considers it a possibility – a remote, highly improbable, but still at least remote possibility that what I say is correct. I’ve prayed to the Holy Spirit to fill my words, so please try to read them with openness to the that He answered my prayer.
am a Traditionalist because I dont believe in the Vatican II teaching that:
“It is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren.”
Decree on Ecumenism, #8.
Where pre-Vatican II it was infallibly taught that :
“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.”
Pope Benedict XIV, De Synodo Bk. VI, Chap. 5, Art. 2, 1748.
I can’t see why this would be an infallible teaching; by what virtue do you believe that it is?
So far as the actual teaching goes, Benedict XIV said that it is almost impossible, not that it is impossible. This means, by logical necessity, that Benedict considered that it is possible for a Catholic to pray with heretics or schismatics without the guilt of a “shameful crime.” It is not the act in and of itself, then, that is sinful, but something outside of the act which changes its character – including even simply the fact that it was prohibited canonically.
It may be that this is the only reason that it would be a crime. This idea gains further support from Benedict’s choice to call it a “crime” rather than a “sin.” In fact, given that those who are not guilty of the “shameful crime” are those who are to some high degree “worthy,” it would seem that there is something in the state of a person – such as a bishop who may have different canonical freedoms – that matters.
In any case, it is not, in and of itself, a sin to pray with heretics, and the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, recognized that whatever factors making the act of praying with heretics problematic had ceased, or at least lessened to the point, such that it was no longer a problem. The greatest of these reasons is likely that by the 1960s, such time had past since the Reformation that most non-Catholics are no longer willfull heretics, but erroneously brought up and educated.
I am a Traditionalist because Pre Vatican II it was taught:
[It is an error to say that] “in the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way to eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation.”
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Error #16, Dec. 8, 1864.
When after Vatican II it was taught:
“The brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion… these actions… can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation.”
Decree on Ecumenism, #3.
Prior to Vatican II, it was taught that all those who are in a state of Grace when they die go to Heaven. It was taught that baptism, whether performed by an orthodox Catholic or a heretic or schismatic, brought a person into the state of Grace. Prior to vatican II, it was taught that only by mortal sin could a person lose this state. Prior to Vatican II, it was taught that a mortal sin required a person to posess the knowledge that an act was sinful for a sin to be mortal. Thus, according to pre-Vatican II doctrine, if any person were to be baptized outside of the Church, through no fault of their own being unaware of the necessity of the Catholic Church, they could go to Heaven unless they were to commit some mortal sin before death.
On top of this, it was taught prior to Vatican II that the state of Grace could be restored through perfect contrition before Sacramental confession, barring that a person refused to receive the Sacrament when it became available. Thus, a Protestant who remains unknowingly and unwillingly ignorant of the Catholic Church’s necessity, who is baptized, can indeed, according to pre-Vatican II teaching, be saved. They are not saved apart from the Catholic Church, simply apart from knowing it is the Church through which they are saved.
I will refrain from answering other teachings you raised because this post is too long as it is and I do not wish to violate da rulz.
However, John, I will add – for the third time -that I would like to see you answer my question about Unum Sacntum.
John,
You don’t know how to distingush heretical from heretezizing.
Some actions may in themselves not be heretical, but are not in the best spirit or are tendencially perfect.
This means it is not heretical, but can give a false sensation of somethings. Like the overemphasis on the Liturgy of the Word and the “Community”. These are deveations, and not heretical in themselves, but not all errors are doctrinal. It may not be against verum but certainly against pulchrum.
But being a simple common baptized Catholic does not make you a theologan.
There are some questions that there is not benefit in argueing, some that won’t be answered until maybe 10 years after the world becomes Catholic again. (Deo auxilante!)
But some here are worst than the left. They pretend to be the right and are of the same or worst spirit just under the appearances of a sheep. And I refer to yourself.
Igitur ex fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos Mat 7:20
“This means it is not heretical, but can give a false sensation of somethings. Like the overemphasis on the Liturgy of the Word and the “Community”. These are deveations, and not heretical in themselves, but not all errors are doctrinal. It may not be against verum but certainly against pulchrum.”
Thank you. Very cogent.
Those who abandon the Church because of some difficulties and changes – even very bad ones – would probably not argue that a man should leave his wife if she becomes old, fat or grumpy. She is your wife, and there is no other. Some men (with the grace of God) can look and still see the wife of their youth. They know the flaws intimately, but don’t dwell on them. As we pray in the Mass “Look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church”, and Christ DOES look on his bride this way. With His help, we can look on her in the same way, with His eyes.
(All of the above goes for women, too, of course – wink*)
An example.
Religious Freedom as concieved by republican ideals is not compatible with Catholic Doctrine.
True, only Truth has the right to be proclaimed.
But what does Religious Freedom mean?
A man can believe whatever he wants. That is free will. A gift from God. But he does not have the right to express it with others. It is sinful to deny the Church and Her Doctrine, but no one can force you to accept it.
That is religious freedom.
So the document says that. Religious Freedom.
Because the egalitarian (another error) concept of religious freedom is wrong.’
That is an example of what can be tendencially wrong.( severe opening to misinterpretaion that salvation outside of the Church exists)
But not doctrinarily or morally wrong. It is not a heresy.
It is like saying “God loves unconditionally”. It gives a false sensation that you can sin without a care, be mediocore and not persue santicity.
Love is neccesarily unconditional. He is Love and loves with an infinite capacity. No need to state the obvious in bad spirit.
But again, not heretical. So John quit it.
You have not convinced a single person hear.
Your fruits are what? Arguements, insults, lack of peace( as in tranquility in the Order)and heretical proclamations (schism goes hand in hand with heresy)
In the end, a pharisee, a False Rightist.
Mary Kay,
Kindly show me where I have made innacurate statements about the New Order,and I will show you a Tridentine mass in Montana.
God bless you.
PS.What is your sign?
What?
What kind of dumb thing is that?
What is your sign?
A duh duh da!
Bon soir, je suis tres someil.
Dan, cut that lack of seriousness.
Your sign?
PALEASE! 😉
Mine is the Tau.
T
“What is your sign?”
Dan has a personal problem with MK. Maybe he feels threatened by smart women.
I’ve been annoyed by MK.
Never threatened. I have brought my fears down to goint to Purgatory (Hell is not even in question) for a long time, spiders and anything that flies.
Women though tend to get on the annoying list.
But that is reciprocal isn’t MK? 😉
Not threatened or annoyed,just interested in MK.
God bless.
Scorpio
From the Catholic.com Forum to JA.O: Is John (jtnova@optline.net) A Trolling SSPX Plagiarist?
John:
Isn’t it funny that everything you listed in your Posted by: John | Apr 26, 2007 4:28:56 PM Post is word-for-word found in a Chart entitled “Do the Documents of Vatican II Contradict Church Teachings?” featured on an SSPX website?
Link
John’s (JTNOVA@optline.net) Plagiarism of an SSPX Website
What’s interesting to note is that not only have you been caught here by such folks as Esquire, Inocencio, and myself doing the same thing several times in the past on Jimmy’s blog, but you’ve also been caught plagerizing at the Catholic.com Forum:
Link
John’s (JTNOVA@optline.net) Acts of Plagiarist also caught at Catholic.com
John has also been CAUGHT PLAGERIZING other people’s opinions on Jimmy’s Blog and DISGUISED THEM AS HIS OWN:
So, John (jtnova@optline.net), the next time you want to discuss something, just post a link to the next website you’ll be plagiarizing so that I don’t waste time with somebody who obviously doesn’t have the intelligence to think for himself and, thus, is unable to refute people’s valid arguments or answer their questions because, as Anon rightly stated above, couldn’t find a cut-and-paste directly on point.
I think that one huge point everyone fails to see is this: the people celebrating the Tridentine Masses are going to be the same people that have been irreverently celebrating the Pauline rite.
If they can’t get a comparatively more simple rite correct, one with, according to the Tridentine supporters, more of the sorts of orthodox statements that horrify unfaithful priests into changing the words, then why does anyone expect them to all of a sudden say the Tridentine rite properly and without all sorts of nonsensical variations?
Mary Kay:
I don’t know that the book is still in print (I think it is), but it can be had through sellers on Amazon for a reasonable price.
I would agree with your assessment that my wording may give short shrift to the Spirit; but, at the same time, to simply say that since it is officially promulgated, it is the product of the Holy Spirit might also downplay the very active role that the human element of the Church has in these matters. Not that I am saying that you are saying this, but it is fatuous to believe that politicking and commitee in-fighting don’t play a large role in liturgical reform and the Conclave.
I don’t believe that the liturgical reformers were out to destroy the Church. I believe they had noble intentions, but I think a certain amount of naive optimism and maybe even hubris led to a poor reform on the whole. Be that as it may, I support unfailingly the Holy Catholic Church and participate in the so-called Novus Ordo 90% of the time. I would never participate in schismatic liturgies, and the SSPX’s irregularity is enough for me not to take part in their movement.
God bless.
Josh,
Again, the SSPX is NOT schismatic.
God bless tou and yours
Shane posted:
“John,
You don’t know how to distingush heretical from heretezizing. ”
Shane-Have you been hanging out with Bill Clinton and still asking what the definition of “is” is? Coem on, give me a break!!
And Esau, who cares where anything comes from as long as it is documented. Is not Pius IX syllabus of errors or the Council of Trent documented? Is not “Religious Freedom” and the “Degree on Ecumenism?
YOU FAILED AGAIN TO RESPOND
CLEAR CONTRADICTIONS TO PAST CHURCH TEACHINGS VATICAN II HAS DONE.
If the Pontiff is infallible on faith and morals, and the above preVatican II popes taught such, then was contradicated-the church has taught that the latter is NOT to be obeyed as this has been infallible defined! Vatican I has defined the limitations of the Pope as they can not reteach previously defined church teachings.
thank God for Vatican I
Esau cant refute this because he loves “Freedom of Religion” and “Ecumenism” and complimenting Buddah!! Esau, maybe your really a pagan?
Esau posted:
“Isn’t it funny that everything you listed in your Posted by: John | Apr 26, 2007 4:28:56 PM Post is word-for-word found in a Chart entitled “Do the Documents of Vatican II Contradict Church Teachings?” featured on an SSPX website?”
Esau-thanks!! That SSPX website is actually great, I never knew that there were so many MORE heresies and contradictions in Vatican II
You are helping me out here!!!!
Church in eclipse? Hindus, Buddhists, Protestant and Moslems-Now Openly Gay Masses! Ecumania complete!!
As published on todays “spirit daily”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23394074-details/BBC%20to%20broadcast%20gay%20mass%20from%20San%20Francisco/article.do
BBC to broadcast gay mass from San Francisco
27.04.07
Add your view
The BBC is to relay a ‘gay Mass’ from San Francisco this Sunday, the first time such a service has been broadcast.
The 50-minute Mass at the Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in the predominantly gay Castro district of the city will feature prayers and readings tailored for the gay community.
The church has been described as an “inspiration” to gay and lesbian Christians around the world because of its ministry to homosexuals.
Scroll down for more…
The BBC is to relay a ‘gay Mass’ from San Francisco the first time such a service has been broadcast. Above, Members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence
Its parish priest, Father Stephen Meriweather, blesses participants in the San Francisco’s annual gay pride march.
But it has also infuriated many Catholics in the U.S. who have complained about such activities as transvestite bingo nights during which sex toys and pornographic DVDs were handed out as prizes.
Last night a media watchdog said Sunday’s radio broadcast was “bound to cause offence” to mainstream Christians.
John Beyer of Mediawatch UK, an organisation which campaigns for standards in the media, said he thought it was a mistake to broadcast the service.
“Religious broadcasting, apart from Songs of Praise, tends to focus on the out-of-the-ordinary and having this particular service I think will cause offence to people who feel that such practices are wrong and are taught as such in holy scripture,” Mr Beyer said.
Preaching on the BBC show: James Alison
“The BBC really ought to be focusing on mainstream services which are more in keeping with the public service requirement that it has.”
However, Father Donal Godfrey, the U.S. Jesuit priest celebrating the Mass, said he was delighted the BBC was “exploring how gay people fit into the perspective of the Christian narrative”.
“Being gay is not special,” he said. “It’s simply another gift from God who created us as rainbow people.”
The recording will go out at 8.10am to two million listeners on the BBC Radio 4 Sunday Worship programme.
The preacher will be James Alison – a homosexual British Catholic theologian and author of ‘Is it ethical to be Catholic? – Queer perspectives’.
Weeks after the BBC finished recording the service last October, it emerged that a transvestite group calling themselves the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence regularly staged lewd and irreverent bingo nights on the church premises.
The San Francisco archdiocese-stopped the events when it was discovered that prizes of a sexual nature were being handed out by the group, who dress as nuns.
In the past members of the group have paraded naked through the city advertising a ‘hunky Jesus’ contest. Their motto is: ‘Go and sin some more.’
A spokesman for BBC Radio 4 said: “The strength of Sunday Worship is its diversity. It aims to reflect a variety of Christian spiritualities, and for that reason, when editorially appropriate – on average about once a quarter – comes from outside the UK.
“Taking the theme “Finding a place in the Christian narrative” this programme comes from the largest and oldest predominantly gay area in the world, from a Catholic community which has an experienced and developed understanding of the issues of being gay and Christian.
“As far as we know this is the first time the subject of being gay and Christian has been explored by the programme.”
The Roman Catholic Church holds that sex belongs in the context of heterosexual marriage and that gay sex is “objectively disordered”.
However, it also teaches that homosexual orientation is not in itself sinful and that gays and lesbians must be treated with respect and be free from unjust discrimination.
“Pope John” has spoken!
John
Where in holy tradition has it been said we cannot compliment Buddha and look to him in respect for what he did in a different time and different age? It doesn’t say that; in fact, the earliest comments on the Buddha by Christians were those of respect and praise (St Clement of Alexandria, Stromata).
Indeed, you will find, even in the 19th century edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia an article about Sts Barlaam and Josaphat. I suggest you read it. Holy tradition seems to include within itself great and profound respect for the Buddha after all.
Just like Holy tradition has respect for many great pagans (Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Job, Danel, Melchizedek, etc).
Would you have been one of the many people seeking to condemn St Thomas Aquinas in his day for “tampering with holy tradition,” by looking to Aristotle as a philosophical mentor? For the praise he gives to Aristotle, a pagan?
This disregard for the holy pagans is not from tradition. Holy tradition has always put them forward as great examples of humanity and to be worthy of respect.
John, I’m getting tired of your arguments. You sound like an fundamentalist evangelical picking out the worst “Catholic” sinners he can find and using them as “proof” that the Catholic Church is evil. I don’t care what they do in San Francisco, it doesn’t change the Truth that the Catholic Church proclaims. They will pay for their sins if they don’t repent. If you want to help clean up the corruption in the Church please do, otherwise get off your high horse.
Exactly, Brian.
Maybe John just feels the need to spew as much as possible before he gets the boot.
Are you guys still reading John’s posts? I stopped ages ago, and it was the best thing I’ve done in a long time.
The adminsitration of the Sacraments by SSPX priests is valid but illicit. The SSPX is in open defiance of the authority of the Pope, the Sucessor of Peter. That qualifies as schismatic in my book. I put the SSPX in the same realm as the Old Catholics that broke away from the Church and, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Anglicans before their Holy Orders became invalid.
Also, people shouldn’t be calling John a schismatic. he attends a lwful indult Mass. He is WAYYYYYYYYY out there in his dissent (and obnoxious in his criticisms of the Pope and the Church), but he is still in obediance. I liken this to a person who disagrees with the Church’s teaching on contraception (and gripes about it all the time), but, in obediance to the Church, does not use contraception.
My two cents worth.
Henry Karlson,
Thank you for your charitable and well-reasoned response to John.
I hope he takes the time to actually read what you have written, think about it and give his own response rather than to cut & paste something from some wacky website.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Tim B, that was a good description of John.
Monica, 🙂
Josh, yes, I agree with you.
Dan, that’s an interesting comment.
Someday, But that is reciprocal isn’t MK? ;) You don’t annoy me. What does annoy me is when some people here consistently belittle the ordinary, normative Mass.
Tim J, thanks!
Inocencio
Thanks. I did make one mistake in my haste. It is not the 19th century CE, it is the 1917. It just feels as if it belongs in the 19th century at times.
So let me take note
The spin doctors here have branded St Thomas an admirer and borderline pagan, Buddah should be worshipped, and that Gay masses are all OK as long as it is not in your church, but even then you would just probably go to the next mass anyway and care less
Instead bash and express your outrage over the so called “Traditionalists”!!
This is the most left leaning blog I have ever seen I must say
Also, people shouldn’t be calling John a schismatic. he attends a lwful indult Mass. He is WAYYYYYYYYY out there in his dissent (and obnoxious in his criticisms of the Pope and the Church), but he is still in obediance. I liken this to a person who disagrees with the Church’s teaching on contraception (and gripes about it all the time), but, in obediance to the Church, does not use contraception.
Tim Brandenburg–
With statements like:
I don’t need the formal title ‘schismatic’ to know that John is, in fact, one as evidenced by his statements.
As they say, the facts speak for themselves.
Furthermore, it is the very beliefs of an individual that is telling of that person and render him the person he is.
For example, our friend, ‘Realist’ (Bernard), attends Mass at a Catholic Church as well; now, does this, in fact, make him an obedient Catholic?
Those who know ‘Realist’ and have engaged him here can attest to the fact that the very ideas that ‘Realist’ carries and have frequently voiced out on the blog are FAR from being Catholic.
In fact, some folks in the clergy (e.g., liberal theologians) defy the Pope and hold very heretical ideas and, yet, perform actions that seem to be in accordance to Catholic observances and practices, but, by no means at all, are they actually obedient Catholics.
Esau,
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the issue of John. I think he’s an *sshole a lot of the time (sorry John… it’s just the way I see it), but I have to respect him for hanging tough and going to a lawful indult Mass, while his family members have deserted the Church for the schismatic SSPX.
Good grief… the world has come to a sad state of affairs… now I’m actually defending JOHN *grin*. Just remember, though, I’m not defending all the nonsense John spouts about V2, etc. I’m defending his personal choice to stay with the Church even though he obviously has MAJOR disagreements with it.
John,
The only “bashing” your receive is from your “own” comments and your constant banging of your head against the wall.
You simply refuse to have faith in Christ and His Bride the Church.
And remember you choose to read this blog no one makes you. It is only because of Jimmy’s patience and charity that your weren’t disinvited after being warned twice to give up your hobby horse.
The only person you have convinced that the Church has failed is yourself. Be careful or you will spend eternity with that thought.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John –
You have misquoted me; I did not make the statement you attributed to me.
So far as what I did say, you still have not responded to any of it, including my question about Unum Sanctum which I have now asked four times.
Esau,
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the issue of John. I think he’s an *sshole a lot of the time (sorry John… it’s just the way I see it), but I have to respect him for hanging tough and going to a lawful indult Mass, while his family members have deserted the Church for the schismatic SSPX.
Good grief… the world has come to a sad state of affairs… now I’m actually defending JOHN *grin*. Just remember, though, I’m not defending all the nonsense John spouts about V2, etc. I’m defending his personal choice to stay with the Church even though he obviously has MAJOR disagreements with it.
Tim Brandenburg:
I thank you for your sincerity and prompt response.
The reason though why I want to make certain that John is exposed for what he truly is is because, among other things (as those previously mentioned), he makes the real Traditionalists look bad.
In fact, contrary to John’s incredible prejudice against Protestants as well as Protestant converts, there are actually those of the latter who do attend Indult Masses and have the greatest respect for the traditions of the Catholic Church.
I just hope those who are not traditionalists do not mistake traditionalists as being the sort of ______ person John is.
God bless.
Instead bash and express your outrage over the so called “Traditionalists”!!
John, we are upset with all the abuses that you’re upset with (except, as Tim B. said: “all the nonsense John spouts about V2, etc). The reason we express outrage over Traditionalists is that they try to pull the Church apart from from the right while society is tearing it down from the left. The Traditionalists could be the biggest supporters the Church has, but too often they seek to create division rather than unity.
Example: Working to make the Tridentine Mass freely available and to end liturgical abuses of the sacraments helps to create unity. On the other hand, insinuating that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid (or as close to invalid as possible while still being valid) and that if one doesn’t go to a Tridentine Mass he’s less of a Catholic (if he’s really a Catholic at all) leads to division.
Esau,
I know what you mean. I don’t care for the worship experience at most parishes myself. That’s why I go to a JPII Anglican Use parish whenever possible. All the rubrics of the Tridentine Mass are used, the priest faces the altar, communion is received on the tongue while kneeling (paten under the chin), incense, bells, etc. However.. it’s in English so I know what the heck is going on (the best of both worlds IMHO).
It was a hard move for me to leave my old high-church Anglican parish and go to the modern Catholic Church. I have to gut it out because the Catholic Church is the church Chist established and the Pope is the successor to Peter, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it.
I even went to a Byzantine Catholic parish for a short while, but I just couldn’t get a grasp on Ukrainian and the Eucharist on the spoon dipped into the chalice was… different. It’s the Body and Blood of Christ, but the consistency is unpleasant to me.
I do wish Novus Ordo Catholic parishes would have Mass with all the old rubrics and in high-church style, if that is an option. Does anybody know if the Novus Ordo Mass permits use of the Tridentine rubrics? I haven’t seen it done , but I’ve only been to 4 “regular” parishes (other than the Pastoral Provision parish) here in the DFW area.
Dan:
I didn’t mean to suggest they were. By “independent” I meant the various sedevacantist chapels or other groups, not the SSPX. I know that the SSPX is not in a formal schism. However, they are in an irregular situation canonically, and I don’t know if it’s scruples or what, but that fact makes me uneasy. There is a schismatic mentality among some (but not all) SSPXers, though I do recognize that they have played a large role in us ever having a motu proprio at all. I sympathize with their positions, but I am more comfortable with the FSSP and ICKSP. It’s a little moot since I have never lived closer than 3 hours from an SSPX chapel, and I now live within 30 minutes of 3 indult TLMs on Sundays.
Tim,
Once again you might be of the opinion that the SSPX are schismatic,if this is your opinion then your opinion is incorrect.
Is it just his opinion that the head of the Ecclesia Dei Commision,His Eminence Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos who answers to the Holy Father,has repeatedly declared that the SSPX is NOT shismatic?
On this matter,I am sorry,but I will trust His Eminence truthful words over your,albeit good willed,opinion.
Josh,
You are one blessed man.Where do you live?
The only reason I assist at an SSPX church twice a month is because,firstly I am allowed by Rome to fullfil my Sunday obligation and secondly it is only an hour and a half drive from me.The closest Novus Ordo Catholic Church only has a Sunday'”communion service”,and occasionally a priest who hates the Church.
The other two Sundays we assist at the only indult mass in the state of North Carolina,about a two hour drive one way.Incidently on those 2 Sundays the SSPX priest offers the Sacrifice in Charlotte,which is three hours from us.
So I hope you can be sympathetic to these hinderances,and cut some people some slack.
We would love to live 30 minutes from even an EWTN mass.
God bless you and yours.
All I want to do is “Roll back” this nonsense that is going on. I attend my Indult here in NY (but I do have my children catechised elsewhere for obvious reasons).
Have you ever heard of the “half a loaf” theory of Conservatives or so called neo cons?
Take a look back some 40 or 50 years ago at what was considered “conservative”. Anti birthcontrol, anti pre marital sex, co habitation, modest dress, etc. The Catholic church and her mass and beliefs as the good father said somewhere up above on this thread all got thrown in the mix and “reformed” along with society
Now roll the clock ahead to today. Conservative today is no longer anti birth control, it is anti Abortion (Yes-many many church going catholics today believe in abortion), conservative catholics today believe in the prieshood should be for men not woman. Would that even be a discussion for topic 40 years ago, before Vatican II and the revolution? Contraception? Over 50%of married Catholics in supposed good standing in straight defiance use such. The mass-would one even ever think that we would see the Pope co-worship with false faiths some 50 years ago?
So the conservative is very happy when the liberal in the church or outside the church who wants their way and the conservative compromises and is left with his “half a loaf”, like a so called “reverent Novus Ordo” or a “orthodox parish or Bishop”. And the move just keeps sliding and sliding and sliding until what was so called “right wing” 50 years ago is not even on the table for discussion and what was to the left is now your right wing until the church and society are morally bankrupt
With respect to Protestants and schismatic orthodox, to be honest I have no issues with them as they at least in many ways are fire and brimstone and are Christians. But to sit there and say that because St Thomas read Aristotle that makes him a pagan or in kin with Buddah is rediculous and insane to even suggest a Doctor of the Church is to be compared to Cardinal Kasper or whomever who worship and give thanks to Buddah
So keep sitting here thinking you have something good while gay masses are being promulgated, Buddah worshipped, and so on.
Me, I want a rollback and will point out, write my letters and go with my Holy Name Society to whomever I need to in order to get my point across
John,
Your point is you don’t trust God only yourself.
You did not read or comprehend Henry Karlson’s post if you think he suggested St. Thomas Aquinas is a pagan. Your view is so skewed you can’t even understand or respond to basic facts.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
All I want to do is “Roll back” this nonsense that is going on. I attend my Indult here in NY (but I do have my children catechised elsewhere for obvious reasons).
No you don’t — you want it to be: “The Catholic Church as Rule by Pope John (jtnova@optline.net)”
However, as actual Pre-Vatican II Catechism teaches:
“Catholics should possess solid piety, a sound knowledge of the Catholic Faith, and unquestioning obedience to the Pope and the hierarchy.”
AND
“All members of the Church are under a strict obligation to obey her laws and regulations; DISOBEDIENCE to the Church IS disobedience to HIM Who authorized her rule, Jesus Christ, God.”
and finally:
“A church which at any time denies an apostolic doctrine, discards the sacrament of Holy Orders, or breaks away from obedience to the Pope, ceases to be apostolic.”
Again, my question to you is:
How is what you believe in ‘Traditional’?
You might want to consider attending Catechism courses with your kids, for that matter.
You don’t know your Pre-Vatican II Catechism at all!
What a FRAUD!
“This is the most left leaning blog I have ever seen I must say”
Wow… you really need to get out more.
“Conservative today is no longer anti birth control”
That’s rot. Submission and obedience to Humanae Vitae is a conservative earmark.
“I want a rollback and will point out, write my letters and go with my Holy Name Society to whomever I need to in order to get my point across”
Oh, you’ve made your point, John, and your posts are the most effective witness I have ever seen to the necessity of unity with and submission to the Roman Pontiff! Your commentary is the best anti Rad-Trad material one could wish for.
Esau
I answered your question already where I gave example after example of clear defections of Catholic teachings, before Vatican II which I hold dear to my heart and will not compromise on which have clearly been circumvented or totally ignored by the documents of Vatican II and the aftermath revolution. That is what separates me from you. I am a true Traditional and hold fast to the true teachings, not the fake ones because the Pontiff is not God and has limited powers and if I am taught that 2+2=4 in 1960 and then in 1970 I am now taught that I must believe that 2+2 = 5 just because some Pope tells me so-then my obedience is to what was taught earlier as that is how the church works. She is Organic and unchanging because the truth never changes
So go back and read my post
“I gave example after example of clear defections of Catholic teachings… which have clearly been circumvented or totally ignored by the documents of Vatican II and the aftermath revolution.”
Documents signed by Archbishop LeFebvre.
I answered your question already where I gave example after example of clear defections of Catholic teachings
John:
For one thing, those weren’t your examples, but items you copied on the SSPX website (word-for-word, format-by-format).
Now, answer the question:
How are your beliefs ‘Traditional’?
Also, you were confronted by several others here who’ve asked you several other questions that you keep failing/neglecting to answer, such as those posed by Shane and Brian.
Did you not even pay attention to what Tim J. and, just recently, even Tokyo Realist above mentioned?
That LeFebvre, your “Hero”, was a co-signer of the Vatican II documents?
John,
You choose to have no faith in God and the Church He established with His authority.
The worst part is you are teaching your children, by your example, that they decide who has authority and not God.
Do not be shocked when they reject your authority as well.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John
Is the Dies Irae Catholic, or heretical for being too pro pagan? After all, it points out that the Sibyls with David predicted the wrath to come.
Is the Sistine Chapel Catholic, or heretical for being too pro pagan? Ever look to see who is represented on it?
Let me know.
Henry Karlson,
You have to give John time to google those phrases and SSPX to see what “he” thinks.
I do hope he at least attempts to answer your questions.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John,
Food for thought:
“…if anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous concerning this sacrament or other matters, I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life.”
St. Thomas Aquinas on his deathbed
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Dan,
I’ll see your Cardinal and raise you a Pope!
According to Ecclesia Dei, the actions of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre were schismatic.
“In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience – which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy – constitutes a schismatic act.”
“The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition.”
I know you SSPX people try to play it down, but the actions of Lefebvre WERE schismatic and he got excommunicated over it:
“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.”
Plus, if you fornally adhere to the schism of SSPX YOU are exommunicated.
“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.”
SSPX is a schismatic movement because… the POPE said so!
Dan,
I’m fine with others who choose to go the SSPX route (not that my opinion matters that much! 🙂 ) – even though the SSPX is in an irregular situation, it’s certainly not the same thing as a schismatic/sedevacantist chapel. Though I don’t feel comfortable attending, I can’t sit in judgment of those who make the prudential decision to do so, and especially when they have to suffer through banal liturgy and dissident priests at the NO parish.
I live in Alexandria, VA – I’m looking at it now, and 30 minutes is a bit of an exaggeration for the 3 I’m thinking of. There’s one TLM just outside of Alexandria in Franconia, and one in Washington in Chinatown. The third is closer to an hour away. There’s one other in my diocese and several in Maryland. I’m from Birmingham, AL – finding the TLM wasn’t such a big deal for me there since the Cathedral liturgy was a reverent one with beautiful music, and EWTN was just down the road. Of course, had I gone looking, I’d be disappointed if I wanted one in communion with Rome! I think the closest SSPX chapel was in Atlanta – about 3 hours.
God bless you and your family.
Though I don’t feel comfortable attending, I can’t sit in judgment of those who make the prudential decision to do so, and especially when they have to suffer through banal liturgy and dissident priests at the NO parish.
Josh,
Are you saying then that because there are dissident priests at the NO parish, it’s all right for laity to be equally dissident?
Not to mention, the fact that there are SSPX priests who are equally dissident as well.
Esau:
No, I’m just saying that 1) the SSPX situation is not as clear as really anyone thinks; 2) I am assuming that the NO priest is dissident in that he is teaching contrary to the Catholic Faith, and that there are some, especially parents, who would rather attend the SSPX and deal with the irregular situation in order to receive genuine Catholic doctrine than attend within diocesan structures and be fed spiritual poison; and 3) I can’t judge someone in that situation. I am fully aware that some of the SSPX’s priests are dissident and truly schismatic; they are the ones who, if the SSPX is ever fully regularized, will probably leave and become sedevacantists rather than “submit to conciliar Rome.” I am also assuming that avoiding a priest like this is part of the prudential decision-making process.
As I have said, I cannot judge another Catholic who makes the prudential decision to attend the SSPX’s chapels, since the SSPX is not formally schismatic. I myself am not comfortable doing so because of their irregular situation. However, as pertains to other groups that are totally independent of the Church’s structure and sedevacantist chapels, there is, in my estimation, no valid reason to attend Mass at these kinds of chapels. They are formally schismatic, and participating in their liturgies, even if the most magnificent and orthodox Tridentine rite ever performed, is seriously sinful.
God bless.
Josh Hood,
Thank you for your honest, detailed response.
I just required clarification as dissidence can occur on both sides of the fence, be it TLM or the Novus Ordo Missae.
God Bless You, too.
Tim,
And yet again.His Eminence Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos,who is exceedingly more knowledgable than you on this issue has declared on several occasions that attendance at an SSPX church fullfils ones Sunday obligation and he also said that,”THE BISHOPS PRIESTS AND FAITHFUL OF THE SSPX ARE NOT SCHISMATIC”.It may just be that you think His Eminence is a liar.I happen not to because His Eminence and the Supreme Pontiff His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI are in complete agreement on this subject.
God bless you and yours.
Dan Hunter,
More knowledgable than us or not a cardinal does not change the declaration of the pope.
Please provide documentation for your quote:
“THE BISHOPS PRIESTS AND FAITHFUL OF THE SSPX ARE NOT SCHISMATIC”
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Ahh, so many here so willing to talk about the great Archbishop who signed those documents because like so many his heart was torn. But his conscience soon took over and he saw he was buying into something heretical and contrary to catholic teaching.
Where is your guts? Why would not you be calling for the resignation of Mahoney? Niderhouse? Cardinal Law whom you all here defend!! But instead you take out your anger on Traditionalists who are what the Catholic church ONCE was before she reformed. Was she wrong before Vatican II? Is she wrong how? Which is it?
I was always taught that when in doubt regarding faith, go back to the roots as they are closest to Jesus, the source and the Apostles. Not forward where the church decided to appease modern man and teach “Ecumenism” and “Religious Freedom” is A OK. Where is the “Apostolic” there in the 4 marks of the One True Church if she no longer believes in Conversion and all faiths are equal as we now congratulate, from the Vatican Buddhists on their feast day!
The Archbishop will be cannonized down the road because he took a stand. Much like the little Administrative Assistant at Enron who knew something was wrong and was a whistleblower and took down a CEO, a CFO and those much mightier than her, the church of Vatican II is built on a deck of cards with no foundation and people have access to media of all sorts including SSPX websites who are expose this horror that is being sold off today as Catholic. And when the house of cards crumble………
John,
It is very apparent you were taught wrong and your constant babbling only reinforces that fact.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I was always taught that when in doubt regarding faith, go back to the roots as they are closest to Jesus, the source and the Apostles
WoW, the very same thing Protestants believe, which is why they broke off from the Church in the first place!
Where is the “Apostolic” there in the 4 marks of the One True Church
Clearly, you did not learn what “Apostolic” means from your so-called Pre-Vatican II ‘Catechism’.
(hint: it didn’t mean that John (jtnova@optline.net) becomes the Pope of the Catholic Church)
Why is the Catholic Church apostolic?
The Catholic Church is apostolic because it was founded by Christ on the Apostles, and, according to His divine will, has always been governed by their lawful successors.
Benedict XVI, our present Pope, is the direct successor of St. Peter. He is the lawful successor of the Pope who preceded him; and thus each Pope lawfully succeeded the one before him, until we reach St. Peter, the first Pope, chosen by Christ Himself.
Much like the little Administrative Assistant at Enron who knew something was wrong and was a whistleblower and took down a CEO, a CFO and those much mightier than her, the church of Vatican II is built on a deck of cards with no foundation
The Church is a Divine Institution founded by Christ — not a Corporation!
The fact that you think of the Church as such speaks volumes of your heresy!
You guys are only pushing John further and further away from the Church with all this wrangling. The best thing to do is to ban him, or failing that ignore him completely. At least that way you won’t be aggravating his condition.
“Ahh, so many here so willing to talk about the great Archbishop…”
Two is “so many”? And I have never said any more about him except to point out that he, Archbishop LeFebvre, indeed signed the documents of Vatican II.
“who signed those documents because like so many his heart was torn.”
I’m glad you are so understanding and compassionate regarding the Archbishop’s inner struggle. You might try extending the same charity to others in the same position. Seems like if the Vatican II documents were REALLY heretical, that might have been a GOOD TIME to speak up. But that’s just me.
“But his conscience soon took over and he saw he was buying into something heretical and contrary to catholic teaching”
He didn’t manage to see it during the whole time the council was going on? Rejecting Papal authority is the real heresy.
“Was she wrong before Vatican II? Is she wrong how? Which is it?”
That is a false choice. She was right, and remains right. YOU are in error when you assert that the protection of the Holy Spirit over the teaching of the Church somehow FAILED at Vatican II.
You are spreading heresy.
“You guys are only pushing John further and further away from the Church…”
No, he is doing that himself. When he posts his bitter diatribes against the Pope, he will be rebuked as long as I have two good index fingers (I never did learn to type properly). I agree he should be banned.
Sorry, that was me.
John,
I would love to see Archbishop Lefebrve canonized, as that would mean one more soul enjoying the beatific vision.
However, if he is to be canonized, who is going to do it? The same authority of the infallible pope and Church that you seem reject as having gone into apostasy or something?
I really have been praying for you and this whole discussion a lot these past few days; I want to see everyone here, not the least whom yourself, in eternal glory. I really care, my friend… look at your arguments for a moment… they aren’t even consistent… isn’t that a problem? 🙁
Tim, whoever said we may be pushing John away from the Church is correct, at least in principle. Rebuking is important, especially in a public setting where scandal or confusion could arise, but there comes a point when saying anything further won’t help any observers and will only push the individual further away. At a certain point, the best thing to do is put them totally in the hands of Christ and His Mother and back off. That’s why Scripture tells us to argue with a fool less he think himself wise, but also not to argue with one. It’s why we’ve got excommunications.
I have no idea if that point has been reached, but I do think its important to recognize that at a certain point we are responsible for trying to take things into our own hands, rather than letting God do it His way, and causing a lot more harm then good. I firmly believe we will answer for this, as well.
Shane –
I agree, but many of his comments seem to me just too wrong-headed and spiritually dangerous to leave hanging out there. I’m always surprised at how many people lurk here regularly and seldom – if ever – post.
I understand at some point it may become useless or even counter-productive, but I can’t stand the thought of anyone taking his posts at face-value and being led into serious error, or even sin.
As for John, himself, I don’t think anything said here has the slightest effect at all. He is impervious to reason. I’ve extended him a palm-branch a couple of times, only to have him back slandering Christ’s Vicar on Earth and sowing discord among the bretheren the next day.
I’m glad he’s attending the Indult Mass… I don’t have that opportunity. Maybe soon, though!
Innocencio,
Look for the Brian Mershon article from Renew America,April 10,2007.
Brian quotes from Catholic journalist Simone Ortolani a published interview with His Eminence Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos on the Nihil Obstat Catholic website.The following is a quote from the head of The Ecclesia Dei Commision, His Eminence Cardinal Hoyos:”Please accept that I reject the term,”ecumenism ad intra”,the BISHOPS,PRIESTS,AND FAITHFUL OF THE SOCIETY OF ST.PIUS X ARE NOT SCHISMATICS.It is Archbishop Lefebvre who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act.”
Thank you Inocencio and God bless you my good sir.
Dan Hunter,
You must realize that the documents published with the authority of the pope decide the matter and not the opinion of the cardinal in an interview.
As has been quoted many times before:
3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience – which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy – constitutes a schismatic act.(3) 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. Ecclesia Dei
The five named clerics incurred excommunication because of their schismatic act. End of story. Archbishop Lefebvre had a long history of canonical warnings and sanctions before Pope John Paul II as the supreme legislator of the Church publicly declared they incurred the penalty by their act.
As for participating in Masses celebrated by the SSPX:
2. The Masses they celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2). The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called “Tridentine” Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses. PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO ECCLESIA DEI N. 117/95
It is morally illicit to participate unless physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass by a Catholic priest in good standing. I would suggest you reconsider your participation.
As for the history and documentation of Archbishop Lefebvre canonical status and sanctions please go here.
Thank you for your giving me the documentation of your quotation. I hope and pray you will read over the actual and authoritative documents regarding the status of the SSPX. Everyone should heed the recommendation of the Ecclesia Dei Commission:
“Hence we cannot encourage your participation in the Masses, the sacraments or other services conducted under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.” N. 117/95 #3
And consider the words of Pope Pius X:
“Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her… But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments…, then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone.” (Eph. 2:20) May 10, 1909
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
When the changes of Vatican II were implemented, Catholics had very little access to what was going on. I recall there was a note in our bulletin that there would be some “changes” to the mass mostly in English. Hey, why not.
What we got was something we could never have imagined but in 1970 or so with no access to the internet or anything we went along with it. For the most part V2 was something nobody even paid attention to. There was an article in life magazine saying that there would be some changes, but who could imagine what would have taken place over these 40 odd years
But we figured not knowing or even care to know what was in Trent or encyclicals of past popes or councils that this was all good.
But then something just felt wrong as my mother and family and friends started to realize. Many stopped attending, some searched for another church, some went over to the Protestant church’s, and so on (as droves of Hispanics are doing now by the way).
I grew up with the new mass and catechism and learned very little I must admit. Until I was much older I heard about a church that offered a “Traditional Latin Mass” before the changes. I had forgot all about the changes as by now I had taken them for face value.
Boy when I went to the TLM it was like the Holy Ghost came into me. I immediately asked the nuns to re-catechise me and I pursued a vocation, though never completed
I was able to obtain documents and readings of the contradictions. 40 years ago one could not even read what was in those 16 documents, what was taking place with regards to the Ottavani Intervention to the new mass and now Cardinals on down had severe reservations about what I was brainwashed with by femi-nuns who were bent on saying mass themselves some day and strummin that guitar in the sacresty next to good old “father Jim” as he was now called by his first name (no longer with any respect we were told, he was now “one of us”).
Even 10 years ago one could not find the resources available but with the internet you can go to any website or blog including SSPX who speak the truth, because they are using documents that can be found right in the Vatican archives which also can be obtained by the internet. .So there is no lie here, at least on the laity as we are becoming educated and refuse to be brainwashed into thinking that a pope after Vatican II who is infallible regarding faith and morals, but CAN NOT change or redefine already infallibly taught teachings on the same can now for example tell us that “Ecumenism is the cornerstone of his pontificate” as JPII said and did over and over-while pope after Pope REFUSED to even dabble there and infallibly taught that it was sinful to even participate in such events, but here you have the pope worshipping with Buddah and Hindus!
So I go back to the roots of Pius IX, X, Leo XIII as what they say makes sense to me as well, as it is harmful to dabble in these faiths, when the purpose of the Catholic faith on earth is the end means to salvation, we are telling our kids that we should respect Buddah and Hindus and even worship with them the best analogy would be to tell them that they can dabble in illegal drugs here and there but be careful not to get hooked
NOT CATHOLIC and people are realizing this fast and unless a rollback takes place the deck of cards the Vatican II church is built on (it has NO FOUNDATION because it rejects everything BEFORE Vatican II itself!! as the Bishops and Cardinals admit themselves!! as evidenced by their hatred of the indult and this long drawn out MP)So the deck of cards will fall….Just when?
John,
Your hobby horse is only fun for you. You get angry because you have no authority to declare what is and isn’t Catholic. You have the same mindset as Martin Luther. You know it and we know it.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio,
You have called Pope Benedict and Cardinal Hoyos both liars.For I have it in writing from Msgr Perl at Ecclesia Dei that they are both in agreement that as Msgr.Perl wrote to me in response to this same issue,”Put your mind at ease,You are allowed in good concience to fulfill your Sunday obligation at a chapel of the Society of Pope St.Pius X if done out of devotion towards the Classical Rite and not out of animosity towards the Ordo Missae”.
Inocencio, Msgr Perl Went on to inform me,because I had inquired specifically if this was also the mindset of the Holy Father, The Msgr responded,”This attendance at a Society Chapel when partaken of with a reverent and loyal heart to Church Tradition is also approved by The Holy Father”.
I made a point,before I assisted at the SSPX church of asking Rome if I could go to church there.The Ecclesia Dei commision were kind enough to respond and put our minds at ease.
Do not contradict His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.
God bless you,my kind sir.
Blessed are ye when they shall revile you and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. (Matthew 5:11-12/DRV)
Dont worry Dan, this is clear and can be found on the Vatican archives that SSPX not only fullfills the Sunday obligation but is not schismatic but in communion with Rome. These Trad haters here dont even know their faith but they are so quick and full of hatred for anyone who holds fast to the teachings because in their guise of “obedience” they themselves truly love the what is taking place today in the church with gay masses, pedophilia, buddhist worship and confusion everywhere instead of one ship established by Christ for one means and one means only and that is for salvation
Vatican Admits Society of Saint Pius X Masses Fulfill Sunday Obligation
On September 27, 2002 , the Vatican’s Ecclesia Dei Commission, in response to questions regarding 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”.
John…. The source you cited proves my point about SSPX. “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.” However, this statement does nothing to take away the language of Ecclesia Dei: “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.”
If a person goes to a SSPX parish “for the sake of devotion” it is not a sin. If a person goes to a SSPX parish to “foramlly adhere” to the schimatic act of Lefebvre, then it is a sin. There is a difference.
The motivations of a parishioner are known to God alone, so we cannot judge who is in sin and who isn’t unless the parishioner says I formally adhere to the schismatic act of Lefebvre (and even then, the parishioner may not truly understand what he/she is saying, so in that case God wouldn’t impute that as sin). However, either way it is playing with fire.
I’ll be glad when SSPX finally submits to the authority of Rome. I understand negotiations are under way and that the new Motu Propio is the first step in the process. I imagine the SSPX will be set up as personal use parishes like the former Anglicans have under JP II’s Pastoral Provision. That way they keep all their liturgy, etc., but formaly submit to the Pontiff.
However, if SSPX insists on a “rollback” there will be no reunion. The question is… will SSPX come back under terms the Vatican is willing to live with?
John, why do you submit to the Church’s authority on the matter of the SSPX but not on the matters we have been discussing here? It is the same authority. Your actions are hypocritical at worst, inconsistent at best.
Either way, you accept the Church’s authority when you agree with Her, and reject it when you do not, both on matters of doctrine and discipline. When the Church says Jesus is God, you agree, when She says some who are not Catholic may be saved, you disagree. When She says (allegedly) that the SSPX is not in schism, you assent, when She says that Archbishop Lefebvre has excommunicated himself, you do not. There is a word for this, and that word is “Protestant.”
I am not persecuting you, and I am not reviling you, but John I am extremely concerned for your soul. Boniface VIII taught that a person who knowingly rejects the authority of the reigning Pontiff cannot be saved. Countless saints have spoken even more harshly on the matter. Jesus Himself showed sincere compassion and hope for everyone except the hyporcrites, over whom He lamented, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”
John, you have been radically inconsistent in what you have said, and you have utterly ignored countless factual points that have been presented against you. Mr. Hunter is responding by trying to dissprove the arguments being made against his position with facts. Please either do the same or acknowledge that you cannot and return to the Church of God. Your soul depends on it.
And if you really, truly believe what you are saying, please, for the sake of your soul, stop talking to us, because the “pre-Vatican II” Church to which you adhere prohibited discussing matters of faith with people such as us by canon law.
“…here you have the pope worshipping with Buddah and Hindus!”
That is a lie, like so much of your other “evidence”.
Tim posted:
“If a person goes to a SSPX parish “for the sake of devotion” it is not a sin. If a person goes to a SSPX parish to “foramlly adhere” to the schimatic act of Lefebvre, then it is a sin. There is a difference.”
That makes no sense, no one is going to church to “formally adhere to a schismatic act of an Archbishop”.
Like so much of what you and others say, splitting hairs you cant refute that going to SSPX does fullfill ones obligation and you cant refute any of the contradictions of Vatican II with clear and concise past church teachings
Lets get to the root, the end means which is salvation
The Fourth Lateran Council taught very clearly that
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved.”
But then you have in the degree on Ecumenism:
“Although these (Eastern schismatic) churches are separated from us, they possess true sacraments, above all — by apostolic succession — the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in a very close relationship. Therefore, given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, some worship in common is not merely possible but it is recommended.”
Continued
“To remove any shadow of doubt, then, this sacred Synod solemnly declares that the (schismatic) churches of the East, while keeping in mind the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to their own disciplines, since these are better suited to the temperament of their faithful and better adapted to foster the good of souls. Although it has not always been honored, the strict observance of this traditional principle is among the prerequisites for any restoration of unity.”
Can you imagine, a council recommending those who are schismatic to remain that way and that they are better suited to do so, and that Catholics are encouraged to worship with them!!
Then further this Decree states:
“Therefore, if the influence of events or of the times has led to deficiencies in conduct, in Church discipline, or even in the formulation of doctrine (which must be carefully distinguished from the deposit itself of faith), these should be appropriately rectified at the proper moment”
A council actually saying that the church erred in formulation of conduct, in discipline or doctrine!!
Please explain the above contradictions please?
Shane posted:
“I am not persecuting you, and I am not reviling you, but John I am extremely concerned for your soul. Boniface VIII taught that a person who knowingly rejects the authority of the reigning Pontiff cannot be saved.”
Shane I am concerned for your soul as well, as I just posted above, Vatican II now teaches that Protestants can be saved, there is salvation outside of the church and that Schismatic Orthodox should remain that way
So which is it Shane? This is in clear contradiction to what Boniface taught as you pointed out as well as an infallible council
So is Vatican II flawed or is all prior church teachings
I have to vote Vatican II is flawed and you should now see that as well
John,
You are silly and still have no authority. I pity you, really I do.
Dan Hunter,
You said: “You have called Pope Benedict and Cardinal Hoyos both liars”
Please point to my statement that called them liars or retract your accusation. Now.
Please post your documentation that you personally have permission to participate at SSPX Masses or retract your statement.
I look forward to your response.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Dan Hunter,
Please also admit that the five named clerics incurred excommunication by their schismatic act as declared publicly by Pope John Paul II.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John,
You have still ignored my question about Bonficae VIII for the 5th or 6th time now. Please, I beg you to consider what I asked. You also ignored my question about who would canonize Archibishop Lefebvre.
Do you acknowledge that you are rejecting the authority and accepting the authority of the very same persons depending upon what statement it is that they are making?
Please, read what we’re saying! You’re in an extremely dangerous spiritual position and it worries me a lot. If you can’t answer the questions we’ve asked, at least read the words of some of the favorites of the Traditionalists:
I already explained to you why from pre Vatican II teachings Protestants could be saved. This is probably the very reason that Pius X stated that non-Catholics may be able to be saved:
“It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance,are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries ofsuch ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors?
He was even more explicit when he said,
” A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without
perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside
without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love
called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the
Church, that is, to the soul of the Church.”
Pius IX was as explicit as one can be, saying,
“We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance
with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the
natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they
are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can
attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace. For God, Who
reads comprehensively in every detail the minds and souls, the thoughts and
habits of all men, will not permit, in accordance with His infinite goodness
and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal
torments (suppliciis).
However, also well-known is the Catholic dogma that no one can be
saved outside the Catholic Church, and that those who obstinately oppose the
authority and definitions of the church, and who stubbornly remain separated
form the unity of the Church and from the successor of Peter, the Roman
Pontiff (to whom the Savior has entrusted the care of His vineyard), cannot
attain salvation.”
Note that he says that it is “well-known” that those who are invincibly ignorant can obtain salvation. Those who reamin outside of the Church out of obstinance cannot be saved, he says, but those who do not know they are doing wrong can be.
Inocencio,
You have to wake up you .I posted the quotes from His Excellency above,telling me that I have permission to assist at an SSPX church,and that it fullfils our Sunday obligation.If you are unwilling to acknowledge this truth than I can only commit you to God and pray for your soul.
Not only have I been told in writing by Vatican officials that we are allowed to assist at SSPX churches,but I also have been told, face to face by priests of the FSSP,Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest,My Diocesan Bishop in Raleigh NC,His Excellency Bishop Burbidge and our parish indult priest that we are allowed to fullfil our Sunday obligation at an SSPX church
But I suppose they are all troglodyte liars and to a man have no clue.You are also not placing any trust in me your fellow brother in Christ.
I love Christ and our dear Church and I would never lie to anyone about the truth.
Inocencio,you had better watch your toungue when accusing someone who zealously loves the Triune Godhead and His Church,of not recieving permission to adore Him correctly.
e-mail me and we shall discuss this personally like two men.
God bless you and yours.
Inocencio,
Come to think of it,someone like you,who has his own childish agenda is not going to even believe a letter I recieved fro the Ecclesia Dei commision in Rome.I have quoted from that letter,QUOTED THAT MEANS DOCUMENTATION…forget it,I worship Satan and frogs ilike to light road flares and place them in a pentagram stylus and dance naked around pictures of Honda minibikes.
Now you know the truth anyone one who loves the Tridentine mass is Gehenna bound we all adore the Black Prince.
You now what? I would love to kick the shit out of you.
Email me you son of a bitch.
SATAN RULES.
Yep this is Traditionalist true colors.but you already knew that you filthy cockwalloper.
Was your letter like this one?
http://www.unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm
Calm down,
That is a Da Rulz violation.
Take that post down.
Over the top
Dan: Watch the language, dude. You can make your point without that.
Also, you can make your point without the vitriol that seemed to inspire the foul language. I’d hate to see you back-sliding to the days when you threatened to box everyone who disagreed. How ’bout showing a little dignity?
Dan just showed how the False Right seems to be all very holy. But in the privacy (and sometimes public) solitude, they are as or worst than the left in morality.
What a dirty mouth.
Again,a typical false rightist.
I understand sarcasm
but how could anyone joke or even state for whatever reason even sarcasm
“Gehenna bound”
“adore the black prince”
“Satan rules”
and threaten to beat people up
Your postings seem either emotional or spiritually disturbed or both
Dan, are you aware that you closed one post with your usual “God bless you and yours” and the next with “you filthy cockwalloper”?
From now on, why not close with “God Bless you and yours, you filthy cockwalloper.”?
That might give people a better idea of where you’re coming from.
God bless you. I will remember you in my prayer intentions tonight.
I Wuv WOO
I WUV WOO
I WUV WOO
IF THE PASTOR WANTS TO TAKE PEWS FROM ONE CHURCH AND PUT THEM IN ANOTHER AND BOTH CHURCHES ARE UNDER HIS JURISDICTION THEN HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO THE PEWS
MY GRANPAPPY INVENTED THINGS
Dan Hunter,
Not that I expect anything but more juvenile behavior from you.
You have “claimed” to “quote” a “letter” you have received and some personal conversations. You haven’t provided any documentation other than how to search for the interview of the cardinal.
You haven’t shown where I called Pope Benedict or anyone else a liar.
Then true to form you have degraded yourself, again as always. You and John have my pity and my prayers. If this is the type of behavior and language attending the SSPX Tridentine Rite causes in you I again recommend reconsidering your participation.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio,
My behavior is no reflection on the SSPX.
They are a gentle Christ loving society that the faithful are allowed to assist at to fulfill their Sunday obligation.I on the other hand am mentally retarded and have been for for many years before attending mass at the society church’s.It began when I was a seven year old altar boy serving mass in 1972 at a novus ordo church.So I suppose by your logic that this mass engendered”my type of behavior and language”,and you would recommend my reconsideration of my participation in the novus ordo church.
Just because I am demonic does not mean that anything I come into contact with adopts Satanism.
You did not actually state that that Pope Benedict,”is a liar”,verbatim,but you denied the fact that Msgr Perl wrote to me in response to a letter of inquiry which I sent to the Ecclesia Dei Congregation,that His Holiness is in agreement with Carinal Castrillon Hoyos when His Eminence directly informed me that attendance at an SSPX church fulfills one Sunday obligation.
Again,because you cannot get it through you skull,Right in front of me is this letter and I will again quote the relevant portion,”This attendance at a Society chapel,when partaken of with a reverent and loyal heart to Church Tradition is also approved by the Holy Father”.
Now,Inocencio if you think that these words are a forgery or you think that Msgr Perl who is the secretary of Ecclesia Dei,is talking out his ear than you are denying the truth of this letter and therefore calling His Holiness a liar since it says right here, in front of me with the official Vatican stamp on the letterhead that the Holy Father approve’s of fullfilling ones Sunday obligation at an SSPX church.
If you deny this than you deny reality and cast doubt on what Pope Benedict is saying.And guess what my fine little goomba,you are calling His Holiness a liar.You also call me a liar when you doubt that I had those conversations with the various men of the cloth,well doubting Thomas please call the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest,Chicago Illinois and ask any priest there if the Faithful are allowed to fulfill their Sunday obligation at an SSPX church and they will to a man respond in the affirmative.Call the FSSP at any of their locations and ask to speak with any priest and he will tell you that the faithful are allowed to fulfill their Sunday obligation at an SSPX church.
Here is an e-mail address of a personal friend at ICKSP who informed me,but maybe he lies, that I can go to mass at a society chapel in good conscience and fullfil my Sunday obligation,it is;Father.Hellmann@institute-Christ-King.org.
Please contact him and ask him,but you will of course think that he is not telling the truth.
I will pray for you.
Dan Hunter,
Anyone who would use such vulgar langauge while at the same time pretending to be so knowledgeable about the status of the SSPX should expect not to believed.
Every letter I have read and quoted says it is not recommended to attend SSPX masses and even the article you did quote stated:
Of course, Msgr. Perl has always emphasized that the PCED does not, and cannot, encourage long-term attendance at SSPX chapels due to what it calls the danger of potential schism, as Cardinal Castrillón emphasized as his fear in his two most recent interviews.
I have made the same recommendation to you and you have responded with threats and offensive language.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Are we sure that the Dan Hunter who posted at:
Posted by: Dan Hunter | Apr 29, 2007 10:33:32 AM
is not an imposter? I’ve never seen such a 180 in 20 minutes.
I could be wrong, but please folks don’t forget that anyone can impersonate anyone on this blog.
This is Smoky Mountain, just making the point that anyone can impersonate anyone on this blog.
“anyone can impersonate anyone on this blog”
That’s true. For that and other reasons, I think it would be best not to respond to Dan’s posts.
Inocencio,
Since you are such a dullard and chubby buffoon.
I will spell it out for you v e r y s l o w l y.
Call the ICKSP or the FSSP and they will both tell you what I have told you:The faithful are allowed to fulfill their Sunday obligations at an SSPX church.
Since you are so incredibly insecure in your masculinity and won’t contact me.CALL THE ABOVE CHURCH APROVED INSTITUTIONS AND ASK THEM THIS QUESTION.
You are aparently very,very afraid of even your own shadow so I realize this might be hard for you,but I’m pullin for you hackey sack…you can do it…come on fluffy …come on…come on..
E-mail me your number,I have already posted mine.
Come on if ya gots da sand fluffy.
Yours truly,
Dans Imposter,Mephastopholes
Actually, Smoky, these 180s are SOP for the aforementioned.
Smoky Mountain,
Dan Hunter is well-known on this and other blogs. He starts out talking about peace and prayer and ends with threats and vile language. He does not do well with reality and facts.
Pretty soon he will ask for us to forget his behavior and move on.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Smoky Mountain,
I forgot to mention that Jimmy Akin can and has verified impersonation by their ISP address and has warned and banned people for it.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I forgot to mention that Jimmy Akin can and has verified impersonation by their ISP address and has warned and banned people for it.
Do you mean “IP address”? That still isn’t a sure way to defend impersonation — for it could provide a false positive. That is, most home internet users won’t have a static IP address…they’ll get assigned a temporary IP from their ISP. So, when I post tomorrow, I may have a different IP address than when I post today.
A good way to ensure that we are who we say we are is to force us to create a password-protected account before we can post comments.
Smoky Mountain,
Yes, I meant IP address. I agree with you suggestion about the password. That is where Jimmy Akin has said he starts and has other ways after that if it is a problem.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Still waiting for you Thomas.
Dan Hunter,
And I am still praying for you.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Smoky Mountain, as Bill mentioned, this is not the first time Dan has done this on this blog. (I don’t know about other blogs.)
Dan, this won’t be a surprise to readers here that you come across as a person with some anger issues. In its initial situation, anger has a protective function, but if not addressed shows up at where it doesn’t belong.
I don’t know the initial situation, but I do see you coming across with anger way outside the regular amount. You’re an intelligent person and I’m sure God will provide a way to address it.
So much for being awake this morning. I meant to add Ephesians 4:26 which says “do not sin in your anger.” It doesn’t say anger in itself is bad, but not to sin because of it.
Shane posted:
“John,
You have still ignored my question about Bonficae VIII for the 5th or 6th time now. Please, I beg you to consider what I asked. You also ignored my question about who would canonize Archibishop Lefebvre.
Do you acknowledge that you are rejecting the authority and accepting the authority of the very same persons depending upon what statement it is that they are making? ”
Shane-So I am not accussed of not answering your question-I will anwer this very…very…slowly to you
I understand what Boniface said
I understand what Vatian I has taught later about the Pope, his infallibility as well as his limitations (he is NOT allowed to change or alter already defined infallibe church dogma or teachings and only allowed to CLARIFY items pertaining to faith and morals
I then know what the 4th Lateran council teaches regarding as far as salvation outside of the church as well as all other Popes
I then now read “The Decree on Ecuenism” who applauds schismatic orthodox for being outside of the church and states that Protestants can indeed be saved and they REJECT the Pope
So being a Professional Engineer by Trade, and knowing how to solve problems and use deductive reasoning, I have formulated that:
Boniface was correct and I must follow the pope, which I do
I must follow the pope when he is not redefining already defined dogma (which ecumenism has already been defined as evil and to be avoided and there is indeed no salvation outside of the church)
Then comes Vatican II and JPII who now teach that these false faiths can be saved even those that reject Jesus (Jews) which is not only against church teachings but scripture. I will not believe or follow this because it has already been defined by Popes earlier so I am indeed in line with the church and her teachings
If for some reason I am not following the pope and was a sedevacantist-One could also easily apply Vatican II and its decree to them as they are not under the jurisdiction of the Pope, the same for the Orthodox and now Vatican II teaches they can be saved
So did I answer your question
Now please answer mine??
Inocencio,
Since you apparently think that I have some motivation for lying about an official letter that I actually recieved from Ecclesia Dei,or maybe it was from Eclairs and Daisys,I might have misread the letter head,how about if you give me some address where I can send a copy of this letter which clearly states that the faithful are allowed with no penalty of sin to fulfill their Sunday obligations at an SSPX church.
I am not lying to you at all!
Please call the Fraternal Societies aforementioned and they will coraborate these claims.
I am sorry that you hate this reality so much but it is a fact affirmed by Holy Church.
I realize that I am retarded but this I know as sure as there is only one true Church.
We are allowed to fulfill our Sunday obligations at a SSPX church.
If you can show me where His Eminence did not say that that we can fulfill our Sunday obligations at an SSPX church and thereby nullifying his previous statement I will most assuredly pay attention.
Please do not try to do harm to anyones faith.
God bless you.
Mary Kay,Thank you and God bless you as well.
Dan Hunter,
I never said attending SSPX Mass would not fulfill your Sunday obligation. I, like Msgr. Perl, Cardinal Castrillon and the PCED, do not and cannot recommend your attending SSPX Masses.
As the article you quoted stated:
Of course, Msgr. Perl has always emphasized that the PCED does not, and cannot, encourage long-term attendance at SSPX chapels due to what it calls the danger of potential schism, as Cardinal Castrillón emphasized as his fear in his two most recent interviews.
Do you use the same threats and vile language in your correspondence with them?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John,
The problem with what you say is that Boniface VIII did not say one only needs to be subject to the Pontiff when he agrees with him, but merely that one needs to be subject to the Pontiff.
The other problem is that there are limitations to the infallibility of the pope, namely, he isn’t infallible outside of very specific circumstances. You are quoting popes as contradicting the Second Vatican Council, and although I would suggest that your interpretations of the Council are extremely skewed (and you have not been open to listening to people tell you what the Council actually meant or said), none of these popes were infallible in these statements, yet you nevertheless hold it up as something that we must be bound to.
So I must ask you, how can you not be a sedevacantist and be consistent? If you believe that an everyday, non-infallible statement of Pius X is binding, and you believe that John Paul II or Benedict XVI are valid Pontiffs, then why do you not also regard their everyday, non-infallible statements as binding?
The other problem with what you are doing is you are taking it upon yourself to be able to correctly ascertain when a pope is contradicting previous teachings (assuming that it is even possible). As I have shown, previous popes, including Pius IX and Pius X, taught the same things that you condemn as heresies of Vatican II and/or John Paul II. You do not possess the knowledge of the Church’s teachings, John, to be able to accurately make these decisions even if this was what the Church permits.
I apologize, as I do not know what question you want me to answer. What was it? I will answer it.
Being in a fairly peaceful diocese, I thought of this a minor administrative issue. With any discomfort with the wording of the Good Friday prayers for the Jews being resolved by substituting the Latin NO wording.
But not all dioceses are relatively calm regarding this matter. I am told that a possible reason for the delay is that some French bishops have had a few church buildings taken over by unreconciled Lefebrvists supported by the racist Front National (prayer wording?).
Those bishops are concerned that universally allowing the use of the TM would not have the effect of reconciliation but of undermning the authority of the local bishops.
Does anyone have any reliable information on this?
John:
What is wrong with you?
Can you think man? Or do you need, once again, to go to another SSPX website in order to render your opinions on the matter, as you have once again?
However, in this case, your own words betray you — look at what you just said:
My dear conflicted closet Protestant, I believe you have failed to understand that the Popes and its council had, in fact, merely CLARIFIED on Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and not changed it!
Furthermore, for you to even speak of just what the traditional teaching is on Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus historically, this would require actual knowledge going back to that of Scripture and the teachings of the early church fathers, which, apparently, you heavily lack, as made evident by your continued ignoramus opinions on the matter.
In Scripture, it is said:
Romans 2:14-15
14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these, having not the law, are a law to themselves.
15 Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them: and their thoughts between themselves accusing or also defending one another
Here, in Romans 2:14, St. Paul talks about those who are apart from the law who keep the natural law written on their hearts become a law unto themselves and the law will either accuse them or excuse them on the Day of Judgment. St. Paul is very plain that there is a possibility that folks who are apart from the True Faith through no fault of their own can possibly be saved.
Even further, as had been mentioned previously on other threads, there are a number of Church Fathers who hold out a hope for universal salvation (St. Gregory of Nazianus, par example), who also grant salvation to pagans (St. Justin Martyr on Socrates) so I see this as less a novelty than a return to the optimistic spirit of these early Christians.
St. Justin Martyr, in his first apology, talks about how you have some philosophers who he refers to as Christians: they’re seeking the Logos even though they’ve never heard of Christ. Now, he doesn’t develop the Theology as we have it today, but we see an indicator there and you’ll find that elsewhere throughout the history of the Church.
Pope St. Pius X himself taught the possibility of Salvation for those who are invincibly ignorant of the truth; that is, they never rejected the truth of the Catholic Faith, but they, through no fault of their own, are in a position where they never received the fullness of the Faith, yet they can receive the grace of the Sacraments. Pope Eugene says that apart from the Sacraments, there is no Salvation, but the grace of the Sacraments can be received outside the visible bounds of the Church; therefore, those who are saved can only be saved by the grace that comes through the Church but, nevertheless, people outside of the visible boundaries – and again I emphasize the visible bounds or boundaries of the Catholic Church – can receive the grace of Salvation. This, too, has been taught by St. Thomas Aquinas.
What you fail to realize, John, is that unlike such folks, you, on the other hand, actually know of the True Church, which is the Catholic Church, whereas you have repeatedly rejected her, its Petrine Authority and, thus, Christ’s own Teachings by your stubborn disobedience to it. Thus, it would seem more applicable that such a dreadful fate would await those like you who know of the True Church but have outright rejected it.
Therefore, I would suggest repentance on your part or else beware:
“He who hears you hears me: he who rejects you rejects me.”
It is not enough to belong to the Church. We must also live up to our beliefs, otherwise our membership will only work to our greater condemnation. Only those Catholics who, live according to the teachings of the Church will be saved.
Where’s that from, Esau?
It would be beneficial for many posters on this blog to review Da Rulz #1-3.
In particular, the conciseness rule. One does not achieve communication if no one reads what he/she posts.
Where’s that from, Esau?
It’s from Pre-Vatican II Catechism materials.
If John is truly knowledgeable about Pre-Vatican II Catechesis, he will be able to recognize it.
However, I doubt it.
Plus, it helps when you have a library filled with a collection of Benziger publications.
Although, I wished I knew whatever became of them.
Most of the books I have Pre-Vatican II were published by them.
In particular, the conciseness rule. One does not achieve communication if no one reads what he/she posts.
Smoky:
I guess Shane’s inquiry is proof of this rather pretentious statement.
Further, if you would objectively review my previous comment, it is not long.
It merely appears that way due to the formatting.
In addition to the default font size, employed therein was a number of return carriages as well as blockquotes to make it more presentable.
Not to mention the fact that it had to present within the confines of its text evidence for the statements made therein and that, in all, it was concise given its brief mention and treatment of such evidence.
Moreover, to even suggest that it was long would seem an insult to the intelligence of the audience. But, after all, this wasn’t your objective, your purpose for such remark would lie elsewhere.
But, after all, this wasn’t your objective, your purpose for such remark would lie elsewhere.
And what was my purpose?
By the way, I was not referring to only your posts, Esau, or I would have directed my comment directly to you.
My statement is neither pretentious nor intended as an insult to anybody. If you took it as such, I apologize for that. However, I at least have a habit of skimming (or even ignoring) very long posts, because I simply don’t have time to read them. Doesn’t mean I’m stupid. 🙂
Inocencio,
I do not give a rats fat ass what you think about me going to an SSPX Church.
I do care that I have been given permission by the Holy see to do so.
I do give a rats fat ass that you will mislead people by ignorantly boosting your tepid ego by pontificating from your highchair that those who assist at the Holy Sacrifice of mass in an SSPX church are somehow open to losing their immortal souls.How sweetly judgemental of thee.
I of course do not use expletives when addressing our shepherds in Rome since I both respect their office and authority.
I have no respect for your office or hmmmm authority.
Please continue to pray the Great prayer of defense against the attacks of Ol’Scratch,and desist from spreading your inacurate theorys.
Viva Cristo Rey!
Ps.Email me and we can chew the pemmican.
John:
Your own words betray you — look at what you just said: “I understand what Vatian I has taught later about the Pope, his infallibility as well as his limitations (he is NOT allowed to change or alter already defined infallibe church dogma or teachings and only allowed to CLARIFY items pertaining to faith and morals”
You have failed to understand that the Popes and its council had, in fact, merely CLARIFIED on Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and not changed it! In Scripture, it is said (Romans 2:14-15): 14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these, having not the law, are a law to themselves. 15 Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them: and their thoughts between themselves accusing or also defending one another. St. Paul talks about those who are apart from the law who keep the natural law written in their hearts become a law unto themselves and the law will either accuse them or excuse them on the Day of Judgment. Thus, folks who are apart from the True Faith through no fault of their own can possibly be saved. Even further, as mentioned, a number of Church Fathers hold out a hope for universal salvation (St. Gregory of Nazianus, par example), who also grant salvation to pagans (St. Justin Martyr on Socrates). St. Justin Martyr, in his first apology, talks about how you have some philosophers who he refers to as Christians: they’re seeking the Logos even though they’ve never heard of Christ. Pope St. Pius X himself taught the possibility of Salvation for those who are invincibly ignorant of the truth; that is, they never rejected the truth of the Catholic Faith, but they, through no fault of their own, are in a position where they never received the fullness of the Faith, yet they can receive the grace of the Sacraments. Pope Eugene says that apart from the Sacraments, there is no Salvation, but the grace of the Sacraments can be received outside the visible bounds of the Church; therefore, those who are saved can only be saved by the grace that comes through the Church but, nevertheless, people outside of the visible boundaries can receive the grace of Salvation. This, too, has been taught by St. Thomas Aquinas.
What you fail to realize, John, is that unlike such folks, you, on the other hand, actually know of the True Church, which is the Catholic Church, whereas you have repeatedly rejected her, its Petrine Authority and, thus, Christ’s own Teachings by your stubborn disobedience to it. Thus, it would seem more applicable that such a dreadful fate would await those like you who know of the True Church but have outright rejected it. Therefore, I would suggest repentance on your part or else beware: “He who hears you hears me: he who rejects you rejects me.” As Pre-Vatican II teaches (and continues to teach): “It is not enough to belong to the Church. We must also live up to our beliefs, otherwise our membership will only work to our greater condemnation. Only those Catholics who, live according to the teachings of the Church will be saved.”
Dan,
I have a sincere question for you: what do you hope to gain by your cursing on this blog?
Esau,
On a quick scan, that looks like a reprint of your last post without the formatting…is that right?
Esau posted:
“You have failed to understand that the Popes and its council had, in fact, merely CLARIFIED on Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and not changed it”
So now you are saying that the church has ALwAYS taught universal salvation where our lord made it very clear in scripture that one can not be saved
The 4th lateran council as well as the council of Florence (which defined very clearly the status of the Jews and them being saved) as well as popes afterwards with respect to Ecumenism and salvation
Vatican II defected from those teachings clearly!
So now we as Catholics believe in universal salvation??? Even the Protestants dont go that Far Esau!!
Dan Hunter,
So you admit I never said attending SSPX Masses do not fulfill your Sunday obligation. And you already admitted that I never called anyone a liar. All in all a very fruitful conversation, except of course for your threats of violence and vile language.
Do you care that the Shepherds of the Church do not and cannot recommend attending SSPX Masses, especially long-term attendance?
Since I have been very careful to actually document and provide links for all to read the text and contexts of the Shepherds of the Church in regards to this matter I have deceived no one. Unless of course someone is deceiving themselves.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I have a sincere question for you: what do you hope to gain by your cursing on this blog?
Smoky:
That was a good question.
Although, I think you may have missed the thread where Dan Hunter actually wanted to beat up Mary Kay over a dispute concerning Star Trek. He even gave out his phone number back then. (Though, I’ve never tried to call it. I’ve seen too many thrillers and watched/read too many news headlines to even try something as crazy as that.)
Although, I’d have to defer to Jared and Mary Kay on that one since I was a latecomer to the discussion and didn’t know exactly how they even reached that point in the thread.
Smoky Mountain,
I speak with expletives in my normal conversation to non ordained men.
Be that right or wrong I do not give grave consideration to this fact.
I have no hope of gaining anything in particular by my use pirate language.
Thank you for the question.
“So now you are saying that the church has ALwAYS taught universal salvation”
The Church does not teach universal salvation NOW, John.
Please deal with the quote Esau provided, and tell us how you square that with your theory that everything changed post VII.
Or, keep blowing smoke.
Dan
I as a traditional Catholic despise foul language, especially to Incencio whom I think is female and is inapropriate
Not that I carry any weight here but I dont like such and you are giving all Catholics a bad name
Dont let them try to trap you as they always like to label true Trads by questioning us, but maybe you should question why nobody here on this blog has any outrage over:
Gay masses
Change in canon law which now grants annulments like candy and is making a mockery of the sacrament of marriage
Gay clergy whom they all deny exist
Pro Abortion catholic politicians whom the USCCB has no guts to deny them our Lords body
A New mass formulated to appease protestants
A church that constantly denines church dogma just these past weeks with limbo and basically has eliminated original sin from the equation
The lastest just this past week in our diocese we were informed that creamation is approved by the church upon death, which I never knew
A Council which states very clearly that Orthodox and Protestants CAN be saved even if they are no in communion with Rome (Decree on Ecumenism actually encourages them to stay outside of the church!!)-WHILE AT THE SAME TIME THEY ARE TRYING TO INSINUATE THAT TRADS IF THEY DONT FOLLOW THE POPE CANT BE SAVED!! Just does not work both ways!!
Y’all, seriously, I don’t think we do ourselves, Jimmy’s readers, or Dan any favors by interacting with him at all.
He needs to talk with someone in a more controlled, therapeutic setting.
Smoky:
Did you read John’s latest post?
Do you see why I need to go into brief detail about the evidence I presented?
And it was rather brief since I didn’t even elaborate on the particulars but merely made one concise statement as regards them and let it be at that.
Yet, I see with somebody as ignorant as John, who’s not versed in Justin Martyr’s First Apology, the Pauline Epistles, Saint Thomas’ Summa, Pope Eugene’s teachings on the matter, Pre-Vatican II Catechesis, etc.; no such evidence will help.
But, I see even if I were to expound further, I will perhaps get flack from not only him but from folks like you as well. So, what’s the use?
John,
For the last time I am a man. I am a husband and father of seven children so far.
But go on believe that because you have said something it is true. It is par for the course.
Take care and God bless,
Inocenio
J+M+J
“So now you are saying that the church has ALwAYS taught universal salvation”
The Church does not teach universal salvation NOW, John.
Please deal with the quote Esau provided, and tell us how you square that with your theory that everything changed post VII.
Or, keep blowing smoke.
Posted by: Tim J. | Apr 30, 2007 10:51:17 AM
Thank you, Tim J., as always.
Though I doubt John will actually answer that question. As John has often done not only here but on other blogs/forums as well — his usual MO is to duck out when a difficult question arises and ignore such evidence in order to keep his illusions and lies alive.
God bless.
You are free to post as you like, Esau. I don’t own this blog, I just posted my opinion.
Dan Hunter,
You should give grave consideration to your foul language.
Matt 12:36. But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment.
Dico autem vobis quoniam omne verbum otiosum quod locuti fuerint homines reddent rationem de eo in die iudicii
12:37. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Ex verbis enim tuis iustificaberis et ex verbis tuis condemnaberis
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John,
A Council which states very clearly that Orthodox and Protestants CAN be saved even if they are no in communion with Rome
From the Baltimore Catechism #4 question #121 copyright 1891
Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never — even in the past — had the slightest doubt of that fact — what will become of him?
If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience.
I look forward to your response.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I understand very clearly about baptism of desire Esau and the whole Fennyite controversy with Pius XII, of blood and water. I agree totally in baptism of desire. But what Vatican II did is complete and utter disregard for infallible church teachings
The council of Florence in 1442 which I quoted early infallibly declared the following, though talking about Jacobites:
“It firmly believes, professes and preaches, that none who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and
schismatics, can partake of eternal life, but they will go into eternal fire . . . unless before the end of life they will have been joined to it (the Church); and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body has such force that only for those who remain in it are the sacraments of the Church profitable for salvation, and fastings, alms and other works of piety and exercises of the Christian soldiery bring forth eternal rewards (only) for them. “No one, howsoever much almsgiving he has done, even if he sheds
his blood for Christ, can be saved, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
Now lets compare that to Vatican II. In their lame attempt to be “Ecumenical”, what do they do? Knowing that they cant or will not be able to convert non catholics because they no longer believe in conversions, they then redefine the church to actually include ALL people, created by God in his “incarnate word”, as Lumen Gentium teaches:
“The Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity”
Lumen Gentium then says;
There is one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth his holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as a visible organization through which he communicates truth and grace to all men. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the mystical body of Christ, the visible society and the spiritual community, the earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches, are not to be thought of as two realities. On the contrary, they form one complete reality which comes together from a human and a divine element. For this reason the Church is compared, not without significance, to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature, inseparably united to him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a somewhat similar way, does the social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ who vivifies it, in the building up of the body (cf. Eph. 4:15).
Esau, yourself as a former Protestant I can understand why you are so much in favor of such teachings as I am sure you have many friends and family who have not seen their way clearly to the Catholic church. But rules and teachings are truth and ever unchanging and Vatican II and the church change teachings ever month now to appease the modern world
John,
The Second Vatican Council teaches, as the pre-Vatican II Church taught, that salvation may only be found inside the Catholic Church, but that those not proffessing to belong to the Church may in fact be joined to it without their own knowledge.
Note from the quote you provided that whenLumen Gentium declares that some elements of santification can be found outside its “visible confines,” nevertheless these are stll gifts “belonging to the Church of Christ,” and as a result of that, they impell towards “Catholic unity.” The Second Vatican Council teaches that any elements of sanctification which can be found in the world belong to Christ’s Church and can be found outside of its visible confines only.
They still remain exclusively within the Catholic Church, Whose true reality surpasses that of visible boundaries. This has always been the teaching of the Church. A Protestant who Baptizes does use a gift of sanctification, and even though that gift appears to exist outside of the Church because nobody involved with it professes to be Catholic – they may even reject Catholicism – the Baptism is still the one Baptism into Christ’s Church. A Lutheran baby who is Baptized is a fully Catholic person until the day that he knowingly rejects Christ’s Church.
This is why Pius IX and Pius X taught that non-Catholics can be saved, given the teaching of Florence and given the teaching of Unum Sanctum. A person who, through no fault of his own, believes Judaism to be true can be joined to the Church by an implicit Baptism of desire. This is the teaching of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Pius X, Pius IX, Pius X, and countless other pre-Vatican II authorities.
John,if you want to lecture me on foul language do it to my face.
E-Mail me and we will arrange a time and place to meet.Man to man and sort through your sensitivity to a curse.
Inocencio the same go’s for you.Bring it on both of you.
Anytime,Anywhere no holds barred.
Ultimate Fighting Challenge.
I can’t wait.
Bring it on oh good Lordy,please oh please bring it on.
Lordy Bagordy Yes Yes Yes.
(Message in Title)
(Message in Title)
(Message in Title)
I am dead serious.
(Message in Title)
(Message in Title)
(Message in Title)
That’s it. I’m done. Reading this Blog is doing nothing for me anymore except upsetting my stomach. Satan must rejoice as we tear each other apart.
May each of you find grace through our Lord Jesus Christ and the Church He established on this earth through St. Peter and his successors.
I’ve always found it interesting when someone communicating via the public combox tries to divert said communication to private email.
I myself have done it, but only when discussing something that was truly not the official topic of discussion and only when public discussion of said topic served no purpose and … most IMPORTANTLY … when I wanted to hide said discussion from outside, unknown sources.
Yes, for lack of a better phrase, when I had something to hide.
I’ve also noticed that those who use foul language for effect often do so due a lack of proficiency with “ordinary,” respectable, language. I’ve been guilty of this myself, when words have failed me due to an anger that stalled the flow of blood to my brain. Granted, when dealing with certain L.A. “gangstahs,” I’ve dealt my share of “f-bombs” due to the simple fact that said “gangstahs” wouldn’t have reacted in a proper fashion to anything but a show of this kind. Nevertheless, though I felt and feel that my point couldn’t have been made without this resort to a less-than-intelligent use of language, I also felt slightly lowered by the action.
However, here on the Jimmy Akin board, I’m not dealing with “gangstahs,” so I refrain from said language. Also, it’s more fun to use more elaborate, less crude, language when dealing with internet dissent. Perhaps someone, who remains un-named in this post of mine, could prove to us all that he does, in fact, have the 140 IQ he previously touted.
One more observation: the honorable man is willing, for the sake of a worthy cause, to “throw down” with the violent man … but only, according to Catholic Just War Theory, in cases of defense. The honorable man, in this case, does not attack unless he has grave reason to do so, and, in this case, such cannot even be properly called “attack” but is more rightly known as “defense.”
If all this be true (and I am open to correction), I fear it is all too obvious where honor resides.
Tim B,
Perhaps Da Rulz need enforcement?
Bring it on, fun-fun.
I’ll bring the gloves,you bring the smelling salts.
let’s go muffin. call me at 917-582-4254.
Posted by: Dan Hunter | Dec 29, 2006 10:57:43 AM
I would vanquish you with either.
I have a 140 I.Q.
I have wrestled in the 220 lb category at Iowa State University.
I regularly compete in a state sponsered boxing match for the police dept.And though I am not the best in my division,I have registered 15 wins by way of Knouckout.
If bubbleworth boy has the sand,give me a yayho.
Ive posted my number.
We shall have a pow-wow.
God bless you all.
Posted by: Dan Hunter | Dec 29, 2006 11:19:16 AM
Mary Kay needs a hearty spanking.
The quote from Star Wars went over somebodys head,not namin any any names here,but it is a reference to sci-fi nerdism.
Bye bye Mrs Freud.
Posted by: Dan Hunter | Dec 30, 2006 10:00:41 AM
Dude, you went off the deep end, then posted your phone number and a challenge to a boxing match–You challenged the man to a fist fight over an internet combox post ABOUT STAR TREK, claiming that JUSTICE was at stake.– … and now you want someone else to lighten up?
Am I missing something here?
Posted by: Jared | Dec 30, 2006 10:25:25 AM
Mary Kay, Jared: It’s time to ignore the bratty little boy.
Posted by: bill912 | Dec 30, 2006 12:32:28 PM
Dan: I could take up your challenge but I don’t think we fight in the same weight class or fighting style. I’m more an MMA than a boxer. Besides, New York City’s pretty far from L.A. and the stakes in this are pretty low. I mean, seriously, Star Trek?
Sorry, Bill and Tim; I just couldn’t resist. I’m done now.
Posted by: Jared | Dec 30, 2006 1:21:11 PM
Whoever is posting these messages in the Alias (I can guess who it is) — you are acting very immaturely. Provoking the situation is not helpful.
(message in the combox)
message in alias.
Make all the excuses you want.
Lets see who has the oysters to take up the Deca and rumble.
Keep your nuts cold.
The above is not from me.
Innocencio,
I give you credit for the fact that in all of your posts you are a real gentleman, even as was our Lord Jesus Christ!
As for childish ‘ghetto stuff’… it’s not worthy of Christian consideration.
Keep on posting with truth, charity and inspiration. I think there is more than one here who really appreciates these types of comments.
God Bless! And long live the “meek and humble” Jesus, our most loving Lord and Savior, now and for all eternity! Amen.
So, originally I was going to be saddened and annoyed by all the trolling, but I ended up laughing instead.
It’s like, “Catholic Comments Box–DEATHMATCH!”
Dan: Back in Feb., you said you were going to cease these childish challenges.
You were either lying then, or you broke your word now.
Either way you’ve proved that you are without the honor you profess to uphold.
And now, on to finer things.
…
“My cat’s breath smells like cat food.”
I really would like to continue these dicussions if it would be possible for everyone on either side of any fences to handle it with Christian charity.
If I were a Protestant or anything else, I wouldn’t be considering going to any Mass right now, judging from the fruits they would seem to me to produce. We are all much better than this. 🙂
For Jared,
“Miss Hover, my worm crawled into my mouth and I ate it, can I have another one?”
“No, Ralph, just lay your head on your desk and go to sleep.”
“Oh boy, sleep! That’s where I’m a Viking!”
Dr. Eric: http://download.lardlad.com/sounds/season13/ten1.mp3
Just ignore trolling – don’t respond to it.
This was the last intelligent post, prior to the Dan Hunter diversions. Why let the devil distract us in such a way, from discussions centering on true doctrine, intelligence, wisdom and charity? Sometimes when a baby is crying in church we need to put up with it. However, it also demands that we pay even MORE attention to the liturgy on hand…re-doubling our focus and devotion.
So, I thought to bring back Shanes excellent post – prior to all the wailing – so that the focus can again be on holy subject matter.
* * *
John,
The Second Vatican Council teaches, as the pre-Vatican II Church taught, that salvation may only be found inside the Catholic Church, but that those not proffessing to belong to the Church may in fact be joined to it without their own knowledge.
Note from the quote you provided that whenLumen Gentium declares that some elements of santification can be found outside its “visible confines,” nevertheless these are stll gifts “belonging to the Church of Christ,” and as a result of that, they impell towards “Catholic unity.” The Second Vatican Council teaches that any elements of sanctification which can be found in the world belong to Christ’s Church and can be found outside of its visible confines only.
They still remain exclusively within the Catholic Church, Whose true reality surpasses that of visible boundaries. This has always been the teaching of the Church. A Protestant who Baptizes does use a gift of sanctification, and even though that gift appears to exist outside of the Church because nobody involved with it professes to be Catholic – they may even reject Catholicism – the Baptism is still the one Baptism into Christ’s Church. A Lutheran baby who is Baptized is a fully Catholic person until the day that he knowingly rejects Christ’s Church.
This is why Pius IX and Pius X taught that non-Catholics can be saved, given the teaching of Florence and given the teaching of Unum Sanctum. A person who, through no fault of his own, believes Judaism to be true can be joined to the Church by an implicit Baptism of desire. This is the teaching of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Pius X, Pius IX, Pius X, and countless other pre-Vatican II authorities.
Posted by: Shane | Apr 30, 2007 11:53:46 AM
Is there any documentation about a baptised Catholic who is raised in the Church recieves Her sacraments,but then leaves the Church.Refuses to baptise a child she has,refuses to go to confession and will not listen to her family when we,”Instruct the ignorant,admonish the sinner,counsel the doubtful,all in Catholic charity.
If someone like this persists in this way can they be saved?
God bless you.
A Williams posted:
“The Second Vatican Council teaches, as the pre-Vatican II Church taught, that salvation may only be found inside the Catholic Church, but that those not proffessing to belong to the Church may in fact be joined to it without their own knowledge.”
That is not correct. Before Vatican II, the church taught that one could be baptised through blood or water for example on their deathbed and ask for acceptance into the one true church, the Catholic church
Vatican II took that one step beyond saying that through the incarnate word or creation that EVERYONE is a member of the CAtholic church just by their existence (imagine that!) and having rejected the church and her teachings their entire life knowing full well about the church but rejecting it, they can be saved-which is totally false
The key word is apart from the true faith through no fault of their own. Jews know clearly about our church and reject it as have done the protestants
John,
From the Pre-Vatican II Baltimore Catechism #4 question #121 copyright 1891
“Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never — even in the past — had the slightest doubt of that fact — what will become of him?
If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience.”
I look forward to your response.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Jews know clearly about our church and reject it as have done the protestants
I suspect that many cradle Catholics practice their faith from birth until death because their parents taught them to do so. Parental and familial influence can be very powerful; many good Catholics may scarcely question their faith because it is unthinkable to them that anything else could be true.
I suspect it is the same with most other religions. Many Muslims are Muslim because their parents are; many Jews are Jews because their parents are; many Protestants are Protestant because their parents are. For some of these non-Catholic individuals, they may have some knowledge of the Catholic Church (perhaps a biased knowledged) just as Catholics have some knowledge of other religions (perhaps a biased knowledge), but they never seriously considered looking outside their religion for truth due to their upbringing.
I, personally, would classify that sort of situation as being apart from the true faith through no fault of their own.
Unless you’ve seriously studied every major non-Catholic religion and then rejected it (I imagine most Catholics haven’t), we shouldn’t judge others for not seriously studying every religion that is foreign to them.
A. Williams,
Thank you very much for your kind words and getting us back on track.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“Vatican II took that one step beyond saying that through the incarnate word or creation that EVERYONE is a member of the CAtholic church just by their existence”
That’s false.
John,
You claim to define and declare what is Catholic Teaching and what isn’t and now you even claim to have an infalliable understanding of the beliefs of all Jews and Protestants.
Did you receive this in a private revelation from the “angel” moroni? Are you some how related to Joseph Smith?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John, you have clearly been proven wrong on this issue of Universal Salvation. The Church never taught that all non-Catholics were going to hell, and She does not now teach that everyone is going to heaven. You claim this huge reversal in teaching took place, when that is demonstrably not the case. Proof texting Church documents does not help your case, as each text must be understood in the context of the WHOLE teaching of the Church, not lifted out and interpreted according to your own narrow understanding of it.
Did the Church documents on the subject take on a different tone and emphasis in the last century? Sure. But you are not allowed to dismiss Church teaching because you don’t like the tone.
And this is only one issue. Other accusations you have made against the Church similarly spring from a lack of understanding and reading MUCH more into things than is really there.
A good way to ensure that we are who we say we are is to force us to create a password-protected account before we can post comments.
It turns out that Typepad *does* allow you to force users to authenticate themselves via a TypeKey account. Please see “Comment Authentication” under:
http://help.typepad.com/weblogs/configure.html#setting_comment_trackback_preferences
I hope Jimmy will consider adding this feature to his blog. It would not only ensure that we are who we say we are, it may also reduce trolling.
Please show me somewhere other than in Vatican II where the following in the “Decree on Ecumenism was stated with regards to outright salvation for those who are practicing a faith other than Catholicism:
“The brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion. Undoubtedly, in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or community, these actions can truly engender a life of grace and can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation.
Where Pius XI taught:
“These… who strive for the union of the churches would appear to pursue the noblest of ideals in promoting charity among all Christians. But… John himself, the Apostle of love, strictly forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ’s teaching: “If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house, nor say to him, God speed you” (John 2:10). …it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.”
And the Code of Canon Law before JPII (The Least) changed it to suit Vatican II and ecumenism (or else why would he have needed to change it?)
1917 Code of Canon Law: Canon 1101. It is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any active manner, or to take part, in the services of non-Catholics.
John,
Why not respond to Inocencio (or Tim or me for that matter) before posing a new question of your own? Why just post quotes you found on cmri.org?
John,
How could you say the following:
“The Second Vatican Council teaches, as the pre-Vatican II Church taught, that salvation may only be found inside the Catholic Church, but that those not proffessing to belong to the Church may in fact be joined to it without their own knowledge.”
That is not correct. Before Vatican II, the church taught that one could be baptised through blood or water for example on their deathbed and ask for acceptance into the one true church, the Catholic church
Did you not pay attention to the Pre-Vatican II Catechism materials that I’ve already posted to you?
READ:
Can they be saved who remain “outside” the Catholic Church (not official members of the Church, but Invincibly Ignorant of the Church and obey the natural law through the use of their reason, are implicitly INSIDE the Church) because they do not know it is the true Church?
They who remain “outside” the Catholic Church (not official members, but Invincibly Ignorant of the Church are implicitly INSIDE the Church) through no grave fault of their own, and do not know it is the true Church, can be saved by making use of the graces which God gives them.
This coincides exactly with Saint Paul’s teaching on the matter, which I had already provided you in a past post:
Romans 2:14-15:
14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these, having not the law, are a law to themselves. 15 Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them: and their thoughts between themselves accusing or also defending one another.
John, here’s the context that goes with your quote from UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO.
“Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God’s gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.”
This isn’t saying that all Protestants are saved, but that they can be led to Christ through the elements of Truth that they share in common with the Catholic Church (the source of that Truth). If they know the Truth and not reject it they will not be saved.
If they know the Truth and not reject it they will not be saved.
Do you have an extra “not” in there, Brian?
Thanks Smoky, sorry. It should be: If they know the Truth and reject it they will not be saved.
John,
I believe in both the teachings and the Spirit of our holy Roman Catholic Church. I also believe in the words of Christ, our “one” Teacher. Before condemning others to Hell, maybe we should consider this saying of Jesus Christ, below, which seems to pertain to the topic on hand. If the Apostle John had a difficulty with this topic, who was with Jesus day after day,and very close to His heart, it’s not all that surprising that others also would wonder about such things. But Jesus, here, bids us to be careful about our judgements, or condemnations, of others.
Please listen to the “one” Teacher…of which all the rest of us are merely “brothers”:
John answered him, saying: Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, who followeth not us, and we forbade him. 38 But Jesus said: Do not forbid him. For there is no man that doth a miracle in my name, and can soon speak ill of me. 39 For he that is not against you, is for you. 40 For whosoever shall give you to drink a cup of water in my name, because you belong to Christ: amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.
Mark 9:37-40
I love the sinister comments about sources of posts, whether they come from a so calles “schismatic” source, when it really matters not as the documentation traditionals provide are always based on past councils, decrees or dogma and compared to documented Vatican II and post councilar teaching
Received the following from a friend today in describing his attempts to reason with those brainwashed that Vatican II and the church today is in line with past teachings and when confronted with evidence that you are living in a fantasy world the reponse is usually (if it was in line, why would it have needed to change EVERYTHING?). It is a 5 stage process
DENIAL-AS ONE CAN SEE FROM MANY HERE
ANGER-LOOK AT YOUR RESPONSES, SUCH HATRED OF THE TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC BUT LOVE FOR THESE FALSE FAITHS
BARGANING-DEMAND DOCUMENTS FROM THE TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC-TIME AND TIME I HAVE PROVIDED WITH SUCH RESPONSES AS “THATS HOW I SEE IT ONLY”, ETC
NAME CALLING-KNOWING YOU HAVE BEEN SOLD A BILL OF GOODS, YOU RESORT TO THE NAME CALLING (SCHISMATIC, ETC)
ACCEPTANCE
John,
I admit that it was in poor taste to comment on the website that you apparently sourced your quote from. I apologize for that.
However, my more important point was that you rarely seem to answer any questions posed to you, and only ask new questions / post new quotations.
Why not engage posters in a true back-and-forth dialogue? Maybe somebody will learn something.
Received the following from a friend today in describing his attempts to reason with those brainwashed that Vatican II and the church today is in line with past teachings and when confronted with evidence that you are living in a fantasy world the reponse is usually (if it was in line, why would it have needed to change EVERYTHING?). It is a 5 stage process
Is there any thought of yours that’s actually yours, and not that of a Schismatic website or those of Schismatic friends?
Among other many things, the one thing you keep on neglecting is the fact that at the very heart of the Church, the authority lies in Christ who, in turn, had given His authority to Peter and their Successors, as proven since the very beginnings of the Church.
As you know of this (that is, since you know this Truth), you are liable to judgment unlike those invincibly ignorant.
Remember the Pre-Vatican II Catechesis that teaches:
“It is not enough to belong to the Church. We must also live up to our beliefs, otherwise our membership will only work to our greater condemnation. Only those Catholics who, live according to the teachings of the Church will be saved.”
AND
“All members of the Church are under a strict obligation to obey her laws and regulations; DISOBEDIENCE to the Church IS disobedience to HIM Who authorized her rule, Jesus Christ, God.”
One other thing to remember:
Jn 8:44:
44 You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning: and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. (DRV)
John,
There have been plenty of pre-Vatican II teachings of the Church posted here which contradict your words. You said that Baptisms could only be received at the hour of death to non-Catholics who accepted the Church. However, the Council of Trent declares,
“If anyone says that Baptism, even that given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true Baptism, anathema sit.”
John, you are currently under the anathema of Trent. Please repent.
John,
It is very honorable of you to try to defend the teachings of the Church if you believe that they have been corrupted, and I applaud you for it.
But John, you don’t know what the teachings of the Church before the second Vatican Council were. You have consistently made statements contrary to the Church’s traditional teachings, and when they have been brought to your attention you largely reject them. Is your true desire to honor Christ and His Church, or is it to restrict people from being saved? Every indication here has been that it is the latter. I believe you are just being misunderstood and not understanding yourself, but my brother, please open up and start listening. Listen to Pius X and Pius IX, if you won’t listen to us.
John, please get a Baltimore Catechism and read it. If you don’t have one, email me at my website below and I will send you one in the mail. But please don’t continue to say these these things you do here until you have, because you keep doing contradicting the teachings of the pre-Vatican II Church and I don’t think you even have any idea that you are, or that you would ever desire to.
“But instead you take out your anger on Traditionalists who are what the Catholic church ONCE was before she reformed. Was she wrong before Vatican II? Is she wrong how? Which is it? ”
John,
You remind me of protestants. It is not either/or. It is both/and. To you it’s the pre-Vatican II Church against the post-Vatican II Church. That is a misrepresentation the devil would be proud of.
John,
You asked: “Please show me somewhere other than in Vatican II where the following in the “Decree on Ecumenism was stated with regards to outright salvation for those who are practicing a faith other than Catholicism”
From the Pre-Vatican II Baltimore Catechism #4 question #121 copyright 1891
“Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never — even in the past — had the slightest doubt of that fact — what will become of him?
If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience.”
I still hope for and look forward to your response.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Smoky Mountain,
We all know that John cuts and paste from other websites verbatim. Pointing that out is not in poor taste. John acting as if these are his comments is in very poor taste. Especially when he could (as we have asked him to many, many times) copy and paste the web address or provide a link to the original article.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Great post, Inocencio!
David B.,
Your comment:
To you it’s the pre-Vatican II Church against the post-Vatican II Church. That is a misrepresentation the devil would be proud of.
…would be true if John actually knew just what the Pre-Vatican II church actually taught.
From all the resources I possess and have cited accordingly, there is nothing John has stated that is even in slight alignment with what Pre-Vatican II catechesis actually taught then.
To render such statements (i.e., that the Post-Vatican II church clearly contradicts Pre-Vatican II) would require an actual knowledge of what exactly the former taught.
To my mind, John hasn’t demonstrated such.
Shane has shown great charity by his post above and providese an excellent recommendation to John.
If John was really sincere in his crusade, he would first take up the offer kindly made by Shane and acquaint himself first with what Pre-Vatican II catechesis actually taught prior to making such ignorant judgments upon the Post-Vatican II age.
If John genuinely does this, he would see, indeed, there is no such contradiction between the two and that the Church remains as she was —a divine institution established by Christ!
I really miss the days when topics were actually discussed and John’s attempts to hijack each and every thread were less successful.
Yesterday as all about the other hobby horse, Dan.
Today has been nearly exclusively about John.
Tim J, if you want an example of vanity in the sense of constantly attention seeking, look no further than John.
Shane,
You made an excellent suggestion for John to study the Baltimore Catechism. Online is AN EXPLANATION OF THE BALTIMORE CATECHISM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE for the use of Sunday-School Teachers and Advanced Classes (a.k.a. Baltimore Catechism #4)
I quoted from Lesson 11 on the Church question #121.
I truly hope John will take the time to read and study.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John,
The five stages you quoted are commonly know as the five stages of grief. The model was introduced by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in her 1969 book On Death and Dying. They apply to everyone facing very difficult, often unexpected, situations. Normal people usually progress through them in a step-like fashion, ultimately arriving at acceptance of whatever was so very difficult at the beginning. Each of us spend different amounts of time and efforts at the different stages. Some, however, never get to acceptance but languish along the way and become very frustrated people.
I see a lot of that behavior in the above posts, especially those of the “die-hard” traditionalists who refuse Vatican II teaching.
I pray that the Holy Spirit will prevail over our wills.
Mary Kay,
I agree. I will do my very best to bite my tongue and ignore them when they post.
And now back to the previously scheduled post…
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I cannot vouch for the website that host this but the video is of an altar being transformed for the Tridentine Rite. The video was orginally on Father Z’s blog.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I can vouch for a book that will answer the majority of questions about the changes in the Church in the 20th century and what led to the crisis of the present time.
The book is called,”Iota Unum”,by a brilliant philosopher named Romano Amerio.
The book is published by Sarto books.
It is really worth a read.
Viva Cristo Rey!
I can vouch for a book that will answer the majority of questions about the changes in the Church in the 20th century and what led to the crisis of the present time.
The book is called,”Iota Unum”,by a brilliant philosopher named Romano Amerio.
The book is published by Sarto books.
It is really worth a read.
Viva Cristo Rey!
That’s strange.
Because every Pre-Vatican II teaching I cited here on this thread actually came from a book published by Sarto.
Not to mention, it used to be a staple (a companion to the Baltimore Catechism) utilized in the teaching of Pre-Vatican II Catechesis then.
It’s too tragic that the very things once taught and believed in by so-called Traditionalists have been outright rejected and vomitted out due to mere want of preference and rebellion, ignoring wholesale the very Commands of Our Lord & Saviour Himself.
Thus, one traditional, Pre-Vatican II teaching shall always be of point in this regard:
“All members of the Church are under a strict obligation to obey her laws and regulations; DISOBEDIENCE to the Church IS disobedience to HIM Who authorized her rule, Jesus Christ, God.”
Esau,
I said that John was misrepresenting the pre/post-Vatican II Church. I didn’t said he that I believe that he understood the pre-Vatican II Church.
Sorry about the grammar above. I’m tired.
If the Vatican II church was organic and directly in line Apostolic teaching and dogma, why did she need to change in a short 40 years which in the history of the church is nanoseconds:
The Mass
Canon Law
All of the Sacraments
Catechism
Customs and Teachings
Retranslation of the Bible over 4 times
Retranslation of the Mass over and over (ICEL liberal snafu’s cant agree still 40 years later on the proper words of consecration, making the mass and her sacraments very questionable)
Ecuemenism never accepted and denounced prevatican II now commonplace
Popes praying with Jews in their place of worship for their messiah to come
Popes praying with Moslems in mosques to allah towards mecca and cried as victory over Christians all over the Moslem world
Did I miss anything??????????
Shane, I read your response and it makes no sense at all. How could someone today, witht media and all means of communication, not know what the Catholic church stands for? Do you or not agree that a Protestant today in America attending their mass rejecting the church-are they saved or not. Simple question????? Before Vatican II the answer was a clear NO. But by semantics, vatican II now teaches that everyone is a member of the Catholic church even if they dont know it! Wow-what a deal!
Pius XI taught:
Such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.”
–Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos, par. 2, January 6, 1928
The right of all… religious bodies to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice.”
Declaration on Religious Freedom, #4&6.
Collegiality
“The brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion… these actions… can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation.”
Decree on Ecumenism, #3.
Clear contradictions
Am I being “Direct enough”??? as I have been accused of not being
Please explain the above simple contradictions. The above has nothing to do with baptism of desire, it has to do with someone living out their lives outside of the Catholic church, rejecting all her sacraments. Pius XI says anyone who is involved or participates in ecumenism where today we actually have Cardinals and Popes doing so, is “is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.”
So is it safe to assume per Pius XI that the present day Popes and Cardinal Kasper on down have abandoned the Catholic faith?
a short 40 years which in the history of the church is nanoseconds
Actually, let’s suppose the history of the Church consists of about 2000 years. Then 40 years is (40/2000) = 2% of Church history. Your comparison to nanoseconds suggests you’re comparing Church history to the history of the Universe (13.7 billion years according to NASA). Two percent of 13.7 billion years is 274 million years.
That seems like a reasonable amount of time for the Church to make whatever changes it deems appropriate.
“Popes praying with Jews in their place of worship for their messiah to come”
JP II prayed for the (second)coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ.
“Popes praying with Moslems in mosques to allah towards mecca and cried as victory over Christians all over the Moslem world”
‘Allah’ is arabic for God. Benedict didn’t pray towards mecca. Plueeeze.
“So is it safe to assume per Pius XI that the present day Popes and Cardinal Kasper on down have abandoned the Catholic faith?”
If you want to be a heretic, it is.
Benedict didn’t pray towards mecca. Plueeeze.
Here’s one account. Can’t vouch for how accurate it is though:
“One had to remove one’s street shoes here, and there were to be no exceptions. Benedict stood in white, thousand-and-one-nights slippers, and received a gift from the Imam of a tile on which calligraphic signs are arranged into the figure of a dove. Benedict XVI expressed thanks, handed the tile to his secretary, and then — as he is accustomed to do — folded his hands over his chest and noticed immediately that he had made a mistake. Quickly he separated his hands. Cagrici then led Benedict XVI to the Mihrab, the prayer niche oriented toward Mecca, and announced the ceremony as a prayer to the one God. Then the Islamic leader fell silent and closed his eyes. The pope did the same. The cameras closed in on his hands, then on his face, to see if this pope — in a mosque facing Mecca — would pray.
“The hands remained apart. The mouth was half open but unmoving, the eyes closed, giving his face a somewhat tortoise-like appearance. Even Cagrici now looked over. The camera remained fixed in a close-up. Al-Jazeera was broadcasting live. So were BBC, CNN. Then the lower lip of Joseph Ratzinger from Marktl am Inn, Germany, moved — microscopically at first, but then unmistakably.
“The intellectual pope had caught up with his predecessor, the charismatic Wojtyla, a proven performer. Cardinal Kasper, standing next to him, looked as if he couldn’t believe his eyes: The pope had done it. The “crusade pope” prayed together with an Imam, facing Mecca. Upon leaving the Blue Mosque, Cagrici made another joke about prayer and work. The Pope bursts out laughing, a bit too loudly, and when he then replies with something about Preghiera and Lavoro, sounding relieved. Almost as if he were already on the return trip to Rome.”
Like I’ve said before, looks heretical but is not.
He could make it look like many things, and knowing what this Pontiff is about, does things for the sake of the Church and divinely guided and uses the best diplomacy in the world. And oldest.
Vatican Diplomacy.
He could be a true Crusader at heart, and conceal it because it would be harmful and counter-productive at this momment.
God is everywhere and we are in Him. He could make it look like Mecca, but really he is praying for the conversion, and if not possible, the destruction of Islam.
But all at the right time.
It is better to wait to get there faster.
Smoky Mountain,
I hope your on the path to the Faith.
I did pray.
Now according to calculations made by Scripture and other sources and definetly not Carbon-14 (the discoverer said it was not completly reliable and need some pretty exigant circumstances) the World is about 6000 years old.
How could someone today, witht media and all means of communication, not know what the Catholic church stands for?
Most Catholics don’t know what the Church stands for. Just walk into an average parish on Sunday and ask the people in the pews why contraception is sinful.
So yes it’s very possible that with all the media today many Protestants have never been exposed to the true teachings of the Catholic Church. We should blame ourselves, not the people who don’t know.
Now according to calculations made by Scripture and other sources and definetly not Carbon-14 (the discoverer said it was not completly reliable and need some pretty exigant circumstances) the World is about 6000 years old.
Some Day,
Doesn’t the Church admit that Scripture is not a science book and that there’s no conflict with Catholic teaching to believe scientists regarding the age of the Universe?
I doubt God put dinosaur bones in the bedrock to trick us.
John,
You seem to be trying to change the subject. You said (in bold):
“The Second Vatican Council teaches, as the pre-Vatican II Church taught, that salvation may only be found inside the Catholic Church, but that those not proffessing to belong to the Church may in fact be joined to it without their own knowledge.”
That is not correct. Before Vatican II, the church taught that one could be baptised through blood or water for example on their deathbed and ask for acceptance into the one true church, the Catholic church
The Church has always taught, from the beginning, that there is one Baptism into one Body – the Church of God. The Council of Florence taught: “by [Baptism] we are made members of Christ and bellong to His body, the Church.”
The Church has also taught that this “one Baptism” is valid even when administered by and/or to heretics.
Pope Stephen I wrote: “If therefore some come to you from any heresy whatsoever let no innovation be made except according to what has been handed down, namely let an imposition of hands be made on them by way of penane; for the heretics themselves are right in not baptising other heretics who come over to them but simply receiving them into their communion.”
Baptism was not repeated because the heretics were already validly baptized. They needed penance for their sins just like any regular old Catholic, but they had been joined once to the Church at their Baptism and could not be “rejoined” by any means other than the Sacrament of Penance.
The Council of Trent declared: “If anyone says that Baptism, even that given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true Baptism, anathema sit.”
You are mistaken, my brother.
Doesn’t the Church admit that Scripture is not a science book and that there’s no conflict with Catholic teaching to believe scientists regarding the age of the Universe?
Yes.
I doubt God put dinosaur bones in the bedrock to trick us.
Maybe Satan deceives as to how old they are.
Evelyn
Thank you for your post, as no matter what evidence one puts in front of those who enjoy the continued downward spiral and the all inclusive anyone can now be saved Vatican II church, these contradictions are what they desire all in the name of “obedience”. Obedience to what? The church stands for nothing after Vatican II. Protestants can now be saved, the mass is a watered down hand holding guitar strumming session, altar girls, no kneeling, eucharistic ministers all over with soon to ordained woman and married priests already in the mix, new sacraments, new canon law, and reports from Rome today say that B16 has high on his agenda another ANOTHER RETRANSLATION OF YOUR NEW AMERICAN BIBLE TO MAKE IT LESS ANTISEMITIC!!. Soon the Jews are going to be now where withing 1000 miles of Jeresulem at the time of the crucifixion just to appease these militant rabbis that Vatican II popes pray with together for their messiah. Gay masses and maybe not only married priests but openly gay married priests next? Heck Gay masses are now commonplace in Minnesota and California!
Well if the past 40 years has brought this much destruction, One can only wait for the next 40!!
and reports from Rome today say that B16 has high on his agenda another ANOTHER RETRANSLATION OF YOUR NEW AMERICAN BIBLE TO MAKE IT LESS ANTISEMITIC!!
John, can you post a link to this? I’m interested in reading the story.
Brian,
Here is the actual story below along with a link — and it was NOT Pope Benedict XVI but ORTHODOX THEOLOGIANS!
John again has LIED about the FACTS!
Of course, there may be those here who would advocate John’s voice, saying that he should be allowed to speak such calumny and lies.
Is this ‘John’ really a man of Tradition?
His actions would DEFINITELY say otherwise!
As Jesus had told the hypocritical pharisees:
Jn 8:44:
44 You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning: and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. (DRV)
Orthodox theologians decry anti-Semitism in liturgy
May. 2, 2007 (CWNews.com) – A group of Orthodox theologians has called for the revision of liturgical texts, to remove what they see as anti-Semitic language, a Russian news agency reports.
Credo, a Christian news agency operating on the internet, reports that 12 Orthodox theologians issued a statement favoring liturgical changes during an April visit to Israel. The group found anti-Semitic passages particularly in the liturgical texts of the Orthodox Easter season.
The statement was endorsed by theologians of the Russian, Greek, Ukrainian, and Georgian Orthodox traditions.
Link:
Orthodox theologians decry anti-Semitism in liturgy
Evelyn, it’s a good idea to attribute a source when posting a quote. The more specific the attribution, the more likely that it will be taken seriously.
Esau,
I found a similar article published on April 29th here: World: Vatican to survey Roman Catholics over anti-Semitism
But I was trying to give John the benefit of the doubt before suggesting that maybe his interpretation of what the article said might be incorrect. Maybe John has actually seen an article that says the Pope is pushing the development of a new translation of the Bible.
Brian,
Come back to me with an article that says that Pope Benedict XVI is actually going to initiate a re-translation of the bible, then I’ll believe it.
However, knowing the Scriptural Scholar Cardinal Ratzinger is, I doubt he would change the bible in order to accomodate personal preference, unless it were one to make it all the more precise in its translation.
Besides, the bible itself is NOT anti-semitic; it’s people like John who misinterpret its passages as such who are the ones responsible for any anti-semitic sentiments.
It’s almost no different than a wacko who uses the bible in order to justify his/her ill behaviour.
Come back to me with an article that says that Pope Benedict XVI is actually going to initiate a re-translation of the bible, then I’ll believe it.
Esau, I don’t believe it either – that’s why I asked John for the article. Sometimes its better to let someone you disagree with shoot down his own argument than to jump all over him. Let John show us his evidence, then with the full article everyone will be able to decide for themselves.
Esau posted:
“Besides, the bible itself is NOT anti-semitic; it’s people like John who misinterpret its passages as such who are the ones responsible for any anti-semitic sentiments.”
Ok Esau, now calling me antisemitic? How dare you and I expect an apology as you continue to make assertions that are over the top just like the rabbis who are accusing the true mass as being antisemitic to get their way
The NAB has already been so watered and any plays are basically illegal in Europe which show the passion of our Lord, and it took a true Traditional Catholic in Mel Gibson to make a movie about such and show our Lord in a positive light and illustrate his sufferings for mankind, instead of the Novus Ordo Catholics like Zefferelli and Scorcese’s “Last Temptation” which show him desiring Mary Magdeline
Esau is still in the denial phase….but a few years from now when he has his first Gay mass in his parish and he has his openly gay priest with his married lover in the first pew at mass, then maybe realization what good old John said will set in!
*yawn*
John,
First question: As Brian had requested, where exactly is your proof that Pope Benedict XVI is having the NAB re-translated to make it ‘less anti-semitic’?
As for your comment here:
Ok Esau, now calling me antisemitic?
I don’t need to — your comments on past threads already prove that.
Also, for somebody who spreads lies and calumny about current and past Pope(s) (as well as holy folks like Mother Teresa), you sure get upset when you think people are doing the same about you! Although, we both know that what I’ve said regarding you is, in fact, true!
“you continue to make assertions that are over the top ”
Thus spake the pot to the kettle.
Ok Esau, now calling me antisemitic? How dare you and I expect an apology as you continue to make assertions that are over the top just like the rabbis who are accusing the true mass as being antisemitic to get their way
I’ve got to side with John on this one. His beliefs aren’t ecumenical, but they’re not antisemitic.
Esau posted:
“Here is the actual story below along with a link — and it was NOT Pope Benedict XVI but ORTHODOX THEOLOGIANS!
John again has LIED about the FACTS!”
Esau-Again you must apologize! You are so foolish!! Right in the Jeruselum Post it says that the Pope APPROVED :
“The 60-page document, which was approved by Pope Benedict XVI, outlines the suggested topics and includes a questionnaire to be answered by local bishops.
After asking if priority is given to dialogue with the Jews, the questionnaire calls on bishops to investigate the use of biblical texts to “ferment attitudes of anti-Semitism.”
Hey, we are the Vatican II Catholic church, lets just rewrite history some more to be Ecumenical!!!
From the link above posted
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1177591147332&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Esau Esau-Your house of cards is Crumbling…….!!
I’ve got to side with John on this one. His beliefs aren’t ecumenical, but they’re not antisemitic.
Brian,
You haven’t read the comments he posted last year.
The NAB has already been so watered and any plays are basically illegal in Europe which show the passion of our Lord, and it took a true Traditional Catholic in Mel Gibson to make a movie about such and show our Lord in a positive light and illustrate his sufferings for mankind, instead of the Novus Ordo Catholics like Zefferelli and Scorcese’s “Last Temptation” which show him desiring Mary Magdeline
Wow. Isn’t that about fifteen different topics? Mel isn’t Catholic. He built his own church WITHOUT permission from the local bishop. Is that what you consider to be holy? Holiness is based upon obediance to Christ’s representative on earth, the pope. And what’s up with mocking Zefferelli’s protrayal of Christ’s Passion? Wierd.
John,
Why did you ignore Brian and Esau’s request for a source for your statement? You lose credibility if you make statements without backing them up with your source.
Furthermore, you really need to start engaging people in a dialogue. You’re accomplishing exactly nothing in most of your posts except to vomit your complaints upon the combbox. When someone asks you a question, have the courtesy to answer it. When someone addresses a point you make, have the courtesy to respond to their point rather than vomiting the same list of problems again and again.
Here is an example of what you’re accomplishing:
John: The Church has problems A, B, C, D, E, F.
Others: OK, lets discuss A.
John: The Church has problems A, B, C, D, E, F.
Others: OK, lets discuss A.
John: The Church has problems A, B, C, D, E, F.
Others: Why are you ignoring our discussion of A?
John: The Church has problems A, B, C, D, E, F.
etc…
Esau,
I’d ask again that you focus on John’s arguments and not on John himself. Attack the argument, not the man. It doesn’t matter whether what you say about him is true; it’s still inappropriate to attack the person. You aren’t in a position to judge John any more than he’s in a position to judge you.
Esau Esau-Your house of cards is Crumbling…….!!
Sorry to spoil your heresy, but the Church I am part of was actually one established by My Lord & Saviour who is, in fact, God!
18 Et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram ædificabo Ecclesiam meam, et portæ inferi non prævalebunt adversus eam.
“the questionnaire calls on bishops to investigate the use of biblical texts to “ferment attitudes of anti-Semitism.” ”
He didn’t suggest that they re-write the bible. He is concerned about people who misuse the bible.
John,
I posted my last post before seeing that you provided a link to jpost.com. Thank you for that. However, I don’t see anywhere in the article that you link to a mention of re-translating the Bible.
Smoky,
You missed the whole point.
The direction I was heading with my post (as in previous posts) was that:
Look at how John feels so offended when he thinks he is being the victim of lies and calumny.
Now, wouldn’t it make sense that he does not do the same?
What’s the latest guess as to the date of the Motu Propio?
No Esau, you miss the point. You characterize John as anti-semitic; that’s attacking the man, which is inappropriate. I am not defending John, I am criticizing your attacks on him rather than on his arguments. Other posters such as Brian, Shane, and Inocencio have responded to John in a more charitable manner.
I agree that it goes both ways — John is very much in the wrong whenever he attacks you personally.
But my kindergarten teacher taught me that two wrongs don’t make a right. 🙂
al,
though off-topic,
Alice von Hilde-whatever met the pope and (supposedly) said that he told her may 5 was the release date.
Fantastic Mr.John,your write up is exactly correct.I am writing here is the history of the Church.
Sir,
Between the 8th and 9th General Councils of the Church, there was a gap of over two and half centuries. This interval was epochmaking in the history of the Church. In history, this period is known as the DARK AGES.The Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne almost came to an end.The civilisation built up by the Church on the foundation of universal brotherhood and love was wiped out by the barbarian invasions. Even the Church became a plaything inthe hands of the barbarian masters of Europe.They put up Popes, bishops and abbots at will.Some of these were very evil men and they did irreparable damage to Church and to civilization. ALL THAT
CHRISTENDOM GAINED IN A THOUSAND YEARS WAS LOST IN A CENTURY.
Eventually the barbarians were converted.Yet they were nominal Christians with very little sprit of original Christianity.This haphazard life of the faithful affected even the life of the clergy. Most of the clergymen were illiterate like the flock they sheperded. Bishops and abbots with very large holdings were very often absent from their Sees or monasteries. They were to be found in hunting lodges or in the castles amidst wine and women. Many of them had no vocation to ecclesiastical life and were put up by kings or princes for the highest bid.
The two most flagrant visible evils that affected religious life were simony and clerical immorality including concubinage. The king or the prince was demanding money for clerical appointment. The bishop or the abbot would take money from those who wished to be ordained.They also had a share in the income of a parish from the man who had received the appointment as parish priest. The priests in their turn were ministering only for a price. Such was the sin of simony during the Dark Ages.
Clerical immorality during this period exceeded even that of the primitive people. In the Latin Church no married person could receive Major Orders.Any one in Major Orders could not married validly. The demand for celibacy lost its force during this period. Parish Priests often lived with their house-keepers. These not only kept the house but also shared their beds. Many of the priests had undergone private marriages,that is without any witnesses.Thus almost 90% of the clergy lived in concubinage.
During this time of decadence and disorder, there were attempts to reform the clergy. The man who succeeded in the purification of the Church was Pope Gregory VII(saint).Gregory was elected in 1073 and in the 12 yearsof his pontificate, he, with the help of the monks of Cluny,France, did what many other popes could not do. In the Lenten Synod held at Rome in 1074,Gregory enacted the following decrees:
1. Clerics who had obtained any position in the Church throughsimony were automatically suspended from exercising their duties.
2. All those who purchased Church property were to lose the ownership with immediate effect.
3. In future under pain of automatic excommunication no one could practise simony.
4. All clerics who lived in concubinage are deprived of their priesthood.
5. Excommunication for clerics who contracted marriage.
6. The faithful were forbidden to attend the ministries of any cleric who did not obeythese rules.
…………..
BENEDICT XVI has to save the Church from the clutches of the bishops and the priests.
DEO GRATIAS- May 2nd 2007.
(alexbenziger@yahoo.com)
John, thanks for posting the link to the article.
My thoughts are summed up by this quote from it, I added the text in brackets []:
“In particular, while the document encourages individual and group study of the Bible [and Church documents and news articles], it warns against the dangers of an arbitrary or literal interpretation of the Scriptures [and Church documents and news articles], which it says could lead to fundamentalism.”
though off-topic
Actually David, your post and Al’s have been the first on-topic posts in this thread (and even on this blog 🙂 ) in a while.
Smoky,
I was referring to how John continues to spread lies and calumny about the Pope(s) as well as other holy folks — especially since he claims to be ‘Traditional’.
Also, there is a notion that goes like this: that sometimes a person only learns just how wrong their actions when they are subjected to the same.
Besides, John’s anti-semitic comments on past threads speak for themselves.
The difference between us is that what John utters about the Pope(s) are indeed lies while evidence proves that what I have said of him is true.
Wow. This post has reached 436 comments. Anyone know if any other posts exceed that level?
Smoky,
Unfortunately, you are dead on. This thread was so far off-topic that I forgot that I was on the topic! 😉
Actually, David B., what you (and perhaps some folks) haven’t realized is the fact that because John has been posting all the while here, he has not disrupted other threads with his usual anti-V2 spiel there.
It’s like that LOR strategy that was talked about way back when, ya think?
Smoky, about your remark here:
I am not defending John, I am criticizing your attacks on him rather than on his arguments.
My posts on this thread where I featured John’s previous posts along with Pre-Vatican II teachings were not to attack his character but rather to show that there is, in fact, a clear divide between what he says/believes and what the Traditional Teachings of the Catholic Church actually are; so I would appreciate that you not mischaracterize them as being such.
In short, their purpose was meant to show the distinct contrast to the extent that John might see these citations I had obtained from a Pre-Vatican II Catechism book (used in the old days) featured in my posts and contrast what it taught with what John has said/believes to the point where he might reach the conclusion that none of what he actually says/believes is, in fact, traditional.
Smoky Mountain,
If I remember correctly. Cy the Cyclops was over 600 and the Brokeback Fiasco was about that also.
Now back to our regularly scheduled post…
I think May 5, 2007 would be a good day for the Motu Proprio.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Esau,
I’m referring to your statements like this:
John again has LIED about the FACTS!
You don’t know he lied. He may have misread / misinterpreted something.
it’s people like John who misinterpret its passages as such who are the ones responsible for any anti-semitic sentiments
You characterize John as anti-semitic here.
I think your statements here were inappropriate.
Smoky:
As they say in court — his previous posts goes toward character.
In fact, let me ask you then — has John furnished any evidence whatsoever to support his statement that B16 has high on his agenda another ANOTHER RETRANSLATION OF YOUR NEW AMERICAN BIBLE TO MAKE IT LESS ANTISEMITIC!!
Also, please carefully read my comment:
it’s people like John who misinterpret its passages as such who are the ones responsible for any anti-semitic sentiments
If you actually read John’s previous comments on other threads prior to your hasty judgment of me, you would then realize that his comments (not to mention, his misinterpretation of biblical passages) do foster anti-semitic sentiments.
Esau posted:
“My posts on this thread where I featured John’s previous posts along with Pre-Vatican II teachings were not to attack his character but rather to show that there is, in fact, a clear divide between what he says/believes and what the Traditional Teachings of the Catholic Church actually are; so I would appreciate that you not mischaracterize them as being such.”
And then he posted:
“Besides, John’s anti-semitic comments on past threads speak for themselves.”
Assau…I mean Esau you:
FAILED IN Your ASSERTION That the POPE had NOTHING to do with the rewriting of the Bible once again to come in order to change scripture to confirm with the continued Ecumania and your nasty words about Me, as I clearly proved you once AGAIN wrong
You FAILED to show one post (AND I KNOW IN YOUR OBSSESSION WITH ME YOU HAVE ALL OF MY POSTS SAVED SOMEWHERE SORT OF LIKE THAT CRAZY GUY AT VIRGINIA TECH WHO WAS OBSESSED WITH RICH PEOPLE
And you FAILED to prove once how the church has not DEFECTED from past teachings, as today is now just another perfect example of how she will stop at nothing to please her so called “enemies” while they do nothing to appease us. Do you know that Israel still is holding church land and is taxing the Vatican for such and walked out of a scheduled 5 year meeting just last month! And what does B16 do? He asks the Bishops to convene to go over the Bible AGAIN to see if they can change the language some more
Soon, one will have the Sweedes in the holy land at the time of the crucifixion as far as I know they stay pretty quiet and maybe the Vatican II church would take them on as they are scared of everyone else!!
Inocencio:
If I remember correctly. Cy the Cyclops was over 600 and the Brokeback Fiasco was about that also
You remember incorrectly; Cy was 249 and Brokeback just over 200. I did find one with more: the infamous Meat on Lenten Fridays a Mortal Sin? But we’re closing in!
Go ahead Esau, try and sift through your “archives” of John posts to find just ONE antisemitic comment
You are just like the Rabbi’s who when cornered resort to the race card or antisemitism card when dealing with Catholic Traditionalism!!
You are so sad
Assau…I mean Esau
Smoky:
Okay, Smoky, go ahead and defend once again your saintly ‘John’; or perhaps I’m merely misreading/misinterpreting your comments as regards him.
Yet, please tell me where in the article John had provided a link to that B16 has high on his agenda another ANOTHER RETRANSLATION OF YOUR NEW AMERICAN BIBLE TO MAKE IT LESS ANTISEMITIC!!?
That was clearly a lie and NOT a mere misreading or misinterpretation.
Smoky Mountain,
Thanks for comment totals. May I ask how your are searching the archives and getting comment totals?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John,
You have no right to criticize Esau. You engage in far worse libel then he does, comparing him to Cho.
Furthermore, the Jerusalem Post article you’ve linked to says nothing about re-translating the Bible, as you’ve alleged. Several of us have pointed that out, and you’ve not commented.
All you’ve done is vomit the same things over and over, and vomit attacks at Esau. Why not start chewing what other people say to you on this forum, and maybe you’ll starting digesting something.
You engage in far worse libel then he does
Smoky,
How have I engaged in libel???
All I have said can be proven by John’s own comments.
Thank-you for your villainous characterization of me once again!
Esau…..You failed
Be a true Catholic and admit you acted hasty, used calumny and threw out the “antisemitism” card in the hope to throw all off the true story of the Pope pushed forth the Bishops to sift through the 4x retranslated NAB once again in 2008 and pull out anything that can possibly link anyone the rabbis dont agree with from the bible all together
Christ died for all men….except Jews? Hey, dont they know that per Vatican II and the “incarnate word” they are members of Christ’s church and dont even know it!! The house of cards came tumblin down, tumblin down, tumblin down…..
Okay, Smoky, go ahead and defend once again your saintly ‘John’; or perhaps I’m merely misreading/misinterpreting your comments as regards him.
Esau, you over-react here. I’ve never defended John. I’ve criticized you for your language towards him.
I agree with you (as I just posted) that John’s article doesn’t say what he says it says. But you called him a liar before he even posted the link. That was inappropriate.
John,
This is ridiculous. Several people have pointed out to you that your link doesn’t say anything about re-translating the Bible, and you continue to say that it does.
Though I think Esau applied the label “liar” prematurely, I begin to think he may be right in this case.
I agree with you (as I just posted) that John’s article doesn’t say what he says it says. But you called him a liar before he even posted the link. That was inappropriate.
Smoky,
You neglect the fact that in the same post, I had provided the following evidence that clearly shows that it were the Orthodox theologians who were considering to remove anti-semitic language from NOT the bible, but actually their Liturgical texts.
Orthodox theologians decry anti-Semitism in liturgy
May. 2, 2007 (CWNews.com) – A group of Orthodox theologians has called for the revision of liturgical texts, to remove what they see as anti-Semitic language, a Russian news agency reports.
Credo, a Christian news agency operating on the internet, reports that 12 Orthodox theologians issued a statement favoring liturgical changes during an April visit to Israel. The group found anti-Semitic passages particularly in the liturgical texts of the Orthodox Easter season.
The statement was endorsed by theologians of the Russian, Greek, Ukrainian, and Georgian Orthodox traditions.
Link:
Orthodox theologians decry anti-Semitism in liturgy
Posted by: Esau | May 2, 2007 9:15:51 AM
Thank-you for your villainous characterization of me once again!
This is another over-reaction, Esau. Just because I criticize you, doesn’t mean I characterize you as villainous.
May I ask how your are searching the archives and getting comment totals?
Comment totals are listed at the bottom of the posts when viewed in “Archive view”.
Smoky,
I would appreciate it if you carefully examined and considered the evidence — both current and previous.
It has been shown that John not only lied here but also in the past as well.
In fact, he’s been caught lying several times in previous threads by others, mind you — not only myself.
Thus, my saying:
John again has LIED about the FACTS!
…is justified given both the current as well as historical evidence against him.
I disagree with you, Esau. And you disagree with me. That’s OK. I’ve said my piece, and I’ll shut-up now about this for the benefit of all.
Smoky:
Kindly provide me with evidence that he has not and, then, perhaps I’ll re-consider.
However, given how John has, in fact, lied here and, not to mention, the several instances John had been caught lying in the past by others as well, the statement remains ‘true’ as far as the facts of the case goes.
So, sorry, Smoky, but Here I stand — I can do no other!
Given the way that John clings to his interpretation that this article says “the Pope pushed forth the Bishops to sift through the 4x retranslated NAB once again in 2008 and pull out anything that can possibly link anyone the rabbis dont agree with from the bible all together,” I don’t think that he’s lying. No one in their right mind lies that much when the facts are right there for everyone to see. I’ve got to believe he’s somehow not able to see things objectively.
sorry, that link was supposed to be this article
Brian,
Thanks — that’s a more charitable position than the one I espoused a few posts ago (Posted by: Smoky Mountain | May 2, 2007 12:20:09 PM).
Better to assume the best. I don’t see through John’s eyes.
Brian,
The only problem is that the link provided was an April 27 news story.
However, remember what John actually said in his original post:
… and reports from Rome today say that B16 has high on his agenda another ANOTHER RETRANSLATION OF YOUR NEW AMERICAN BIBLE TO MAKE IT LESS ANTISEMITIC!!.
This leads me to believe that the original news story in question was, in fact, the one I rendered in the same post where I had claimed John actually lied about the facts yet again. Correct me if I’m wrong, but “today” is May 2nd, right?
Here, to appease the Pro-‘John’ crowd, I will concede on this point if John actually produces the “reports from Rome today say that B16 has high on his agenda another ANOTHER RETRANSLATION OF YOUR NEW AMERICAN BIBLE TO MAKE IT LESS ANTISEMITIC!!” article — which, correct me if I’m wrong, but being described as ‘today’, I would take this to mean something dated May 2nd and NOT something in April.
Esau — but John specifically mentions the New American Bible, whereas your article mentions Orthodox Liturgy. Why hold him to the date if you don’t hold him to the text?
I agree that subsequent posts of John’s have made his position look bad, but at the time of your post, it would have been more charitable to assume that John was confused rather than lying.
to appease the Pro-‘John’ crowd
I’m not sure who is in the “Pro-John” crowd. I am not. I’m more in the anti-pre-judging crowd. 🙂
Esau,
Regardless of which article John was referring to (maybe he saw it today even though it was published earlier), my point is the same. I’ve never take a psychology class in my life, so I’m probably wrong. But it’s my opinion that John is (ironically) the poster-boy for the invincible ignorance which gives us hope for the salvation of non-Catholics.
P.S. I’m not saying that John’s not Catholic.
“I’ve got to believe he’s somehow not able to see things objectively.”
You nailed it, Brian. That’s why everyone should ignore him. He seems to have become an occasion of sin for some.
Esau posted:
“However, given how John has, in fact, lied here and, not to mention, the several instances John had been caught lying in the past by others as well, the statement remains ‘true’ as far as the facts of the case goes.”
Esau-another lame accusation in lying
Show me one LIE-you cant cause I neve ever Lie
What you think is a “Lie” is the truth, as I pointed out earlier of one in the “denial phase” as you are is seems to be
The thing is that if man is ignorant of the Church, Natural Law is embedded into their soul.
They cannot go against it. If they live by it, they can be saved, because that will eventually lead to the admiration of something greater than himself (God) however tacit who it is.
The existance of God is engraved into the souls of EVERY HUMAN CREATURE.
And God wills and provides graces for that person to either discover the Church or live by Natural Law. ”
But if we Catholics who have the Sacraments cannot easily follow the Laws of God, what of someone who has no Sacraments?
St. Thomas taught that.