Edward Pentin at National Catholic Register is reporting that the German bishops have “overwhelmingly” approved a “pastoral handout” with guidelines that allow for Protestant spouses to receive Holy Communion.
According to the report:
At their spring conference in Ingolstadt, the German bishops’ conference agreed that a Protestant partner of a Catholic can receive the Eucharist after having made a “serious examination” of conscience with a priest or another person with pastoral responsibilities, “affirms the faith of the Catholic Church,” wishes to end “serious spiritual distress,” and has a “longing to satisfy a hunger for the Eucharist.”
Here’s the key phrase, and it illustrates beautifully why I so appreciate “scandals” of this nature:
Affirms the faith of the Catholic Church…
With just a modicum of sensus Catholicus, a sincere desire to know the truth, and the assistance of God’s grace, it should be entirely obvious to all that “the faith of the Catholic Church” in this case refers very specifically to that which has been presented as such over the last fifty or so years.
In other words, the German bishops are speaking of the faith that comes to us from the Council, and most certainly not the Faith that comes to us from the Apostles.
It is only common sense, folks – anyone who affirms the faith of the Catholic Church; that is, the authentic, immutable, one true Faith, is either a visible member of the Holy Catholic Church or is in the process of being received therein.
And yet, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, president of the German bishops’ conference, was very insistent:
Cardinal Marx rejected the idea that such a step would amount to a path that would call Protestants to conversion, otherwise known as an “ecumenism of return or conversion.”
Get that, my neo-con friends?
Just to be clear, let’s do the math together…
A Protestant who has no desire to enter the Catholic Church; that is to say, one who refuses to be numbered among “the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ, partake of the same Sacraments, and are governed by their lawful pastors under one visible Head” (Definition of “the Church,” Baltimore Catechism #3, Lesson 11, Q. 489) can still be considered as one who affirms the faith of the Catholic Church.
Bear in mind, we’re not citing a rogue priest in some obscure parish. This assertion is being made in the full light of day, in plain view of the Roman authorities, by a national bishops’ conference.
Clearly, the “faith” of which they speak is not the one true Faith; the same that very firmly insists that there is but one way for a Protestant to attain to the Christian unity that is made manifest in Holy Communion:
For the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos 10)
In other words, the so-called “ecumenism of return” so firmly rejected by the German bishops is the only ecumenism that is consonant with the authentic faith of the Catholic Church.
Yes, but is the German bishops’ rejection of this teaching really the faith of the Council?
Indeed it is, and one need only read the Second Vatican Councils’ Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, to confirm as much; a document that calls for “dialogue” more than ten times and “conversion” not even once.
The document even goes so far as to say that Protestant “liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation,” and that Christ uses Protestant communities “as means of salvation.” (cf UR 3)
If this be so (and it is not) then conversion is not only unnecessary; it’s superficial.
In any case, the conciliar novelty cited above is how the German bishops can justify the notion that a Protestant need not convert in order to receive Holy Communion, which is a visible expression of unity with the community of salvation.
Every neo-conservative presently scandalized by the German bishops’ new “pastoral” initiative knows perfectly well that this program is not compatible with the faith of the Catholic Church.
The question is, how many of them have the integrity to acknowledge, or to even admit the possibility, that it is nothing more than a rotten fruit rooted in the errors of Vatican Council II?
If that isn’t a daunting enough of a task, those who seek the truth with sincerity will discover that it is a rotten fruit born of the Novus Ordo Missae as well.
As Cardinal Ottaviani et al. warned the soon to be “sainted” (in the conciliar manner) Pope Paul VI in their Brief Critical Study of the New Order of Mass (aka Ottaviani Intervention):
None of [the various changes to the rite] in the very least implies either the Real Presence, or the reality of the sacrifice, or the Sacramental function of the consecrating priest.
The Ottaviani Intervention even went so far as to say that the Novus Ordo amounts to a “systematic and tacit negation of the Real Presence.”
After more than fifty years of this abominable rite, is it any wonder the bishops of an entire nation are willing to invite recalcitrant Protestants to receive Holy Communion?
A better and more deeply disturbing question concerns whether or not it really is Holy Communion, or perhaps just a piece of bread.
In other words, given that legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi, that is to say, the law of prayer establishes the law of belief, how can one be certain that any priest fully formed exclusively in the Novus Ordo really does intend to do what the Church does at the consecration therein?
It would better for Marx and company (as well as Bergoglio & Friends) if they do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist, and all indications are that this is indeed the case given their willingness to treat the sacred Host as if it is nothing more than a cracker; before which the Argentinian refuses to bend his knee.
In conclusion, as I’ve stated a number of times in light of such scandals, bring it on, and may it please the Lord to use this occasion to open the eyes of the blind.
So, this is what Bergoglio’s vision is of a de-centralized Catholic Church where individual bishops’ conferences around the world get to determine what is and is not Catholic doctrine and dogma. Yes, the post-Vatican II anti-church is alive and well. All of these men- yes- even Bergoglio- have excommunicated themselves. The bishops of the SSPX better get ready to consecrate a lot more bishops. Perhaps one of their bishops will become pope one day and rid the Catholic Church of these imposters.
This is yet more proof – as if we need it! – that the Bergoglio carnival of evil is literally hell bent on doing away with the Consecration and Transubstantiation in favor of a meaningless snack in the middle of the Mass.
IF these German non-Catholics have such a “burning desire” for the Holy Eucharist why don’t they convert?…………… answer…………………. because THAT is the last thing that the Apostates in the Vatican want!
It seems that the dawn of the anti-Christ is imminent since Bergoglio and Company have FINALLY taken off their masks and are showing their true colors.
In sum: Giving “Holy Communion” to Protestants is not something the German “bishops” just invented as the latest manifestation of the Francis Effect. No, it has been the official law of the Vatican II Sect since 1983. Laws like this are little time bombs. They may not get noticed much until someone actually starts applying them.
And then indeed all hell breaks loose.
Apparently the devil’s tentacles now know no bounds. It seems that virtually everyone and everything are now in the devil’s grip.
An even newer example is displayed in this post:
An attack on older Traditional Catholics in the Catholic Herald
It’s a purported defense of traditionalists, but–displaying the devil’s full craftiness–is simultaneously an attack on traditionalists. Like Rorate Caeli, the LMS’s Joseph Shaw is infected by CatholiCuckery–just like the object of his criticism as well, the Catholic Herald. Rorate Caeli, the Latin Mass Society, the Catholic Herald….all CatholiCucks who take for granted the we shouldn’t be “anti-semitic” or use “harsh” language such as SODOMITES to describe those perverted by the burning unnatural lust to commit one of the four sins crying to heaven for vengeance.
Just think how such CatholiCucks would react to statements like the following:
“Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they [sodomites] who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.
-Romans 1:31-32 (note that: not only are sodomites worthy of death, but so are their supporters, such as those overflowing with false compassion for sodomite perverts and who are thus always ready to mitigate the horror of this sin)
“That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal…. We establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime [sodomy], by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.”
-Pope St. Pius V, Constitution Horrendum illud scelus
“Crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in continual subjection.”
-Pope Innocent III
“Ungrateful for favours and forgetful of benefits, the Jews return insult for kindness and impious contempt for goodness. They ought to know the yoke of perpetual enslavement because of their guilt. See to it that the perfidious Jews never in the future grow insolent, but that they always suffer publicly the shame of their sin in servile fear.”
-Pope Gregory IX
“It would be licit to hold Jews, because of their crimes, in perpetual servitude, and therefore the princes may regard the possessions of Jews as belonging to the State.”
-St. Thomas Aquinas
“Poor Jews! You invoked a dreadful curse upon your own heads in saying: ‘His blood be on us and our children’; and that curse, miserable race, you carry upon you to this day, and to the end of time you shall endure the chastisement of that innocent blood.”
-St. Alphonsus Liguori
“If someone should kill the beloved son of a man, and then stretch forth their hands still stained with blood to the afflicted father, asking for fellowship, would not the blood of his son, still visible on the hand of his murderer, provoke him to just anger instead? And such are the prayers of the Jews, for when they stretch forth their hands in prayer, they only remind God the Father of their sin against His Son. And at every stretching forth of their hands, they only make it obvious that they are stained with the blood of Christ.”
-St. Basil the Great
I’ve allowed myself to get pulled back in to the comments section! I now return to silence.
Not sure but I think the Germans said that Protestant spouses of Catholics must:
“affirm the Catholic faith in the Eucharist”
That’s much different than “affirming the Catholic faith”
Sadly, the SSPX is no longer conditionally ordaining any of the Novus ordite “priests” who join their ranks anymore. Before it was each and every case. Now going to an SSPX mass (Where they mention the name of a heretic in the Canon) is like a box of chocolates when it comes to the celebrants validity…
This blasphemous joke has been already played on us for years by the Vatican itself.
During the Saint’s Pontificate, (Woytola) , when tourists crowded Vatican Square and the basilica was filled , priests outside mingled through the crowds handing out communion to anyone who put their hand out .No one asked if they were Catholic or not ! One host for a tour show even told the camera,”… they give you little crackers or cookies if you come while the celebration is being said inside ! “Mmmmm ! Not too bad!” , as she munched away for the tv camera. I saw it myself.
sweep–I’m happy you brought this to our attention. For me, these “mega-masses” are proof positive that the N.O. fake church does not believe in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. Actually, I hope they don’t because believing and having no qualms about this desecration is truly Satanic. Hmm, maybe I’ve hit on something here.
From the Gospel of Matthew, chpt 27:
When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood,’ he said. ‘It is your responsibility!’ All the people answered, ‘His blood is on us and on our children!’
2Cents , just maybe you have !
But then good priests have already offered me comfort after I have relayed to them all we have experienced seen and know, and told me themselves, ‘They simply DO NOT BELIEVE ! ”
For them it is am easy job with lots of perks ,access to children and adolescents, with a guaranteed pension and health care and even more importantly RESPECT from parishioners and the Knights of Columbus.. If you skim off the top , what they call “walking around money” from the collection plates and or other donations , you may even be able to buy a vacation home. If you read enough of the accused who proved to abuse , you know there are plenty of those getaways where children were taken to be sodomized.
Then there are the Mexican vacation hotels that cater to these priests. When they return they tell their parish they were on retreat at a monastery in CA or some other sunny local. It’s easy to lie when your entire vocation is a lie.
Fr. Weinandy, (fired by the USCCB for correcting Francis), starting with St. Ignatius of Antioch: The Eucharistic Oneness of the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, also treats on how destructive Francis’ papacy is to the OHCA Church. http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2018/02/22/the-four-marks-of-the-church-the-contemporary-crisis-in-ecclesiology/
Excellent , Louie! God only knows what todays priests believe. For myself, I refuse to attend any Novus Ordo mass, ever. Even when the priest tries to celebrate it in a pius manner, its still the NO mass. I’d rather stay home and read my missal. The heretics are in complete charge of the Church and won’t stop until they have a hybrid protestant, jewish, moslem, etc, “mass”. My guess is that many modern day Catholics would love it.
You have to know that there are also priests who believe there is Grace from receiving the Blessed Sacrament and for good willed people irregardless of their religion they should be able to partake in that Grace and maybe they will keep coming if they do.
Kinda like the effect of a magical good or a greater good.
Then there are those who I think fall in a largest category , the priests who ONLY believe it is a symbol. That is what Vatican Two taught them…..no real devil , evil is in man’s heart. No real Grace , it is only what the Church told them years ago to give them a reason to stay.
like I have been informed by so many older priests in the past,”They simply do NOT BELIEVE.”
If they DID BELIEVE they would be frightened for their own immortal souls.
I know of priests who refer to the parishioners as “peasants”. They think of pre Vat 2 Catholics as peasants whom the Hierarchy lied to to keep them in their place and frightened under ‘Superstitions about the Sacraments”.
Nice work if you can get it—and you can get it especially if you fit into the mold!
Yes. As stated in the second half of the video linked below, this was the most alarming, most tragic, most sickening moment in all of history.
The Fundamental Opposition
“[T]he Jews,  Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men;  Prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath of God is come upon them to the end.”
-1 Thess. 2:14-16
Yes. And as has been revealed here recently, even many of those who comment on this blog (and also now at The Remnant) are quite content to constantly slide left, as their softness on Billy Graham, sodomite perverts, and perfidious Jews reveals.
Alphonsus, I was surprised a few days ago when someone brought it to my attention that Matt seemed to be praising the late Cdl Spellman who was a known homosexual. Read the comments if you cannot or do not want to see the video.
It reminds me of Degeneris giving away things on her show and OH she is so good and loving because she is charitable.
Meanwhile her goodness oozes out by promoting her hx marriage and lifestyle.
Yeh right M Matt , Cdl Spellman was just great ! Get a clue lots of those who commit serious sins can do some nice things too but pleeease do not hold them up as role models as ar Catholic anything . Frannie should have never been a priest much less a Cardinal.
And thus is proven exactly what Davis wrote about. I wonder what the next remark will be…perhaps defaming a Cardinal is in order?
Not Catholic to kill gays and Jews. Period. If you believe it is, you need to find a different faith.
“Where they mention the name of a heretic in the canon”???
Umm, Bergoglio has not been officially found guilty of heresy and it is not for us to make that declaration. The Canon is the canon and it is not our “rule” to break. That’s the judgment of the Church to make, not you or me. Now that’s not to say we can’t recognize that many of his public statements smack of heresy and falsehood. We may resist these statements certainly. I’d truly recommend that all traditionalists read True Pope False Pope. It will bring a lot of clarity to the current crisis and is loaded with the theology of the church sans modernism. Louie ought to read it as I fear he’s also being slowly sucked in to the vortex of sedevacantism. Cheers!
And if s’vism should turn out to be true, then what of it?
Your friends Salza and Siscoe would have you believe that the Church is an invisible congregation of both Catholics and baptised heretics; that no one is able to distinguish a Catholic from a non-Catholic. That’s the final summary of their book. Be careful with that heretical garbage please fast ferrari.
A person who professes protestantism doesn’t affirm the Catholic faith in the Eucharist.
Always there to get heretics off the hook.
Have your “wiggle room” cake if you like, but you’ll eat it on your way out the door of the Church.
1917 code of Canon Law:
It is forbidden to administer the sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even though they err in good faith and ask for them, unless they have first renounced their errors and been reconciled with the Church.
~ Canon 731 §2.
1983 Novus Ordo code of Canon Law:
§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
~ Canon 844.
Louie, the Church doesn’t ask us to ascertain what seminary a priest went to, or what his personal views are regarding a sacrament, in order to guess whether he has the intention to do what the Church does. We are not to use this as the means by which we might guess whether the sacrament he administers is valid or not. Neither does the Church use this means Herself.
Instead, we have Leo XIII teaching in Apostolicae Curae the Catholic means of knowing whether the minister of the sacrament has the intention to do what the Church does. We know it by his use of a Catholic rite, which is a rite expressing the essential nature of the sacrament it surrounds.
“A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does.
On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed.
On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.”
Apostolicae Curae, 33.
Since the novus ordo was deliberately and openly designed to bring it into line with the protestant, heretical theology of the Lord’s Supper, then I don’t see how it is possible for any priest to manifest the intention of doing what the Church does, whether it was cardinal Marx, or St Thomas Aquinas.
This is a disgusting development but not too different from what is already allowed in the 1983 Code of Canon Law; i.e., schismatics and heretics, under certain circumstances, can receive Holy Communion. The only significant difference is that the former is a German Church permission while the latter is a Universal Church one. Both, however, are opposed to true Catholic doctrine as found in the 1917 Code of Canon Law:
It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.
(Pope Benedict XV, Code of Canon Law , Canon 731.2; underlining added.)
All we are currently seeing is that the post-Vatican II religion is incompatible with the pre-Conciliar one.
Novus Ordo Watch has a good article on how intercommunion with schismatics and heretics was ushered in by Vatican II:
Let’s face it, the Vatican II religion is the forerunner of a NWO universal religion; the NO the forerunner of the “Ecumenical Mass”; limited intercommunion the forerunner of unlimited intercommunion; and the Assisi Meetings the forerunner of the NWO parliament of religions.
The fact that no Pope (and all the bishops of the world united with him) from 1917 to the present has ever complied with Our Lady’s instruction to Consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart is all we really need to know. What excuse could there possibly be for a Pope not to comply with Our Lady’s instruction? What excuse could there possibly be for a Pope not to consecrate Russia and bring forth the conversion of that nation to the one, true Faith?
Any and every Pope who has failed to comply with Our Lady’s instruction has shown that either he does not believe in the apparition of Our Lady of Fatima or that his faith is weak in comparison to his fears.
A long time ago on Lifesite News, they were wringing their hands in an article about some protestant being allowed to go to Communion, and wanted the authorities to do something about it.
I simply posted these two contrasting quotes above, the 1917 and the 1983 excerpts, with no additional commentary, just like I did here. LSN’s reaction? They deleted the comment and banned me from commenting there anymore.
I politely ask a new priest at the chapel what Rite was he ordained in, and which bishop ordained him. I’m yet to meet one, or even hear of one, who has anything other than the Apostolic rite of Holy Orders.
I don’t think he’s advocating the killing of anyone, but just pointing out that saints and Popes have said that certain mortal sins merit the death penalty.
He might be a priest, he might not. That dastardly new rite of Orders that Paul VI invented is a minefield. Check it out.
Who does make such a declaration? Do youthen get to decide if they’re actually qualified, or does someone else have to tell you they’re qualified?Do you judge that person as qualified? Sounds like a nice round circle to me. Eventually it comes down to one person making a cognitive (not juridical) judgement on somebody of other.
Can’t anyone at all simply distinguish a Catholic from a heretic? If you say Mo, then you’re proposing an invisible Church, and that’s not the Catholic Church. See how dangerous TOFP is!
No not mo
You know how in mafia movies they say “it would be a shame if something happened to your family” and not “we’re going to kill your family if you don’t do what we say”? Same thing here. The Saints and Popes who said these things are wrong.
Dear FF, when later this year Francis evokes his “Apostolic” authority to declare that Paul VI is now a saint, will you from that point on unquestionably refer to Paul VI as a saint? Please answer YES or NO only.
Our Lord said in the Gospels on several occasions that for some sinners death would be the better option then to persist in their sin.
Spellman a homosexual? I’ve always believed him to be orthodox and one from the old guard. What evidence is there of this?
Thank you Mike. I appreciate that.
Sadly there are seminary rectors and superiors of Orders who do ask how the priestly candidate feels about homosexuality. Many have been turned away because they state sodomy is a grave sin. We know that from Fr John O’Conner and so many others. Apparently the right answer is ,”Who am I to judge” and with that many sodomites are embraced for entrance. do they have the Proper Intention for the Sacrament of Holy Orders? Are they validly Ordained? Well if not, than any of us can celebrate and transubstantiate as long as we do what the Church intends.
The legalisms defy common sense and have confused the Faithful to no holy or good end.
Time was Church Laws required we attend a parish closest to our home in our own Diocese. Then came the Nervous Ordo and people went elsewhere. Time was you thought SSPX was the safest choice. Now we know they have allowed
perverts into their seminaries and priesthood.
How deep does that go? Did they all exit for the Resistance?
Not intending to engage in a debate and I have no ill will to sedevacantists, having been one myself. “If Svcntsm should turn out to be true …” Exactly. And who determines that it’s definitively true?
Gee, I don’t think you read their book very well because they spend the first couple of chapters definitively proving from Church teaching that the Church is anything but invisible.
Their book conveys solid historical teaching from authoritative source documents prior to V2.
Sorry, I don’t respond to manipulative forced -choice questions. This is not a court of law and I’m not being cross-examined by a hot shot lawyer. Whatever happens, the good Lord will sort this out.
Seriously? If a priest were to ask they wouldn’t do it?
I know I’ll get some folks upset with me, but the new rite of priestly ordination is absolutely valid and Catholic. So is the new rite of Episcopal consecration. The apostolic line continues and will continue until the Second Coming. There really is no objective reason to conditionally ordain NO priests coming over to tradition unless the subjective condition of the priest requires to resolve his doubts or assuage his conscience.
Dear sweep, my post above clearly spells out the Church teaching on how to know if a sacrament is valid.
If the proper matter and form are used in a Catholic Rite, ie a rite which expresses the essential nature of the sacrament being conferred. That’s it.
A guy could be a sodomitical heretic and an international heroin kingpin. If the Bishop uses proper matter and form in a Catholic Rite, then the Church presumes for that very reason the intention to do what the Church does.
This German scandal has been upstaged by the Brazilians.
Dear Papal. So a invalidly Ordained priest is covered who took Holy Orders minus having the Proper Intention ? That is not quite what a priest Canon Lawyer told me.
I guess Villanova U does or at least did not have valid Sacramental Eucharists when they used peanut oil in the recipe for the hosts.As far as the Bishops are concerned, well that also poses a puzzle for me since our old cross dressing pastor who denied the Real Presence at Easter from the pulpit was removed and I was told ,”There was something irregular about his Ordination”, but never fear , now that the Bishop who removed him is deceased he is back as the new Bishop’s secretary and pastors a parish where he just celebrated a Mass for the world and everyone was invited, Catholic or not.
Papal Subject, I fear many of the Prelates do not have the same reverence for canon law as you do.
I don’t want to debate either. They show that the Church is visible at the start, then spend the rest of the time refuting it. They quote anti-Catholic, Protestant authors who attacked the Papacy – works which are on the index of forbidden books by the way – to assist their case.
That’s ok. I don’t expect you to be on the stand answering my questions. They are rhetorical and posed to show a certain absurdity in the positions of some people out there.
No ones getting upset FF.
How does one know they are “certainly valid”? I can’t get past “gravely doubtful”, and that’s being probably more generous than is due to the most wicked enemies of the Church.
Ok let’s make this quick.
If he does not have the proper intention then no sacrament takes place. The only way we know he has the proper intention is by adhering to the Rite handed down. That’s all the Church judges, so we can’t go beyond that. The Church’s mind is the mind of Christ.
I don’t know what Villanova U is, but if there is a defect in either minister, or matter, or form, or intention, or any combination of these, there is no sacrament. In this case, peanut is invalid matter, so no sacrament.
Even cross dressing doesnt invalidate a Sacrament, unless during the Rite the guy dressed in drag and heels and openly mocked the rite. That might display a defect of intention.
I don’t know anything about these character’s ordination, except that it was probably in the new, non Catholic Rite, which is objectively doubtful.
I believe the principles which concern the essential nature of the Sacraments come from Divine Law, but are regulated by Canon Law. It’s no surprise that non- Catholic heretics infesting the Catholic diocesan real estate would have less concern than you or I for anything that the Church holds sacred!
Your moderate position is not shared by Salza and Siscoe. They demanded Bishop Fellay institute the refusal of the Sacraments to sedes who attend SSPX chapels.
“In other words, the so-called “ecumenism of return” so firmly rejected by the German bishops is the only ecumenism that is consonant with the authentic faith of the Catholic Church. Yes, but is the German bishops’ rejection of this teaching really the faith of the Council? Indeed it is, and one need only read the Second Vatican Councils’ Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, to confirm as much”
The teaching of “the Council” and its codification of such in JPII’s Code of Canon Law. A teaching that Benedict XVI also publicly subscribes to: at JPII’s funeral, he gave communion to a Protestant minister.
Regarding the validity of the 1968 Rite, the biggest problem is the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration. The “New” bishops are doubtfully valid at best and without certainly valid bishops, there are no certainly valid priests. The “intentions” of these priests are irrelevant.
Have you ever researched the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration? Do you realize that the SSPX questioned its validity until……Ratzinger (consecrated with it) was elected pope?
Above was for FF
Its the elephant in the room no one wants to address. So trads keep getting upset everytime these NO charlatans “desecrate” a piece of bread.
It doesn’t matter how long ago it was introduced; it matters less that it was lying dormant for 60 +years. What DOES matter, however, is that after 60 years Bergoglio’s wrecking crew only NOW feel free to drag it into the light of day. So whatever feeble excuses people might offer – this is, without a doubt, 100% down to Francis.
Seriously?…………you’re USING A SNIP OUT OF A Hollywood FILM as a yardstick for judging the Saints and Doctors of the Church………..? How juvenile! The mind boggles.
“Defamed” Blunderbuss?…….Surely not. Calling a Prelate a Sodomite is a veritable compliment, if not a badge of dubious ‘honor’, in today’s Vatican. Look how many known pervert priests, Bishops, Archbishops and Cardinals have been promoted by Francis!
Some people think that researching it consists of choosing some one or other who, in their estimation, is qualified to tell them that it’s “certainly valid”.
Since the Church has a Divine mandate to teach all nations, then her teachings must be intelligible to anyone with the use of reason. Working from this principle, amp me can go directly to the source, ie the Magisterium, and see for himself.
I think people forget this principle and think it’s beyond their ability to comprehend, and end up choosing someone whom they think does understand it all, and can just deliver the answer ready- made.
The Church teaches, and we can understand. That’s the correct basis.
You too? I was excommunicated by them the same day they banned me from LSN and 1P5. Apparently I was only one of 5 others – somebody got out of bed the wrong side!
Those 1983 laws are prima facie absurd and self-contradictory.
Read “The Rite of Sodomy” by Randy Engel and her excellent footnoted research.
Opus Dei owns LSN and it is probable that Peter Skojak is also a cooporator.
The latter was a member of RC and a convert. Woytola the Sainted, was Opus Dei’s Pope.
It is getting very murky to distinguish a Traditional Catholic from a neo con OD adherent.
Voris ( connected to OD at least by his initial funding) who banned countless Trads from posting any benign comment about Borgoglio is now allowing people to say what may and is posting about Francis’ entanglement with the scandals.
Beware because OD is taking over the narrative and will put there own back on the throne.
Therefore they don’t come from the Catholic Church, who can never fail in fulfilling the Great Commission to “Teach all Nations.” It comes from some other place, along with Vatican II, the new mass, the new Catechism, and the new rite of so-called holly orders.
It’s because it’s probably the biggest bombshell of all to accept: most clergy today are most likely laymen. I understand people not wanting to face it head on, as I was once among them.
Francis is finally clearing up the V2 obfuscation. This is good. The real paradigm is clearly visible. The Mass is being reduced to a meaningless cracker call by crack pots and their butt buds. Gotta be tough on the neo cons of Novus Ordo Land. Married Priests, giving Sodomite Blessings assisted by female deacons is straight ahead. There is no reason to believe this won’t happen. No serious opposition. Until the Francis cabal is stopped the destruction will continue. Barring divine intervention, who is going to stop the Francis cabal….Burke? Dolan? Wenski? Chaput? Parolin?…..LOL…then pray…and don’t stop…
It’s a sight you’re on the right track. 1P5 and The Remnant banned me too, for not much more.
Fatima is not actually part of the deposit of Faith. You can ignore it and be a member of the Church, as doing so doesn’t make you a heretic, schismatic or an apostate. Whether or not one should ignore it is a seperate issue.
If the Popes before Vatican II failed carrying out Our Lady’s request, they still remain both Catholic and Pope.
Since the OD owned publications and media are all suddenly stepping up to condemnation of the Francis entanglement scandals , there is another possibly even more deceptive end game.
The neo cons would cheer the installation of their hand picked Papal replacement in a year or two.
Any Catholic who has not studied Escriva’s background
and connection to Licio Gelli ,the former head of the Propaganda Due Lodge and what is truly happening in the OD Houses, touted as true Catholicism ,is a candidate to believe the deception.