Where am I now?
(NOTE: These photos have been exposure adjusted to correct–as much as possible–for dim lighting conditions.)
Need another hint?
BTW, CHT to the person who took the second photo!
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
A church. 🙂
Sistine Chapel.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
When I was in the Sistine Chapel 8 months ago pictures weren’t allowed (obviously that didn’t stop most Catholics). Have the rules changed?
on the planet earth
Sistine Chapel.
I thought you couldn’t take pictures in the Sistine chapel???
WOW, Jimmy Akin has Pull!!!
Jimmy Akin taking pictures in the Sistine Chapel – this is an opportunity for scandal!
Jimmy Akin taking pictures in the Sistine Chapel – this is an opportunity for scandal!
Brian,
As my comment implied, I think Jimmy Akin has CELEBRITY STATUS even in Rome!!!
The Vatican officials probably said:
“You’re Jimmy Akin?!?!?
We’re big fans!!! Sure — please feel free to take pictures!!”
=^) GO JIMMY!!!
Jimmy Akin taking pictures in the Sistine Chapel – this is an opportunity for scandal!
Sorry here’s smiley faces to show I was joking 🙂 🙂 🙂
Hah! A photo without the boot!
Next time take it off and hold it.
I thought they let you take pics with no flash, like elsewhere in the museum. Not that that stopped the hordes of flash-popping tourists when I was there – the docents kept on trying, but there were too many.
Should you be wearing your hat in the Sistine Chapel Jimmy?
JFK, the boot was in the first picture.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Roma!
The Hat is the symbol of Mr. Akin’s office, as well (I am told) the source of his super-powers. Where the Hat goes, so goes the man.
*clap* *clap*
“Silenzio!”
*clap* *clap*
“No foto!”
*clap* *clap*
(response to an above response: they won’t know if you don’t use flash. That’s the key…NO flash.)
Dr. Eric, The thing is that it’s been a long time since he’s shown us ANY picture that’s hes taken without his boot in the frame and now we have the exception that makes the rule.
I like that “source of his supper powers” bit.
I thought they let you take pics with no flash
When I was there in September 2004, the rule was NO PHOTOGRAPHS PERIOD — flash or no flash. Sure, it’s a disappointment, but it’s their chapel and they get to set whatever rules they want to set.
I like that “source of his supper powers” bit.
Supper powers? I didn’t know Jimmy could cook!
Sure, it’s a disappointment, but it’s their chapel and they get to set whatever rules they want to set.
I guess the upside is that you can pretty much take all the pictures you want anywhere else in the whole museum.
Love your stuff, Jimmy, but take the hat off, cowboy…
I don’t know about photos, but when I went, we were told before we went in that we had to be absolutely SILENT. As I recall, there was even a big sign saying the same thing.
I walked in, and the din was unbelievable. I never heard so much noise in my life. People are rude. Reminds me of acquaintances of mine who wre really, really annoyed that there were people praying and even – Gasp! – holding MASS in the churches of Europe, which THEY thought of as just museums!
My wife and I were just there last summer for our honeymoon — yeah, you aren’t supposed to take photos inside the Sistine Chapel. It’s part of the agreement between the Vatican and a Japanese company that did the restoration. While you’re in there, you’ll hear all these “guards” yelling at people with cameras or camcorders.
Yeah, I got a shot, which looks pretty much like Jimmy’s. Way to stick it to the man! 🙂
Jimmy;
I wonder, as a former non-Catholic, what do non-Catholics think of that space and all of the Church history there?
and
Brian, you caught me.
JFK,
My wife’s Presbyterian and we used plane tickets that I won at my company Christmas party to go to Rome (and a side trip to Venice) last September. She generally liked all the Catholic Churches and stuff. She was more impressed with the huge size and sculptures of St. Peters than the Sistine Chapel. She was somewhat interested in hearing stories of the saints as we walked by their statues in St. Peters (which is actually a big deal because she’s usually not interested in that type of stuff). She was appalled by the way that half the people left the Pope’s general audience before it was over. And her biggest Catholic culture shock was when we were in St. Mark’s basilica and she realized that relics were actually body parts of dead people and not just old artifacts.
Overall she had a great time and would love to go back. If you have any other specific questions asking might bring back a fuzzy memory or two, but those are the things that stood out to me.
Brian:
She was appalled by the way that half the people left the Pope’s general audience before it was over.
Unfortunately, people even do that at Mass.
And her biggest Catholic culture shock was when we were in St. Mark’s basilica and she realized that relics were actually body parts of dead people and not just old artifacts.
That shouldn’t be a shock.
For example, here are some of the things we find in the bible regarding relics (which I learned from Tim Staples):
Remember in the bible how the bones of Elisha brought a dead man to life?
“So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet”
2 Kgs. 13:20-21
Also, in the New Testament, there was the woman cured of a hemorrhage by touching the hem of Christ’s cloak (Matt. 9:20-22) and the sick who were healed when Peter’s shadow passed over them (Acts 5:14-16). “And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them” (Acts 19:11-12).
When I was in Rome for the Jubilee of 2000 at the Catholic Doctors Conference (FIAMC) we were told that there was no photography of any kind allowed in the Sistine Chapel because the flashes damage the paint. I think they went so far as not allowing any video taping either.
You’re not allowed to take photos in the Sistine Chapel!
That’s how they make money off the tourist books.
I love the ceilings that look like they’re relief carvings but they’re actually paintings. Crazy.
Lol! Nice boots. Remember, no line dancing.
Esau,
Most people are people first and theologians second. Her reaction to the relics was something like, “Eww! Are those dead people’s bones in there?” It wasn’t anything having to do with Catholics “worshipping” relics or anything like that.
Isn’t that some mural painted by Micha-… no wait, Tim Jones?
I’d like to think that you put your hat on for the picture. Don’t tell me it’s a Texas thing as I, my parents, and grandparents are Texans and the men-folk would never, ever wear a hat indoors.
Putting all that aside, props on being there. Been there twice; once as an agnostic and once as Catholic. No lines in November! W00t!
Mr. Jimmy,
That picture should go on the “Incredible Shrinking Apologist”.
Looking good…
Isn’t that some mural painted by Micha-… no wait, Tim Jones?
Tim Jones (notoriously known on the blog as Tim J.) was actually commissioned to do the murals for the St. Karol Wojtyla Cathedral to be built 2009 at Krakow.
Haha.
But no. A pontiff retains his reign name.
Even upon cannonization. So respect Mr.Esau.
Even if a person is in Hell, you must address them properly. It is only manners.
It is much better to say St. John Paul II, pope.
Even if a person is in Hell, you must address them properly. It is only manners.
With all due respect, Mr. “Some Day”, John Paul II is NOT in Hell.
It’s the Cathedral in Las Vegas, right?
With all due respect, Mr. “Some Day”, John Paul II is NOT in Hell.
How do you know?
How do you know?
How do you know he is???
Esau, I don’t think SomeDay was saying that John Paul II is in hell…I mean, he even suggested St. John Paul II as an alternative to St. Karol Wojtyla. I think he was merely pointing out that even if a pope were in hell…suppose, for instance, in the future a man named Bill Smith is elected pope, and takes the name Pius XXIII. He is a bad guy, doesn’t ever confess, and goes to hell. Even so, it is best to refer to him as Pius XXIII rather than Bill Smith. He was the pope, but a bad pope.
Anyway, it is true we do not know for certain that John Paul II is in heaven. I hope, pray, and think that he is, but we do not know with certainty that anyone but the canonized saints are in heaven. A man may seem holy to the entire world and still not be. Not that this is the case with John Paul II, but it is possible with anyone, and we must be cautious about the assumption that anyone is certain to go to heaven. Anyway, I’ve probably just turned a very small matter into a big one, but I hope that I helped the discussion somehow.
Yep, Jimmy thinks he can disagree with the Vatican… once again.
No photos. That is the rule.
But when not convenient, cafeteria Jimmy doesn’t obey the rules.
Notice he shoved it to the Vatican with that disrespectful hat.
The Seventeenth Chapel…er…wait…
Despite the din when I was there, I grabbed one of the seats and near snapped off my neck in craning to gaze at the ceiling…but I was continually drawn to The Last Judgment.
The message therein regarding sin is quite clear.
Strange that someone who represents himself as a faithful Catholic, in a hall representing the final judgment, willingly disobeys the Vatican….
Remove the hat Jimmy.
While it was a article in the 1917 code of Canon Law that in Church women covered thier heads and men uncovered thier heads, the 1983 code is silent on the subject.
Oh, and don’t try the “tradition” argument….
Whatever is permitted is not forbidden – whatever is not forbidden is permitted.
A Non,
“Strange that someone who represents himself as a faithful Catholic, in a hall representing the final judgment, willingly disobeys the Vatican….”
‘Willingly disobeys’? You know that by Divine Revelation? If not, then judge not, lest ye be judged.
So DavidB someone put a gun next to Jimmy, told him to take pictures and wear a hat in a church?
So DavidB someone put a gun next to Jimmy, told him to take pictures and wear a hat in a church?
A Non:
I agree that regardless of current/past Canon Law or what the Church permits/doesn’t permit, a Southern Gentleman should take his hat off as a sign of respect when inside of a Church or any other respectable place that warrants such, but what’s your beef with Jimmy?
You seem to come off rather bitter.
David B posted:
“‘Willingly disobeys’? You know that by Divine Revelation? If not, then judge not, lest ye be judged.”
But David, dont you know your Canon law and catechism?
Our Lord said in Luke 13:24 “Strive to enter by the narrow gate;for many I say to you, shall seek to enter and not be able”. (Did they delete this from the 4th translation of the New American Bible as all are now saved?)
As Traditional church teaching states:
We share in the good and the evil of those we place in office. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that, although “sin is a personal act, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them” (CCC #1868). We can be accomplices in the sins of others:
• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers” (CCC #1868).
The Catechism is thus consistent with traditional Catholic teaching which held that there are nine ways we can be an accessory to another’s sin:
1. By counsel. I.e., “I think you should have an abortion; go ahead and have the abortion. It will help preserve your lifestyle.”
2. By command. I.e., Telling your child, your friend, or your co-worker, “Have an abortion, you may lose your job if you don’t.”
3. By consent. I.e., “If you and your partner feel it’s the best thing, go ahead and have a sexual relationship, get married.even if you’re both of the same sex, etc. It’s nobody’s business.”
4. By provocation. I.e., “Have the abortion! Aren’t you in charge of your own life. The Pope is old and sick and who cares what he says anyhow.”
5. By praise or flattery. I.e., “Oh, Senator, you are so courageous and kind in defending a woman’s ‘right’ to an abortion.”
6. By concealment. I.e., The pastor allows the senator, judge, president, etc. who has voted for, or otherwise promoted, abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, same-sex marriage, etc. to appear to be in good standing, when, in fact, they have caused grave public scandal by their actions. When the sin is public, the redress must be public.
Esau posted:
“I agree that regardless of current/past Canon Law or what the Church permits/doesn’t permit, a Southern Gentleman should take his hat off as a sign of respect when inside of a Church or any other respectable place that warrants such, but what’s your beef with Jimmy?”
Esau-this has nothing to do with a “Southern gentlemen, but scripture and canon law!!
The 1917 Code of Canon Law stated: “…women, however, should be with head covered and modestly dressed, …” The JPII Code of Canon Law from 1983 of course is silent on the subject as is everything post V2 or at least vague, on the requirement of women to wear veils in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, but just because in canon law something is omitted does not automatically imply a change of Church teaching, as even the JPII 1983 Code of Canon Law, Can. 21 says:
“In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earier ones, as far as possible, harmonized with them.”
Or Maybe Esau the Protestant bible expert should recite the following 10 times!1 Cor. 11:4-6:
“Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil”.
Wow, I would not believe how uncatechised Esau and David B are!! Southern gentleman!! Bitter!!
Lest not be judged!!
Thank goodness for those that actually know the 1917 code of Canon law and the true Catechism and traditions of the church and not ex Protestants like Scott Hahn who I read on another Catholic blog blasted Traditional Catholics as being “servile” and “legalistic”. Yes , we do, we dont believe in bending the rules to be ecumenical or inclusive as though the V2 church now teaches that everyone is a member of the Catholic church and can be saved in clear defiance of past church teachings, even scripture is clear when it says “And if the just man shall scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly sinner appear”
“So DavidB someone put a gun next to Jimmy, told him to take pictures and wear a hat in a church? ”
A Non,
You don’t know whether Jimmy was innocently unaware of the rules or not. And unless Jimmy tells you, you won’t.
Yes, Jimmy should’ve taken his hat off on order to conform to Euro courtesy. Is that cause to accuse him of obstinately rebelling against Christ’s Church. Cool yer jets.
“Wow, I would not believe how uncatechised Esau and David B are!! Southern gentleman!! Bitter!!”
I had a good laugh at this, then a I saw wrote: that’s just plain sad.
” (Did they delete this from the 4th translation of the New American Bible as all are now saved?)”
In the consecration it says: “this is my blood…which shall be given up for you and for all..” Jesus DID die for all. The Church has never taught that all are saved, and you know it.
What kind of low-down rascal wears his hat in a church? Southerners, even Texans, should have more manners than that!!!
John:
Canon 21 only relates to later laws. In 1983 the 1917 code was completely suppressed.
From the CCC
Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1/ THE CODE OF CANON LAW PROMULGATED IN 1917;
2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;
3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;
4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.
§2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition.
Pseudo
What you say is true, but if you also read what I posted from the 1983 it appears as that if it is not specificaly revised then you revert back
Can. 21:
“In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earier ones, as far as possible, harmonized with them.”
But I do see what you are saying, I think you may be right. I have been reading it the other way for 20 years
One must question the need to do away with a code of Canon law when the church and her teachings are supposed to never change and the Pope is not supposed to invent or change teachings, but only to clarify
One must question the need to do away with a code of Canon law when the church and her teachings are supposed to never change and the Pope is not supposed to invent or change teachings, but only to clarify
Can somebody explain to me how John’s rants above is different from the anti-Catholic who says the following on their website:
“What will be the next invention? The Roman Church says it never changes; yet, it has done nothing else but invent new doctrines.”
Isn’t it interesting that you can always count on Protestant converts to defend the Catholic Church while, on the other hand, you can always count on Rad Trads to tear it down!
While Protestant converts try to convert people to the one true Catholic Faith, you can always count on Rad Trads to drive them away.
It almost seems as if converting folks is the farthest thing from their minds and that the Catholic Church is some sort of exclusive club reserved only for them.
By the way, for those who don’t know, Canon Law is not DOCTRINE; it is mainly for discipline.
Esau posted (in another of his rants):
“Isn’t it interesting that you can always count on Protestant converts to defend the Catholic Church while, on the other hand, you can always count on Rad Trads to tear it down!”
Esau-it is the ever changing Vatican II church that flows with public opinion that you and so many of the Protestants on this blog seem to love, not the tried and true church in which at Vatican I was infallibly taught that the Vicar of Christ is to never change church doctrine only clarify
Traditionalists on the other hand hold fast to the true teachings of the church as was handed down. I note on these threads especially that on Beckwith that you, SDG, David B (Anglican?) and so many of the ex-Protestants have much more in common “Protestants” than you do with Traditionalists and your charity towards them is obvious, as is the Vatican II church with ecumenism but your hatred of Traditionalists is so glaring because “Wa are what you once were”
in which at Vatican I was infallibly taught that the Vicar of Christ is to never change church doctrine only clarify
And exactly what doctrines have been changed?
John,
The 1983 code eliminated the 1917 code.
This is actually a legal device to prevent thier being two competing codes at the same time – revise the code by completly replacing it.
By specifically being silent on the subject of headcoverings in 1983 the Holy See converted a legal requirement into an act of piety. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the old law insofar as it shows a relationship to God appropriate to the particular gender.
IMHO:
A man’s relationship to God is characterized by deference, trust and vulnerability and so a Christian man uncovers his head to his Lord so that he may show an exposure of self and that he is ready for a blessing.
A womans relationship to God is characterized by fidelity and as a singular, private, almost intimate bond. She covers her head and reveals herself only to God and God alone.
Has John hijacked another thread?
Mary kay posted:
“Has John hijacked another thread?”
Mary-If hijacking is pointing out continued inconsistencies in church teaching and the need to continuously reinvent the church and teachings in clear defiance of its past infallible teachings, in order to appease you and the rest of the sinful, secular, modernistic world-then consider me a hijacker and go back to living in your cave and put back your rose colored glasses and all will be well in Mary Kay’s hipcritcal little world!
Pseudomondo
Thank you for the explanation, but can you please explain why the 1917 code was clear on the subject, but then JPII decided to, as you put it, make a legal requirement an act of “piety”?
Again, was this not another appeasement of the world? Our Lady herself was never shown without a head covering, and this requirement goes back to scripture. Or was this an appeasement as well to the denial of the real presence to the Protestants?
If hijacking is pointing out continued inconsistencies in church teaching
John, with all your frequent and lengthy posts, you haven’t yet “pointed out continued inconsistencies in church teaching.”
Not being able to do so, you resorted today to ad hominem attacks which actually made me laugh.
I will give you credit for once more being so effective at negative attention getting.
Actually I hope that the Rad-Trads (as opposed to FSSP and other ‘faithful’ traditionalists) do hold fast to the old way and that they recieve thier motu proprio indult soon. If they insist that the Tridentine mass is the best then I also suggest they be held to the 1917 code of canon law with all its obligations and penalties in all fairness and justice.
You can have the old mass with the new code but if the trads don’t stop whining I would (if I were Pope) IMPOSE the 1917 code on them!!
I have great respect for faithful trads (FSSP and others). I often refer to them as ‘Catholics of the Strict Observance’!
A man’s relationship to God is characterized by deference, trust and vulnerability and so a Christian man uncovers his head to his Lord so that he may show an exposure of self and that he is ready for a blessing.
A womans relationship to God is characterized by fidelity and as a singular, private, almost intimate bond. She covers her head and reveals herself only to God and God alone.
Thank you for this description, Pseudomodo. Question for anyone to tackle: Why isn’t this type of piety taught anymore? I feel it would only help to build faith. How come you never hear about something once it’s made optional? I’m all for not imposing any undue burdens on people, but we also shouldn’t throw out perfectly good tradition just because its traditional. There’s got to be a middle ground of promoting this type of stuff without requiring it – kind of like the Church does (although could do better) with the rosary and other devotionals.
Mary kay posted:
“John, with all your frequent and lengthy posts, you haven’t yet “pointed out continued inconsistencies in church teaching.”
Mary, I as well as the millions of so called “Traditionalists” , including many well known theologians and Bishops and Cardinals at the time of Vatican II (ever hear of Cardinal Ottavani?) have pointed out these discrepencies and I have placed them on this very blog for your consumption.
The only refuting you and the die hard Modernists on this blog are able to do is attack the source (myself, schismatics, etc etc) as you really cant defend against 1970 years of church teaching as compared to 40 years of reinventing everything from the bible on down to the very way Catholics pray
But the past 40 years in cutting the ties to the past has robbed the catholic church of her greatest defenses, her traditions and history and like a house built on quicksand with no foundation, it will tumble as will the church since Vatican II only to be restored back to her greater glory
Pseudomondo-Bring on the 1917 Code of Canon law and if Catholics were able to live with it until JPII did away with it, then so can I and the rest! We dont need the loopholes in the 1983 law that allows for 60-70k annulments a year, or the giving out of our Lords body to Protestants as allowed in JPII’s law or any of the loopholes
We will always strive to become saints and if we fall short then we will only land then where the 1983 code is!
Why isn’t this type of piety taught anymore? I feel it would only help to build faith. How come you never hear about something once it’s made optional? I’m all for not imposing any undue burdens on people, but we also shouldn’t throw out perfectly good tradition just because its traditional. There’s got to be a middle ground of promoting this type of stuff without requiring it – kind of like the Church does (although could do better) with the rosary and other devotionals.
The priests in my parish often instruct folks regarding the importance of attending Mass in the appropriate clothing; only to suffer the rebellious attitudes of many of the parishoners there who continue to dress in t-shirts and chew bubblegum at Mass, even though the priests have instructed against that.
That said, just because priests provide proper instruction to the flock doesn’t mean the folks there will actually follow it.
In fact, there are many, due to the modern attitudes of today, that will behave like a stubborn teen-ager and simply rebel.
I’ve often heard it mentioned by some outside the church, “How dare that priest tells me how to dress up!” or “I can chew gum whereever and whenever I want!”
That said, just because priests provide proper instruction to the flock doesn’t mean the folks there will actually follow it. In fact, there are many, due to the modern attitudes of today, that will behave like a stubborn teen-ager and simply rebel.
So in one sense the strength of the Church truly lies in the laity. I guess I ought to stop complaining and start figuring out a way to make a difference.
So in one sense the strength of the Church truly lies in the laity.
It depends on what you mean by ‘strength’.
If you’re talking about a force that’s dependent on numbers; perhaps.
But, if you’re talking about a force that’s responsible for its well-being, I would argue that her strength lies in ‘Jesus Christ’.
If you consider the many evils the Catholic Church has faced and endured throughout the centuries both within and without, I would contend that it was all because of Our Lord that the Church has been able to survive for so long.
Esau,
Right on. I don’t remember who, but some non-Catholic guy who hated the Church got permission to see the VA secret archives. He wanted some “mud” to sling.
He came out a convert.
Because he concluded that the Church could not have survived this long if it was human because of all the abysmal problems it had throughout history. It had to be Divine.
So when idiots like John and the whole False Right pharisees complain instead of help, don’t worry, because not only do we have Our Lord’s word that the Church will triumph, but Our Lady’s as well, and like She said 90 years ago yesterday,
“In the end My Immaculate Heart will triupmh!”
Some Day posted:
“”In the end My Immaculate Heart will triupmh!”
Yes that is correct, Our Lady also demanded that Russia be consecrated, and each and every Sunday, as promulgated by Pope Leo XIII in 1884 and Pius XI in 1934 we pray 3 Hail Mary’s and a Hail Holy Queen as the church did for years until the “reformers” declared that this was no longer needed and stripped it away. Is there even a prayer to Our Lady in the New Mass?
Pope Saint Pius X clearly condemned those who were a threat to the church and Pope ex cathedra in Lamentabali that any individual who even defended a single modernist proposition was ipso facto and latae sententiae excommunicated, without the need to for any one to publicly so declare (Praestantia Scripturae, Nov. 18, 1907).
So therefore anyone who goes forth and is promulgating the errors of Vatican II and Modernism per infallilbe teachings is actually excommunicated
The whole concept and church teaching of religious liberty, the idea that every man is free to decide for himself what is true and false, that their human dignity resides there is another clear contradiction to infallible church teaching.
Would our Lord upon the Cross telling us that he came to establish a visible Church – “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic,” and to the truths necessary for our salvation, then tell us that we have no obligation to listen to Him. – that we are free to choose for ourselves what we shall believe, and that our real human dignity resides, not in conforming to His image, but in making just such choices!
So if you feel that promoting error, modernism and ecumenism is the right thing to do, what Christ died on the cross for, then so be it
the idea that every man is free to decide for himself what is true and false, that their human dignity resides there
John, I don’t recall seeing this in the Catechism, can you cite it for me? Or was it in an encyclical or some other Church document? I’ll admit I haven’t read many of those other than the commonly quoted bits and pieces.
John,
The only error I see here is the errors of the Schismatic Trads. The excommunications that are in force now regarding them are the excommunications of July 1, 1988 against Lefevbre and his followers. The priests and faithful who support and follow them are also excommunicated as the decree duly notes.
Show me a document or decree of the same caliber as this decree from the Holy See that changes this fact – I’s like to read it!.
Pius X was a great Pope and I prayed at his Tomb in Rome. However there is a difference between Pius X and Marcel Lefevbre and this difference is very great indeed. If Giuseppe Sarto was faced with the same situation as Marcel Lefevbre, I believe Sarto would have obeyed Rome. I also believe that this is what makes Sarto a great saint.
Brian posted:
“the idea that every man is free to decide for himself what is true and false, that their human dignity resides there”
Brian, a paraphrase I may add, but take the time to read the Vatican II document on Religious Liberty DIGNITATIS HUMANAE and decide for yourself if this is Catholic. Please note the changes in past teachings particular that the whole truth only “subsists” within the Catholic church (this you can thank a young Father Ratzinger and his mentor Karl Ranher.
I will only provide you with an excerprt of this document, but read the following and then decide for yourself. The church instructing those that it is their moral obligation and duty to seek the truth whereever it may lie. Whatever happened to conversions?
“2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.
“It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html
OK. Done. It’s Catholic. Thanks for asking, John.
Pseudomondo posted:
“The only error I see here is the errors of the Schismatic Trads. The excommunications that are in force now regarding them are the excommunications of July 1, 1988 against Lefevbre and his followers. The priests and faithful who support and follow them are also excommunicated as the decree duly notes.”
That may or may not be true, how do you know what Pope St Pius X would have done? We know he infallibly declared that modernism was evil and made each of the clergy take an oath.
He also declared as I stated earlier from my earlier post that:
Pope Saint Pius X clearly condemned those who were a threat to the church and Pope ex cathedra in Lamentabali that any individual who even defended a single modernist proposition was ipso facto and latae sententiae excommunicated, without the need to for any one to publicly so declare (Praestantia Scripturae, Nov. 18, 1907).
So therefore anyone who embraces modernism coming after this infallible teaching of Saint Pope Pius X is already excommunicated so the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre will be eventually found null and void
John,
Why not let Pope Pius X speak for himself.
“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).” Pope St. Pius X (c. May 10, 1909)
I suggest you recognize his clear condemnation of your words and actions.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.”
John, maybe I’m misreading this, but this very quote you provided says exactly the opposite of men are free to decide for themselves what is true and what is false. It starts by saying our dignity lies in the reason and free will that God endowed us with in order seek the truth. I don’t think you deny the necessity of free will in God’s plan. Then, while it does say that no one can be forced to believe the truth, it also says “They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth.”
Let me try to put this in a different perspective. Today we are far outnumbered by secularists and relativists. It’s this teaching of the Church that defends our freedom to live our lives according to the Magisterium even though the world around us doesn’t. No matter what laws the secular world passes, they cannot coerce us to change our religious practices. We are obligated to follow the truth.
Brian’s recent post to John on another thread:
John, the reason so many people get upset with you is because you always attribute these qualities to the Church rather than the people who exhibit them. You know as well as any of us that the Catholic Church does not teach these things; it’s the people who dissent from the Church who act in this way. If your posts made the distinction between what the Church actually teaches and the people who refuse to accept Her teachings, you would have a lot more friends around here.
Brian,
You hit the nail right on the head!
What’s weird is that I believe the reason why John refuses to acknowledge this is because it too much reminds him of himself; thus, there is a psychological ‘block’ in his mind that prevents him from realizing this fact in his psyche.
Think about it —
The very reason why there have been so many liturgical abuses rampant in the world today is because of folks who refuse to adhere and acknowledge actual Church teachings but, instead, make up a facsimile of it that is to their own liking.
In John’s case, he refuses to adhere and acknowledge the actual Church teachings himself but, instead, makes up a facsimile of it that is to his own disliking in order to provide him a reason (albeit fabricated) to rebel against it.
This, too, can be said of the Rad Trads (though not genuine Traditionalists who still faithfully look up to the Pope and acknowledge the Novus Ordo Missae).
Why?
Because it gives them a reason for being; for their existence.
You need to realize that for these Rad Trads, the Tridentine Mass was a part of them psychologically and emotionally; therefore, to have lost it due to the Novus Ordo Missae meant losing that aspect of themselves.
Therefore, they’ve manufactured all these things that Vatican II supposedly did in order to provide them with reasons for their existence and for their rebellion against the very thing that caused them to lose that aspect of themselves — the Catholic Church.
All in all, it’s a mental defect, you might say, that causes the Rad Trads to behave so irrationally.
This does NOT go the same for genuine Traditionalists who want to bring back the Tridentine Rite for legitimate reasons, who actually still acknowledge the Vicar of Christ as Head of Christ’s True Church and the Authority of His Catholic Church.
Hat’s off to you guys (and gals)!!
Oops – wait a minute…. Weren’t we sayin’ that hats are ok?? Oh – that was me!
John,
Anyone who contridicts the decisons that have been given or will be given in the future and approved by the Pontiff are disobedient, gravely sinful and causing scandal. Again, I suggest you actually read the documents you are quoting and follow their directives.
“Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions.” Praestantia Scripturae, Nov. 18, 1907
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“One must question the need to do away with a code of Canon law when the church and her teachings are supposed to never change and the Pope is not supposed to invent or change teachings, but only to clarify”
The church hasn’t undone Canon Law. Puuleeeeeze. Secondly, John, when and where did Christ give you the authority to condemn the misunderstood (by you)actions of the popes?
Jimmy, when’r ya gonna put this hobby horse down? (as per your own rules)
David B.,
Close that ‘Anglican’ mouth of yours, will ya? (not that there’s anything wrong with that) ;^)
Sorry — couldn’t help it after what John said about you:
I note on these threads especially that on Beckwith that you, SDG, David B (Anglican?) and so many of the ex-Protestants have much more in common “Protestants” than you do with Traditionalists and your charity towards them is obvious, as is the Vatican II church with ecumenism but your hatred of Traditionalists is so glaring because “Wa are what you once were”
The Catholic Church is a divine institution, founded by Christ, with a specific teachings that Our Lord bestowed upon it. Once you depart from these constitutions and teachings and you have a false church.
Any church that claims to be Catholic must prove that its teachings are the same which Christ intended for His Church. It must have the same doctrine, worship, and disciplines as the Church which Christ intended traceable back to the Apostles. Would Religious liberty be able to be traced back to the millions of Christians who have died over the past 2000 years, most in the first centuries rather than worship some false god?
Ecumenism is the spirit of Vatican II, which is the abandonment of the dogma, the very notion of absolute, unchanging revealed truths. Ecumenism detests the dogmas of the pre-Vatican II Traditional Catholic Church, and there is a clear distinction.
The only way that the church could appear to be in line with past teachings were to blur the teachings and make them confusing and vague with the contradictions of a false faith.
Ecumenism could not tolerate a Church that said that it alone was the one true Church of Christ, and that outside of it there is no salvation. It therefore created a church where you could be in “communion” to which you can partially belong and partially not belong. No longer will salvation be restricted to the Catholic Church because how can you promote ecumenism and then tell all those religions they are now going to hell?
So now Moslems worship the same God as Catholics, and we issue congratulatory notes to Hindus on their “feast day”. And we teach our children that all religions lead to God some more directly, some less directly. This is heresy and not the reason our Lord died on the cross, so that we can have the first Pope in Peter who died at the hands of the Romans rather than worship a pagan god, look down and see 2000 years later JPII worship with Hindus and Buddhists and Indians. That is the litmus test, would Peter do this? Would Pius X do this? If the answer is no, then it is not Catholic because the church can never change.
The Catholic Church is a divine institution, founded by Christ, with a specific teachings that Our Lord bestowed upon it. Once you depart from these constitutions and teachings and you have a false church.
Any church that claims to be Catholic must prove that its teachings are the same which Christ intended for His Church. It must have the same doctrine, worship, and disciplines as the Church which Christ intended traceable back to the Apostles.
John:
Where is your Catholic Church then?
John,
Per Pope St. Pius X the litmus test is if it has the Pontiff’s approval and not yours.
I knew you would just ignore Pius X own words. He was speaking to those, who like you, try to take an authority they do not have.
Have fun riding your silly hobby horse.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Actually, come to think of it, I rather like this.
The Anti-Catholic claims:
“What will be the next invention? The Roman Church says it never changes; yet, it has done nothing else but invent new doctrines.”
Prove to me, John, that the Roman Catholic Church isn’t, in fact, man-made and that it is actually the ‘True Church’ founded by Christ.
By your own admission, you have declared that the current Roman Catholic Church has apostatized.
The question that comes to my mind is if it has, in fact, apostatized; why should anybody look to it as ever having been the ‘True’ Church in the first place?
If the Devil has actually triumphed against the Catholic Church, the so-called ‘True’ Church; then it was never the Church founded by Christ to begin with. The ‘True’ Church of Christ is the one the ‘Gates of Hell’ will not prevail against.
Thus, the Roman Catholic Church has deceived people from centuries on down and Martin Luther was truly the Saviour of Christianity as it was he who had made known this awful truth about the Roman Church to the masses in the first place and unshackled Christianity from the very grips of this pagan, man-made monstrosity called the ‘Roman Catholic Church’!
Would Religious liberty be able to be traced back to the millions of Christians who have died over the past 2000 years, most in the first centuries rather than worship some false god?
Actually, John, they were martyred because their societies didn’t have religious liberty. They died for our religious liberty. The very same religious liberty that allows you to spout off the lies of your last post. You’re the one who has departed from the Truth, not the Catholic Church.