Over the past two days, readers of this space have been invited to examine Querida Amazonia and the machinations of the Bergoglian Regime with a discerning eye (HERE and HERE). Upon doing so, the routine ordination of married men to the priesthood (initially in the Amazon region) and the long term goal of ordaining women came into sharper focus.
By contrast, politically motivated media giants like BBC; neo-conservative Catholic operations like EWTN, and even some purportedly traditional outlets like Rorate Caeli are declaring that Francis refrained entirely from approving the priestly ordination of married men, much less the ordination of females to the diaconate.
This only goes to show just how unreliable these and so many other outlets truly are.
Consider, as a prime example, The Remnant, a “Big Tent” enterprise that has a toe in all three of the aforementioned media categories:
The Apostolic Exhortation [Querida Amazonia] turned out to be much ado about nothing … it falls well short of the mark when it comes to the threatened ordination of women and married priests … Let’s pray Francis is finally beginning to realize that the Church is not his plaything, and that his duty before God is to preserve and defend what was handed down to him, not “reform” it. – Editor, Michael Matt
Has it not dawned on Mr. Matt – who Taylor Marshall anointed a “traditional patriarch” – that Archbishop Lefebvre was correct, and what was “handed down” to Bergoglio to “preserve and defend” is a counterfeit church that does not teach any longer the Catholic faith? (cf Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Spiritual Conference given in Écône, June 21, 1978)
Evidently not, and this even though the conciliar church makes no bones about having exchanged the evangelizing mission of the Holy Catholic Church for a call to dialogue, supplanted the Kingship of Christ with a declaration of rights based purely on human dignity, and relegated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to “extraordinary” status in favor of the Novus Ordo community meal.
The fact of the matter is that Jorge Bergoglio is deeply committed to, not only preserving what he has received, but taking it to its logical conclusion more aggressively than any of the Modernist men who came before him. Far from being “a temporary setback for the Francis agenda” as Mr. Matt suggests, this latest “Apostolic Exhortation” (so-called) moves the ball forward considerably.
In a pot calling the kettle black declaration for the ages, Mr. Matt went on to say that Querida Amazonia stands as proof that “this pontificate has jumped the shark;” that is to say, its irrelevance has thus been revealed for all to see.
According to him, we should “thank God that Francis blinked in the face of worldwide opposition to his radical ecclesial agenda.”
Let me guess, opposition led by the tradcumenical #UNITEtheCLANS movement, right?
No, it is not Francis who blinked; in fact, it is thanks to his evil ways that those who have neither the eyes, nor the will, to see have become easier to spot than ever.
For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; so that they might not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn. (Matthew 13:15)
“Querida Amazonia” translates to “Queer ride in the Amazon.”
As a kid, listening to the conversations of the adults around me I was made aware of the possibility that the Catholic Church and faithful Catholics may well one day be forced underground, church property seized by the state and mass only offered by small groups of faithful willing to risk the consequences, much like Catholics who have gone before. Attending the Novus Ordo mass, I could rest easy in the knowledge that we weren’t quite there yet, or so I thought, what has become increasingly apparent over the past few years was not only were we there already, but we’ve been there my whole life without realising the bait and switch that had already taken place. The devil played a blinder
lol ‘tradcumenical Unite the Clans movement’: self-ordained or self-crowned like Napolean, fighting off the enemy like puffed up comic book heroes! Can they really be so self deluded that they believe Bergy blinked!? And that furthermore that he blinked in deference to their grandiose efforts?! He is the master of deception. While everyone marvels at his decoy juggling act, his long game is being played in the background, perhaps for the next rendition of fake-pope to make the touchdown. His German buddies didnt even miss a beat, and continued to carry on with the married priest playbook. The self-united clans are so anxious for a victory, they were easily played and fell for it. Hopefully that will be apparent to anyone tempted to join the misguided folly.
One cannot fight Satan and his evil slaves and their evil doings with Satan’s own evil, perverted, men-pleasing, political, worldly and false methods. “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.”, saith the Lord. Holy men (men despised by the evil world) only can fight this all-pervasive evil of the Great Apostasy. Viva Cristo Rey!
It had to be Matt’s courageous publicity stunt of standing in some square in Italy having a “silent” protest. I’m sure Frankie was quaking in his “not red” shoes.
Those of the CatholiCuck media seem to be filled with a Pollyannish drive to bury their heads in the sand and cry “Peace! Peace!” when there is no peace. The widespread unwillingness to acknowledge unvarnished reality has now infected all quarters of society. Thus those who absolutely refuse to participate in the lies are necessarily unpopular today.
Louie has lately repeatedly stressed the role of the WILL in the refusal to accept the hard truth before one’s eyes. This is is a topic definitely worthy of further exploration.
Abp. Lefebvre wasn’t infected with this pusillanimous refusal. It’s worth revisiting that quote at length:
“Which Church are we talking about? Are we talking about the Catholic Church, or another church, a Counter church, a counterfeit of the Church? Now, I think sincerely, that we are talking about a counterfeit version of the Church, and not the Catholic Church. It does not teach any longer the Catholic faith. It teaches something else, it leads the Church to something else other than the Catholic Church. It is no longer the Catholic Church. They are sitting in the chairs of their predecessors, […] but they are not continuing in the line of their predecessors. They no longer have the same faith, nor the same doctrine, nor the same morality as their predecessors. So it is no longer possible. And principally, their great error is ecumenism. They teach an ecumenism which is contrary to the Catholic faith. […]The Church is occupied by this counter-church which we know well and that the Popes knew perfectly, and that the Popes have condemned throughout the centuries; for what will be soon four centuries, the Church did not stop condemning this counter-church which was born especially with protestantism, and which was developed with protestantism, and which is at the origin of all modern errors, which has destroyed all philosophy, and which has led us to all the errors we have known, that the Popes have condemned; liberalism, socialism, communism, modernism, sillonism. We are dying from them. The Popes did everything to condemn that, and now behold those who are in the chairs of those who condemned these errors are in agreement with this liberalism and ecumenism. Now we cannot accept that. And the more things become clear, the more we perceive that this program […] all these errors, were elaborated in the masonic lodges.”
(Spiritual conference, Econe, 21st of June 1978, see Sel de la Terre 50, p. 244)
Is there a conciliar church? A study by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais
Strip away all of the fringe group BS and the real heroes are the SSPX. The SSPX stopped time at the year 1962. Imagine that, a global group of Latin Rite Catholics that never went through the Council. Brilliant!
How is the SSPX heroes now?
Rushintuit, we could all use some heroes, but I’m not at all sure the SSPX is it.
For my taste they’ve been far too silent during the apostasy buildup going on in Rome and around the world. Souls are being lost, the sheep are scattering, and this is the time to be quiet? If they wanted to lead souls to safe haven, that time came and went.
I’m afraid we’re a little short on heroes right now, but if I had to pick anybody, had to, I’d pick Vigano.
Excuse me, and of course the great Cardinal Zen.
I hardly see the point in Michael Matt’s “Unite the Clans.” People of several different points of view can agree at least that they do not like the current pope, or the current antipope, whichever you will. So what?
I know CMRI sedevacantists, SSPV sedevacantists, SSPX sedevacantists, FSSP sedevacantists, and even a few Novus Ordo Mass sedevacantists. And then there are countless non-sedevacantists who can’t stand the man. Try uniting that, Michael Matt, except in their disdain for Bergoglio. Resist him to his face? What does that mean? Tell Francis that you don’t like him or that you reject his papacy? Big deal.
“Self-ordained or self-crowned,” as you said. Certainly self-important. I guess it’s a way to justify a website’s existence in a group wringing of the hands.
We should probably take a closer look at the new fusion Devil’s Mass they’re planning…
How is any Conciliar cleric (ie Vatican 2) a hero?
The architects of V2 were (are) the enemies of Christ. They are, in no way, members of the Holy Roman Catholic Church established by Our Lord, Jesus Christ.. Anyone or any society who refers to the V2 “church” as “official” (having authority) are friends with the enemies of Christ. That includes the SSPX.
A serious condition to salvation is being subject to the Roman Pontiff. Being subject, does not mean endorsing the Pope. The SSPX is waiting for the day when the proper authority, not Tom, Dick, or Harry, set things straight. That will most likely come after the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
In the meantime, the SSPX is holding the line at 1962. Still part of the visible Church. Saying it is not okay to go to the New Mass, unlike the FSSP. It’s stupid to stick your neck out where it doesn’t belong. It may make you feel superior to pass judgement, even though you have zero authority to do so.
My experience with a number of SSPX priests say it is fine to go the N.O. “mass” . Also OK to receive their sacraments. Does any one have a different experience. I’d like to know. Thank you.
Louie Verrecchio is spiraling out of control. He hates everyone and everything and can’t contain himself from constantly spewing forth calumny and slander. It happens to everyone who falls into the sedevacantist heresy. Years ago he was a likable fellow. Today he prideful demon.
What’s he wrong about in this and other recent posts?
Rushintuit: “[SSPX is] Saying it is not okay to go to the New Mass, unlike the FSSP. It’s stupid to stick your neck out where it doesn’t belong. It may make you feel superior to pass judgement, even though you have zero authority to do so.”
I’m sorry, but how can the SSPX tell others it is not okay to go to the New Mass, the mass that THEIR pope celebrates and endorses, if they don’t have authority to do so?
I was told the opposite by an SSPX priest.
Dogma does not matter to modernists nor does it really matter to people like Michael Matt, Michael Voris, or Steve Skojec. For them, the “institution” must be preserved at all costs.
“A serious condition to salvation is being subject to the Roman Pontiff. Being subject, does not mean endorsing the Pope.”
In charity, I point out here that the latter half of your statement here is at odds with binding Catholic teaching regarding the papacy. Consider the following excerpts from Vatican I:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 3, (2-4, 9), 18 July, 1870:
“2. Wherefore we teach and declare that by divine ordinance…this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful…are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
“3. In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd  .
“4. This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.”
“9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.”
This anathema condemns the very idea that we can recognize someone as a true Pope but reject or resist his teachings and disciplines in any way.
You accuse sedevacantists with the following: “It’s stupid to stick your neck out where it doesn’t belong. It may make you feel superior to pass judgement, even though you have zero authority to do so.” Yet, ironically, it is not sedevacantists who pass judgement on the Pope by considering whether his claim to the Papacy is valid, but rather those who insist he is the pope, yet nonetheless appoint themselves as private judges to approve or condemn his teachings and disciplines at will based on their private interpretation of Tradition picking and choosing for themselves, just as the Protestants do to the Bible. It is the latter who effectively appoint themselves their own personal popes and judge the pope daily, not those who reject his claim outright.
Therefore, indeed, while it is a requirement for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, it is just as important for our salvation to avoid communion with an Anti-pope who is an obvious public apostate and heretic, and therefore not even a Catholic, lest we inadvertently destroy the very instrument Christ Himself appointed to safeguard His Truth in our attempt to remain faithful to His unchanging Doctrines in these difficult times.
Kyle of Canada
We are mandated to avoid a public pertinacious heretic.
Thanks, Tom. I glad that your SSPX priest was faithful to the Archbishop. Not so with the ones I spoke to.
There is a branch of Roman Catholicism called “Greek Catholic” in Hungarian. They returned to the jurisdiction of Rome after history had landed them (for several decades) in the embrace of the Eastern Orthodox church. Actually, it might have been forced conversion. I should know but I don’t, nor do I know the dates — but their return happened before 1912 because a Wikipedia note cites a papal decision about them in 1912. In union with Rome, they kept the Eastern rite (form and all) — and in their parishes married men can become priests. Their union with Rome is complete: the mass they celebrate is as valid as the Latin rite Roman Catholic mass, their aspiring priests study in the same seminaries as the “standard” Roman Catholic seminarians, they learn the same theology, etc., but they can get married before they are ordained. This is standard practice and I don’t think it began after Vatican II.
Greek Catholics are not insignificant in number. Most Catholics in the part of Ukraine that used to be Hungary until the Trianon peace treaty reduced Hungary to a third of its historic area. Even in Budapest, they have churches — I only attended mass there once, but even I know two of their churches. They are entirely equivalent to Latin Roman Catholicism theologically and in terms of the sacraments. But married man among them can become priests.
I also know from some friends who know history better than me that allowing married men to get ordained has been standard practice in several regions in Europe in certain times. I gather that we don’t even know whether St. Peter’s wife (Matthew 8:14–15, Mark 1:29–31, and Luke 4:38–41) had died before Peter was called by Jesus. And I heard of some other New Testament references also (I don’t remember the details and I have no time to check now) of married men becoming priests. (Not priests getting married, but the other way around.)
So, could you, please, enlighten me why the occasional but age-old Roman Catholic practice of allowing married men to get ordained happens to be nowadays such a scandalous idea — even on this blog — that it is mentioned in the same context as “women’s ordination” and other revolutionary ideas that are truly infections?
Querida Amazonia establishes pagan worship of demons. The rest is irrelevant. It does not matter if unmarried men, married men, or women preside.
This book explains it: “Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy,” by Christian Cochini:
Thanks for the link. That article was terrifying but well worth a read. Here we are bickering over celibacy and the priesthood which are trifles compared to the fact that Anti-pope Francis calls for and has begun the process of instituting a pagan-pantheistic-New Order Mass hybrid in this document. It’s an abomination.
Well he isn’t my SSPX priest anymore since I have since learned that one must assent to the Vicar of Christ, not resist the man who you claim is the Vicar of Christ.
They, married clergy (deacons included), are obliged, by canon law and from the theological foundations of ,Scripture, Tradition ,Church fathers and councils, to be in perfect and perpetually continence. If they can’t accept this they cannot be ordained and this would indicate they do not have a calling to the priesthood. The Church in the late 1800’s mandated that any Eastern Rite wishing to come to the West (USA , Canada) must not be married because of the scandal and confusion they would cause the layfaithful and the doctrines that support the theological foundations of priestly celibacy. The Eastern Rite ignored the obligation for continence but the West never accepted their canons that allowed it. The west should have never looked the other way on continence with the Eastern Rite that wished to be under the jurisdiction of Rome. The Latin Rite made a huge mistake in looking the other way with the Eastern Rite and neglecting being clear about the obligation of perfect and pertually continence for married clergy. The East is gravely wrong in having allowed this. I guess this is why the Eastern Rite has been in a mess for a long time with their track record that allows for divorce up to three times and to look the other way on contraception. Frank111 is right. Please read “Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy”, by Christian Cochini. It is the eye opener on this issue of celibacy which is all about the OBLIGATION OF PERFECT AND PERPETUAL CONTINENCE for married clergy which has been under even tighter raps for decades because of the novelty of reintroducing married deacons to help ease us into this trap on a large scale.
Before we consider your slander, are you a mason, a neo-Gallican heretic, or a Novus Ordite? These things matter. By neo-Gallican heretic I mean those who believe they can contest the teachings of a Pope they still nonetheless recognize as Pope.
Thank you Kyle for reproducing the appropriate portion of Vatican I. Another way of saying what VI teaches here is that VI dogmatically proclaims that there is no agency subordinate to the Pope in which jurisdiction over the Pope is preserved to judge the Pope in matters of faith or morals. Again, there is no jurisdiction preserved in any agency of the Church that is subordinate to the Pope that would enable that agency to judge the Pope in matters of faith or morals.
It is now heretical to even believe such a thing. Nonetheless, an apparent representative of the SSPX – John Salza – believed and taught that a Council of the Church could try the Pope for heresy while still recognizing the Pope’s claim to the Papacy. As far as I know, Salza has not recanted his position on the matter. Another so-called expert – Paul Folbrecht – professed the same heresy. On this very web site he claimed that there was an “exception” to Vatican I’s dogmatic teaching on this matter.
In view of Vatican I, the only thing left to faithful Catholics in the situation of a Pope who has deviated from the faith is to recognize the apparent objective public heresy or apostasy of the papal claimant and to avoid him as a heathen, publican and heresiarch.
What you write about the church’s expectation of continence is clearly not the case, traditionally as well as now, with Greek Catholics priests (note: bishops can’t be married there either). And I confirm: this isn’t new. I now remember a Hungarian ex-politician born in 1963 who is the daughter of a Greek Catholic priest who had quite a few kids (7? 8? 10? — I don’t remember that.) The ex-politician’s name is Krisztina Morvai, and her family wasn’t unusual: Greek Catholic priestly families have been and continue to characteristically have man kids. I also remember that in the central seminary in Budapest where I used to sing in the choir in the early 1980’s some of the seminarians who were preparing for the Greek-rite Roman Catholic priesthood got quite eager to find a wife in their last years/months before ordination. This was not a VII innovation, and it was not simply “tolerated” by the bishop, bishops as some kind of stubborn sinfulness of the local population that cannot be addressed. This was / is their tradition, traditionally authorized by Rome. One need not be born Greek Catholic. If I had chosen to become a Greek Catholic priest (I am a man and raised Roman Catholic in the Latin rite) I could have pursued that, got married, and then got ordained. I didn’t, but it was not because I was prohibited from doing so by church law or the bishops’ or Rome’s expectations.
Actually, in my former message I mentioned the year 1912. With caution about my poor knowledge I would like to add that, according to my recollection, the story is not 100 years old. These events (their forced conversion to East Orthodoxy and their return to Rome) took place sometimes much earlier, I would guess in the XVIII’th to XIX’th centuries, or perhaps even earlier. But I don’t know the years and I err so often that I’d rather stick with what I can reference.
Sorry, I have no time to read the book you/someone suggested on amazon.
However, I am wondering, whether the solution of the riddle is the difference between bishop and priest? It is the bishop who fully receives the priesthood. The simply priests receive some of his powers (e.g., they themselves cannot ordain bishops) and they act as liaisons or representatives of the bishop, in certain matters clearly defined.
Oh yes, and you mention some aspects of the matrimony mess in the Orthodox churches. Well, I have never heard of anything like that among Greek Catholics. They can’t divorce. Their attitude towards contraception is not different from Latin Rite Roman Catholics. The only differences that I am aware of are that (a) their church interiors and liturgies very much look like Eastern Orthodox, and (b) some of their priests are married (they cannot get married once ordained, but married men can ordained to their ranks). I suppose that their full integration with Rome a couple of hundred years ago also implied that they have been reading and following the papal encyclicals the same way as the Latin rite subjects of Pius X or Leo XIII did.
So, I wonder: is it possible that the “matrimony mess” in the East is not a direct consequence of allowing married men to become priests (again, I emphasize: not bishops) but it may be the result of theological mistakes or lack or sacramental/jurisdictional discipline or just plain rebellion against Rome, or something else?
The claim that Rome/the pope “made a mistake” when officially and clearly, in his capacity of authority, allowed something to happen also raises questions about “degrees of infallibility” in regard to canon law, the pope, etc.
I’ve never heard an SSPX priest say that, only the opposite. Please give names of all of the “number” you refer to. I doubt you will provide a single one, but I’ve been wrong before.
Do you still go to Mass, Tom?
The priest configures Christ and the permanent deacon is to configure Christ also but as Christ the servant. Christ was celibate. He had one bride the Catholic Church not two brides with a wife as a sideline. It is shame that you have no interest in reading “Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy” because these are actual Vatican Roman archives on all the council’s since apostolic times and what was said at these councils on perfect and PERPETUAL continence for married clergy. If you are truly the Seeker you profess to be you would read it.
As to the divorce topic with the Eastern Rite, I was refering to the Orthodox Eastern Rite. My point was that to have externals in a liturgy, no matter how beautiful and mystical that reflect tradition and reverence is not enough if you err on the theological foundations of the doctrines of celibacy/continence for married clergy.
If you are saying that “the rest is irrelevant”, meaning the defense of priestly celibacy is by far irrelevent to the Pachamam agenda, I disagree. We are in this mess precisely because of the attack on marriage and the priesthood through the breaking of God’s laws and teaching on conjugal intercourse and its meaning and purpose for over a century by those who wish to highjack the Church.
Yes, dear intrepid Anastasia, there are essentials at stake, essentials which both Faith and Reason attest to. That is why I mentioned a few days ago that the heretics are always attacking all the Sacraments, which Sacraments point to essential unchangeable truths of God, man and the the relationship inter se.
I don’t know any sedes that would sit through a novus ordo.
The SSPX offers masses in union w Frankie.
I agree. They are always attacking the sacraments. The pearls of great price.
Look, the SSPX is maintaining a lifeline to the Visible Church. Our Lord promised to be with His Church until the end of time. By doing this, the SSPX is saying, we believe Our Lord’s promise. We wait for the day when this trial ends and the smoke clears. We will remain faithful until that day comes. We avoid the New Mass and the errors of the Council.
The rest of you are calling Our Lord a liar by jumping to conclusions. I know this is not the argument that you all will accept. I think you should accept it. It’s far safer for your soul. The Devil is playing you.
Given the limited time and capacity I have, I hoped to receive some education from you all related to the pre-vatican-2 historic existence (in faith, without scandal, and with full theological-sacramental union with Rome) of parts of the traditional Roman Catholic church where married men have been accepted to the priesthood, on the time scale of century/centuries past.
The answers that “read this book” to understand what a “huge mistake” the pope made a couple of hundred years ago, and if you admit that you aren’t able to do it now than you “profess” to be someone else than what you are — are not the kind of answers I was hoping for.
No Pope has been declared an anti-Pope yet. I’m sure that day is coming. These are not ordinary times. A layman cannot declare one way or the other concerning a Pope. The SSPX is doing the right thing for these times.
“This anathema condemns the very idea that we can recognize someone as a true Pope but reject or resist his teachings and disciplines in any way.”
Your interpretation of this dogma is as heretical as Fr. Feeney’s interpretation of the dogma of EENS.
If a pope or any prelate contradicts previous magisterium, we have a right to withdraw obedience from him and a moral obligation to resist him and condemn his errors. Vatican I did not un-canonize St. Athanatius, it did not take away his title of doctor and father of the faith, nor is Vatican I a new doctrine replacing the one that allowed St. Athanatius to be excommunicated most likely by his superior Pope Liberius and consecrate bishops without the permission of Pope Liberius and send them into dioceses with existing bishops in “full communion” with Pope Liberius. Vatican I is dogmatic and absolutely true as long as the pope keeps his end of his obligations to the faithful. If a pope cannot contradict previous magisterium why did a pope in the past tell Sergy the patriarch of Constantinople one could baptize in the name of the Father and Son only, when the Church teaches for a baptism to be valid one has to baptize in the Name of the Father Son, and Holy Ghost? Why does the Church recognize popes from history as being popes, that you claim are not popes based on your faulty interpretation of the documents of Vatican I? The right to resist a heretical pope does not make void the documents of Vatican I. In the light of tradition, Vatican I can only be understood as the rule, and St. Athanatius being a canonized doctor and father of the faith has to be seen as the exception to the rule, or rather it’s how we include the obligations of the pope pronounced in the spirit of the laws or dogma of Vatican I. Vatican I neither excludes the existence of a heretical pope nor makes him into a god without responsibilities and obligations to the faithful himself. If a parent abuses a child, they actually break the 4th commandment! Heretical popes and popes who fail to condemn errors, are guilty of breaking the laws of Vatican I you stated!
Only the Church can judge that a Pope is anti. Laymen don’t have the authority to judge a Pope. It is going to take a while for this to happen. In the meantime, the Devil is going to grab innumerable souls. The Devil doesn’t care which side of the coin you are on. The Devil doesn’t care about the dogmas you read.
Let’s recap what happened. The Third Secret of Fatima was buried. Then the Council took place and a New Mass followed. After an short period (1965-1970), the SSPX was founded to hold the liturgical timeline at 1962. All of this took place without any Popes being judged by competent Church authorities (Cardinals or another Council).
It doesn’t matter how many dogmas or previous Councils you quote. The situation is fluid and we are all in a holding pattern. It’s called The Great Apostasy! It’s an easy time to lose your soul.
Our Lady of Fatima gave us powerful tools with the Rosary and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We still have the Latin Mass and the Sacraments. We have devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. We are well armed for these times.
But the Devil knows about human pride. The Devil can so easily use that as a weapon. So make your illicit judgments and self righteous claims as a self proclaimed agent of Vatican I. Hurl your 1870 lightning bolts all over the net. It feels so good.
I’ll be happy with what I have as regards spiritual weapons. I have something else besides; confidence and trust in Our Lord and Our Lady to fix things when they see fit. It’s Our Lord’s Church and He wants it fixed infinitely more than you do. But first He is trying souls in the furnace of obedience.
I am under the impression that you are unwilling to look at the elephant in the room here. It is all about PERFECT AND PERPETUAL CONTINENCE of married clergy not just about wether a married man can be ordained. This book that we recommended clearly shows that they are since apostolic times obliged to be continent. The schismatic Eastern Rite were the first to change this through their canons. I really don’t know how else to help you.
I agree, Frank III. Honor and glory to God first. All else flows from that.
Introduce strange gods to the Faith and Liturgy and everything else falls.
God demands our heart first. True obedience and righteousness flows from that.
Darken the heart with strange gods – heresy and evil flows from that.
Commandments 1-3 first. Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, mind strength first. Without *that*, the rest really is irrelevant. Good point.
@Hey, uh Ratio you said this:
“The RIGHT TO RESIST a HERETICAL POPE does not make void the documents of Vatican I.” [my emphasis added]
There are Popes, and there are heretics, but there is no such thing as a “heretical Pope”. Since there is no such thing as a “heretical Pope”, there is also no such thing as “the right to resist a heretical Pope” as you so unfortunately put it.
The situation of an apparent public “heretical Pope” is better understood in the sense that the hierarchy of the Church is refusing to effectuate the tacit renunciation of a non-Catholic usurper of the Papal Office by calling a new conclave and electing a new Pope to fill the effectively vacant office.
It cannot be said in such a situation that the hierarchy is “tolerating the usurper” since the usurper has no power whatsoever to command the faithful as soon as he is publicly and objectively identifiable by the faithful as a heretic or apostate. Since the so-called “heretical Pope” cannot command the obedience of a single Catholic, he cannot command the obedience of any Catholic, and his authority goes poof in a cloud of satanic smoke.
Of course you would understand all of this if you were familiar with Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio and other associated documents, laws and teachings of the Church. For example, Cum Ex makes it clear that a non-Catholic cannot be elevated to the Papacy, and that such an elevation would be null and void, and would not become legitimate even if it was tolerated by the hierarchy. As Pope Leo XIII said, it is ridiculous to believe that one could command the Church when one is not a member of the Church!
Membership in the Church, although commanded by the Almighty, is still voluntary and a matter of the will. The faithful demonstrate their membership in the Church by professing the faith whole and inviolate.
The faithful do not, however have it within their power to maintain the membership in the Church of one who publicly professes heresy or apostasy simply by IGNORING the alien profession of the heretic or apostate. The alien profession is ultimately a matter between the Almighty and the heretic or apostate.
As a result, it is ridiculous to believe that a non-Catholic remains a Catholic and continues to occupy an office in the Church even after he publicly professes heresy or apostasy simply because the faithful ignore the alien profession! Covering your eyes, your ears, or refusing to use your rational intellect does not make it so!
@Ratio: I forgot the metaphorical raspberry. Since there is no such thing as the “right to resist a heretical Pope”, your entire statement that “the right to resist a heretical Pope does not nullify VI” is illogical and unintelligible gibberish.
I am actually getting interested in something more important than the issue of continence. (After all, continence for a priest won’t directly affect my life or my decisions about faith.)
I would like to know how, in your (and in In Caritas’ and Tom A’s and others’) view a papal decision (and, therefore, papal teaching) can be in “huge” error hundred(s) of years before Vatican II. And if that was a “huge” error then, than why didn’t it cause an uproar? Why didn’t the next pope overturn it? And why are we upset by Bergoglio’s similar error now? (I am not talking about the other errors.)
By the way, I am not unwilling to look at the elephant. I see it — I experienced it, and have lived a part of my life alongside the fact that a pope hundred(s) of years ago decided that married men can become priests in the Roman Catholic church and need not live in continence, and I have observed closely that his decision caused and continues to cause no scandal, no deviation from the faith, and no moral or practical issues within the Church. I even know a woman who is a wife of a Greek Catholic priest and they have many kids.
This is so regardless of what the ideal is/should be — which I am still interested in, but the arguments supporting that ideal is not what I am after. Besides, even if I were after those argument, I wouldn’t want to wait another 30 or more years before I get to reading that book (if I live that long). The list of really important books I should read is that long if not longer, and I have very little time. Even short books sometimes require months of my life to finish.
Dear Anastasia and All:
I don’t want my question to be overlooked so I am to re-posting it here in the main branch of discussion. See some more details above, sub-comments included.
I am particularly interested in those reader’s responses who strongly argue that papal authority implies no mistakes when the pope acts in his role of church authority.
Here you go:
How could it happen that a pope long before Vatican II permitted married men to enter the Roman Catholic priesthood and he/the bishops in union with him didn’t call for continence, and this decision and practice hasn’t been “corrected” by subsequent, equally valid popes? As I said, the practice and the tradition continues to be alive and, as far as I can tell, never caused scandal or uproar. In my and my parents/grandparents’ times (XX’s century) the involved priests with their wives and many kids have been (and continue to be) traditionally seen as role models for exemplary family life. This all happened/is happening in full sacramental, theological, and legal union with Rome.
My question is not about what ideal should be pursued by a priest and what the theological underpinnings of the requirements of celibacy are. Rather, I am wondering how the plain fact just highlighted relates to the papal office’s infallability in questions of church authority?
Thank you for your input.
Please name me this Roman Pope of yours that said and taught that a married priest does not have to be continent. Pope John Paul II had every opportunity to pronounce this when he decided a revision of the 1917 Code of Canon Law was in order with the new 1983 Code of Canon law and he refused to do come out clearly on married deacons and wether they required to be continent. Canon 277(or maybe 270) was his opportunity and to come out on this and he didn’t. He didn’t because he knew continence wasn’t an obligation. Did they remain silent and fail to instruct the married deacons on this? They most certainly did. Another sick experimentation on the lay faithful that went completely unnoticed and which further pushed the Church into the crisis we find ourselves with contraception/sodomy and divorce. Like I said it could be that some leaders in the Church could have, out of lack of fortitude, and or a weak faith or formation and looked the other way with the Catholic Eastern Rite who follow Schismatic Eastern Rite Canons and were at the time in their own neck of the woods but in the late 1800’s when they requested to come over to the USA they were told yes but under the condition the married clergy would not come. We should all know by now that the 19th century was the beginning of the underground movement to redefine marriage and its primary purpose of procreation and education of children for God’s glory to that of sex’s primary purpose to be changed to be the unity of the couple and romantic love. ( which is not what the Church teaches)
Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy” is not a daunting read and it is filled with a very accurate and rich documentation on the apostolic origins of continence for married clergy from all the council’s which are rooted in Tradition, Scripture and the Church’s interpretation of Scripture. There have been many things that don’t cause an uproar, such as contraception, sodomy and divorce and remarriage. The changing of the liturgy didn’t cause an uproar either for the majority of the layfaithful. Your reasoning that everything seems to be hunky dory for most of the lay people in regards to noncontinent married deacons and priests so it must not be a bad thing. This is wrong and flawed reasoning on your part. You have a weak and flawed understanding of who the priest configures, a celibate/ continent Christ, and my guess is that you must also have a flawed and weak understanding of the primary purpose of marriage. They always go hand in hand these two doctrines.
I’m not able to speak to the papal infallibility issue but I understand that there has been support in recent times by some theologians, bishops to formally declare priestly perpetual continence as an infallible doctrine.
This is a good article on the early Church history, up to 7th century, of the necessity for priestly continence. The Eastern Church abolished the requirement for perpetual continence in the late 7th century.
The underlying rationale of purity by means of perpetual continence for one consecrating and administering the Blessed Sacrament, and ministering the Sacraments generally, seems to have been ignored (not explicitly referred to) for a long time when perpetual continence by way of celibacy has been re-enforced at various times by popes, Councils.
Thanks so much Lynda for this support and backup. Well said. It is nice to be reminded that I am not alone!
I meant to say “was” an obligation not “wasn’t.” So sorry for this typo.
I’m not well enough to research or present authorities on this or anything else. God bless you for your service to the Church and the Faithful, so abandoned by and deprived of, holy poles, bishops and priests due to our sinfulness. Lord, have mercy on us. I wonder if Mr Verrechio would be able to put any of the fundamental material you’ve collated on these matters, on the website, or maybe in a little regular column in the Inquisitor?
I have no problem with the statement that continence should be required, and I remain curious about that book — and I hope to read it one day. But my question is not about the scriptural/traditional roots of the requirement of continence, nor about other parts of the world where this or that happened or was considered a scandal or not. My question is about this particular plain fact within the traditional Roman Catholic church. There and now, and for a couple of centuries past. If you argue that the pope failed to spell out the continence requirement by mistake, than what about all the bishops in union with him who had no problem with this tradition for centuries, nor do they have a problem now (but I guess that matters less because we are now after Vatican II)
And I will find out for you (and for myself) the name of the pope who did not to require continence for married Roman Catholic clergy practicing the Greek Catholic rite, or at least who did not make an issue about it. He was not alone — no pope after him made this an issue, and none of the bishops in union with Rome made it an issue either. although all knew it and respected it in that region of the world. Mindszenty included. And I don’t think that this part of the world is necessarily theologically more corrupt than other parts.
In any case, I can name one of the popes who is among the many who didn’t care enough, or didn’t know perhaps — Pius X who in 1912 granted/declared a new Episcopal center/district specifically for those who follow this rite, in his Christifideles Graecito encyclical (I just checked). The location of the center is the city Hajdudorog in Eastern Hungary.
I will be back with more data once I find out, you have to give me some time. I will post my response in the then-current discussion thread.
Dear “Seeker”, as you know it was the [Eastern Churches] Council in Trullo 692 that explicitly permitted married men who were priests or deacons to continue to practise conjugal relations after ordination, at Canon XIII.
The following is a quotation from Daniel J Castellano in an essay on that Council from 2009 (http://arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/councils/comment06q.htm), which may be of interest:
“The last definitive papal stance on the Council in Trullo was expressed by the aforementioned John VIII [872-882] who accepted from that council ‘all those canons which did not contradict the true faith, good morals, and decrees of Rome’. In particular, the Apostolic See now accepted all eighty-five of the so-called Apostolic Canons [cited in Canon II of Council in Trullo], whereas previously it had only accepted the first fifty. Apparently, even at this late date, the Romans had not generally accepted the Trullan canons, which could hardly be the case if Adrian I or any other pope had truly declared the council to be ecumenical.
Relatively few of the Trullan canons were explicitly identified as approved by the Pope. Only the eighty-five Apostolic Canons (mentioned in the second canon of Trullo) are known to have been approved by John VIII, while Adrian I approved at least the eighty-second canon of Trullo. For the remainder of the canons, we are left to apply John VIII’s principle of consistency with ‘the true faith, good morals, and decrees of Rome’.
Several canons from the Council in Trullo are included in Gratian’s Decretum, but this canonical compilation never had the status of an official code of ecclesiastical law, and we cannot necessarily infer papal approval of a canon from its inclusion in this collection. Nonetheless, the Decretum was a highly influential source of canon law, so it is worth mentioning the canons it cites, as these would not have been considered contrary to the decrees of Rome. Gratian cites the following Trullan canons: the second, fourth, sixth, eleventh, thirteenth, seventeenth, twenty-third, twenty-fourth, twenty-eighth, thirty-sixth, and ninety-third. The thirteenth canon is indicated as being of local application, while many of the other canons are cited only partially or in an oblique paraphrase. Needless to say, nearly all of the Trullan canons were practically ignored in the West.”
Your request for discussion has been noted. The Truth is hard, as He is a divine Person and He commanded that He came not to bring peace, rather the sword, as it is in division where the truth springs forth and is plainly seen. Amen. This intellective and willful conformity to Truth, as He commanded, would result in son turning against father and mother-in-law against daughter-in-law, etc. It simply matters not what any miserable human creature believes, rather all that can matter, as the singular thing that matters per se, is that the human intellect conforms to Truth, Who is the divine Person of Jesus the Christ. God created us in His Own divine likeness and image as pure Intellect and Will and in that Reality as it is, we were given a created intellect designed singularly and specifically, to conform perfectly to His very Own. Amen. Alleluia. Through the freely willed reception of His grace alone can this happen, as the Angelic Doctor taught. Amen. These truths simply speak as res ipsa loquitur. When we know Him and follow Him as Truth, we love Him, as He commanded we must, and then we are in Him, as He is in us, and as He is in the Father, in accord with His holy Will. Amen. Alleluia.
In this understanding, it remains perfectly as pristinely clear, that poor, poor Lynda and Anastasia nor more hold the divine and Catholic Faith in each their own will freely, than do you, dear Seeker, as Jesus the Christ commanded: “You will know them by their fruits.”. Amen. Your intellective fruits speak. Because someone may write in lofty platitudes, itself means nothing per se and of course, as all that matters is that we receive the divine and Catholic Faith as a child, as commanded by the Incarnate Son of God. Amen. Each of you clearly give your assent to the church of Antichrist, not the Church conceived by Jesus the Christ and instituted by His Holy Ghost at Pentecost. Amen. There was to be one time, as the singular prophetic time, when Apostolic Succession would be lost to this world as deFide, as per the inerrant teaching of the Early Church Fathers in unanimity. Once this prophecy fulfilled, it would never again be possible to restore the Succession and of course, as that is humanly inconceivable, as succession means, to succeed one after the other without break. Amen. The disciples of Jesus the Christ are commanded by Him to know the signs of the prophetic times in which they live and to know this, one simply must hold the divine and Catholic Faith, as to receive this grace of intellective Lights to see. Amen.
It is clear to the precious few, who actually hold the divine and Catholic Faith freely in their will, now alive in this world and since 1958, that anyone who believes, that anyone at all who assents to this creature beast thing from Hell while it masquerades as the Catholic Church by holding Her metaphysical accidental forms, conceived in heresy, after the death of Pope Pius XII in October, 1958, could possibly be Catholic, is simply deceived and sorrowfully on their own personal path to Hell, as deception cannot take a soul to the Beatific Vision, only Truth can as Jesus the Christ is Truth, as He is the Way. Amen. This of course includes, as it only can, anyone as everyone who believes they have a, “valid mass”, offered by a, “valid priest”, ordained by a, “valid Bishop”. This belief in itself as immanently, betrays Jesus the Christ, as it affronts His living, divine, perpetual as unchanging and unending, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, perfectly free of any iota of error as the inviolable Mystical Body of Jesus the Christ and as infallibly taught in, “Satis Cognitum”. Amen. Alleluia.
A critical point of deception is adhering to this utterly inane belief that we have both a, “Catholic Church”, and a, “conciliar church”, both which exist in the same place, with the same, “Pope”, or if he is rejected then certainly with the same, “Catholic Bishops and priests”. The, “lying wonders”, of Satan which the Apostle warned us of in 2 Thess 2, Amen and of course. Everyone, as every single person who adheres to this satanic deception, holds within the operation of their will and freely, “the operation of error to believe lying”, which God has sent them and as the Apostle Paul teaches, is damned to Hell. Amen. Alleluia. This because they have no true love of Truth as they have no zeal for Truth, rather they choose the comfortable life here, with each their very own embrace of iniquity. Amen. This is utterly satanic, sophomoric gibberish to believe that men who are all public heretics can actually as literally be Shepherds in the Succession of the Apostles, while this satanic deception utterly affronts the infallible teaching of Pope Paul IV in his Apostolic Constitution, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”; whereby any man who appeared to receive his Apostolic Consecration without any time limit applied, and then at any later time as witnessed by layman even, “deviated from the Faith”, yet alone committed heresy, was indeed NEVER a Bishop in Truth, as the Holy Ghost never granted him Consecration, rather he is a, “wolf in Sheep’s clothing”, whom the Incarnate Son of God warned us would come in Matthew 7. Amen. Alleluia. This is the divine and Catholic Faith. Depart from this truth as you all objectively do, each through your own witness, and you simply prove objectively as, “You will KNOW them by their fruits”, that you simply reject the divine and Catholic Faith, which by each your own utterly hideous personal fiat you claim to actually at the same time hold, while you reject the Faith, meaning absolutely NOTHING, in Truth, as it objectively evidences contradiction which rocks the cosmos in absurdity. Amen. Alleluia. God’s Will be done.
Lastly to your question about married priests. If at any time in Church history while Apostolic Succession was preserved, as before October, 1958, a Vicar of Christ as Holy Roman Pontiff declared it acceptable for priests to marry, then of course this is true and beautiful and good, as Blessed Peter in his Successors as exclusively, received the divine Gifts of, “truth and never failing faith”, while also the Gift of the keys to bind and loose. This governance and disciplinary Authority as Apostolic power, while is not in itself infallible per se as it can change, it is perfectly free of error, as with the Charism of so called, “negative infallibility”, by the Church, as Christ cannot bind His miserable creatures to error, as He commanded: what the Pope binds on earth is bound in Heaven, as is it loosed on earth, then so loosed in Heaven. Amen. Alleluia. The Vatican Council commanded and as affirmed by Pope Pius XII in, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, that we must offer the same free assent of faith to the Pontiff’s governance and discipline as we do his teaching on Faith and Morality, at the very pain of Hell in consequence of rejection. Reject any of this and you reject the entire Roman Catholic and Apostolic Faith, deFide. Amen. Alleluia. Poor, poor Anastasia is perfectly deceived in her flawed reasoning that Pope Pius XII could ever teach anything, as to the Italian Midwifes as to the Universal Church, that would deviate one iota from the Catholic Faith. It is her pride which will damn her should she not assent to the divine Reality as it simply is, as taught there by the Vicar of Christ, Pope Pius XII. As she cannot follow the reasoning with her darkened intellect, she declares the Vicar of Christ to have erred in the Magisterium, while teaching Morality infallibly. This is an offense which objectively evidences the impossibility that she now holds the Catholic Faith freely in the operation of her will, as The Christ commanded: “You will know them by their fruits.”, and further that an evil tree cannot bear good fruit and the evil trees He will cast into the everlasting fire of perdition. Amen. Alleluia. I pray that you receive the grace of intellective Lights to see Him, dear Seeker. Amen. In caritas.
I have noticed that many Sedavacantist, not all, are adamant defenders of married noncontinent clergy and NFP and they often seem to take refuge in the Eastern Rite Liturgy because perhaps they might think it’s a good way of not having to deal with Vatican II Popes and the Novus Ordo liturgy. Maybe they feel this is the lesser evil. Just wondering about this trend that I seem to see within a lot of the Seds.
I wonder too. I think Louie should.
Not this sede.
The SSPX is NOT doing the right thing. They are dancing with the devil. I love the SSPX. I attend Mass at their chapel. The priests are holy and devout. But Bp. Fellay has set them on a dark path and the current leadership is continuing on it. It clearly leads to apostasy and heresy, and the good priests will either leave or lose their faith.
I think perhaps you should look in a mirror, friend. Louie is not unjustifiably critical of anyone. Those who accuse him of “hate” tend to be projecting their own feelings onto him.
Perhaps you should look in a mirror, friend. Louie is not unjustifiably critical of anyone. Those who accuse him of “hate” tend to be projecting their own feelings onto him.
And from all appearances and the way things stand with you at present, you’re likely to be hating him for all eternity.