There can be no such thing as a “new church,” and yet, the words and deeds of her sacred pastors can at times give one the impression that indeed we have a new church; one that in many ways is unlike the Church of the pre-conciliar era.
Did the Council create a new church?
June 20, 2014
116 Comments
Thank you for your crystalline calling out of this farce! What psychobabble these men engage in. The downplaying of the Kingship of Christ and the demotion of the Eucharist to a doctrinal barrier, as well as the physical demotion of the Tabernacle to the side of the churches, often in a hideous box that looks like a dwelling for elves has resulted in the following:
1. Syncretism rampant among Catholics. (and Protestants)
2. Massive loss of Sunday churchgoing by Catholics. (and Protestants)
3. A degradation of the culture with abortion and contraception as common among Catholics as Protestants.
4. Religious freedom trumping the Kingship of Christ.
5. The Eucharist thought to be a communal meal, and nothing more, among many Catholics. Transubstantiation is a doctrinal problem, don’t you see?
6. Many Catholics wanting female and married priests. Altar girls plant this seed of hope among many.
7. Catholics championing what the wider culture dictates–homosexual marriage, IVF, and soon, divorce and remarriage.
8. Catholics wanting to be cremated and scattered–a total denial of one of the corporal works of mercy because burial isn’t good for Gaia–running out of room! Earth worship among many Catholic boy and girl scout troops, not to mention the selling of Girl Scout cookies to support Big Abortion.
The evils are so pervasive in every aspect of everyday life–all because the Vatican II Church wants to be more like the heretics.
If this sounds likes success, what is failure? What good, exactly, has ecumenism achieved? Insipid platitudes seems to be all it has yielded.
The arguments against homosexual marriage and Obamacare are being fought by our shepherds on the the basis of “religious freedom”. This is a band-aid argument. Homosexual marriage and the procuring of contraception and abortion can only be vanquished by the proclamation that Christ is Our King and His Church proscribes these evils. The state will always trump religious freedom. The state cannot trump Christ the King if He dwells in the hearts of His subjects.
dear Mr. V,–
Wow–I did not know what was coming !
Suspense, humor, tears, truth-telling, impact. I loved this & I think it’s the best video yet. I can’t wait to use this new offering of yours in that solemn nonsense endeavor of the “p” word.
Thank you!
Fr. Massa is absolutely wrong on many points which he is basing his arguments:
1. The pre-Vatican II approach to Ecumenism was NOT a Failure, it was a SUCCESS.
Several Orthodox churches returned to the Catholic Church under Pius X (the Melkites) and under Pius XII (the Ruthenian Orthodox Church).
Considering that the main reason for V2 was for ecumenism with the Orthodox, it is Vatican II which is an abject failure as no churches have returned since then.
To make it worse, the changes in liturgy in the Roman Rite make us even MORE distant from the traditional liturgy in the Orthodox rites, fueling their schismatic arguments.
2. Fr. Massa is WRONG that the Protestants were less attracted to Catholicism before V2.
In the 1950s USA, Protestantism was dying: from religious to secular, from Republican to Democrat in the NorthEast.
At the same time, Catholicism was secure and vibrant, and there were unprecedented conversions of Protestants to Catholicism.
Even the a Princess of the Netherlands, a Protestant, converted to Catholicism in 1962 (note the date, before V2).
All the issues that Fr. Massa talks about, brought Indifferentism and Apathy to both Catholics priests and laity, and to others in other religions.
To make things worse, we hear stories that Protestants that wished to convert to convert to Catholicism were DISCOURAGED by Catholics, even Bishops and Pope Benedict XVI himself!!
So I think that it is a legitimate question: was Vatican II REALLY a sincere attempt for bringing Christians back to unity?
I think that the Fruits did not show salvation of souls.
Exactly! And GREAT post! “Religious freedom” is a defensive maneuver of a retreating hierarchy that is afraid to confront evil head on.
I think by now we must have 95 theses to nail to someone’s door like that of St. Joseph’s seminary or the NY cathedral itself (though they are made of bronze and are about to be refinished for $250,000.00). Maybe Baltimore! It is time for an open debate. It is time to take back those doctrinal elements/obstacles that hold together the faith from the beginning. “…and the truth will set you free…” Time for an all out assault on the “new” church so called. All it has is attention and power…but not the truth (possibly not the authority either). It is time to take it on in a forum that will be the trumpet blast heard all around the Church everywhere. It would be nice to have America step up and get that ball rolling.
I think traditional Catholics should collectively demand “sui iuris” status in the Church.
Unless my crummy eyesight fails me, Fr. Massa is not listed among the faculty (nor among the Administration) of St. Joseph Seminary in New York:
https://dunwoodie.edu/index.php/academics/faculty-and-administration
I don’t doubt the veracity of the claim that he teaches as St. Joseph’s. He’s held teaching positions at various institutions over the years, including Fordham University, Newman University, Blessed John XXIII National Seminary and Immaculate Conception Seminary. He was also theological adviser to the U.S. Bishop’s Conference on the Laity from 2003 to 2004 and executive director of the Conference’s Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs from 2006 to 2011. The producers of the documentary didn’t just pick Father at random; he’s a key go-to man for things ecumenical.
In a way I hate to state this, but listening to Fr. Massa speak I am struck with the feeling that I am hearing the serpent himself. The diabolical cunning involved in the New Orientation is just utterly chilling to the soul once it is unmasked. It is the epitome of evil: It appears as the greatest good to the world.
I know. The horrendous milktoast monotone intonation of the voice is a sure indicator of the Enemy. Combined with the giddy smiling face of Fr. We Can Have Reasonable Hope That All Are Saved, we have the personality profile of most recent & current non-shepherds.
Another hole in one, Louie.
–
the mendacity of the massa’s of the NO church is laid out for all to see. Absolute contradiction – reconciling the world to God by avoiding the Only Means God gave us by which we should be reconciled – the Holy Roman Catholic Church, Her Sacraments, Her God-given indefectibility!
–
Eternal Rome (aka the Church of the ‘unsuccessful’ strategy!?! Yep, the strategy that brought us Christendom was ‘unsuccessful’)) is the True Church of Christ; Aggiornamento Rome is heretical – they preach it, teach it, even demand it (both Romes are still overlapping, much to chagrin of the Aggiornamento Rome and Eternal Rome).
–
Massa, and all his ilk, teach that the Body of Christ is found outside the Catholic Church?!? They teach that moving the ‘obstacles’ of authentic Faith, is the way. Of course “it was very important for Protestants to hear the council fathers articulate this defense of religious freedom/errors”, because what people want is to belive the Church is validating their errors which is exactly what Aggiornamento Rome is doing. It is the serpent speaking as Catholic Thinker noted.
–
–
The Church’s ‘public and solemn magistrium’, is guarranteed infallibility: ‘He [Christ] promised His Presence would never leave the magisterium, and the Holy Ghost would thoroughly instruct it about every truth…Come, brethren, if you wish to be grafted on the vine. It is grief when we see you thus lying lopped off. Number the priests from the very chair of Peter, and in that order of Fathers, see who succeeded whom. This is the rock that the proud gates of hell do not conquer”…It is sufficiently evident that no one is in the Catholic Church who does not cling to that Rock, on which the foundation of Catholic unity has been set. St. Jerome did not suppose otherwise; to him, anyone who was not united in communion to the Chair of Peter and to the sitting Pontiff was unholy.” This is Eternal Rome. Aggiornamento Rome is something else. Aggiornamento Rome is ‘lying lopped off’. How can it be ‘united in communion to the Chair of Peter and to the sitting Pontiff’, when their ‘sitting pontiff’ is not united in communion of the Chair of Peter? “He who sets up a second chair against that unique chair is a schismatic or heretic.” The NO church is surely a ‘second chair against that unique chair’.
–
A few days ago Bergoglio affirmed ‘communion’ in Christ with, as Louie said, the heresiarch Welby. Eternal Rome says this “…proponents of that falsehood [that the Catholic Church shares any untiy with Anglicans or other schisms] are compelled to deny necessarily the infallibility of the Church.” Bergolgio thus denies ‘the infallibility of the Church.’ He, like Massa, like Kasper, like Wojtyla, like Montini, like all those miserable traitors for over a generation now, deny their faith, deny the Church, deny the Popes. It is not a new church, it simply isn’t Church at all.
–
p.s. the above quotations are from Acta Apostolicae Sedis XI (1919): 312-316 SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE TO CERTAIN PUSEYITE ANGLICANS – http://www.novusordowatch.org/aas-08nov1865.pdf
The first time I tried to convert, the ‘course’ was run by two priests, very orthodox (still NO). The older priest informed me that I would not be permitted to come into the Church. His excuse was that I was a foreign ‘resident’?! Anyway, years later, I tried again, an NO course, the untraditional priest simply didn’t believe in conversion or courses for conversion. It is an uphill battle trying to even become ‘Catholic’ in the Novus Ordo. I don’t know what people’s experiences have been like in real Traditions – SSPX etc. The NO church however do not want converts because that is outdated. This is anti-mission as far as I can see. Anti-mission, anti-church, anti-pope.
I notice that “Vatican II: Inside the Council,” which is online, ends with “Episode 10: Final Session of Vatican II,” not with the disaster that ensued the following 49 years.
Don’t feel bad…you’re only saying exactly what we all feel when listening to this effeminate tool. He’s a repulsive individual….sort of reminds me of another clown who is popular on youtube, “Fr” Barron.
I’ve posted this quotation below before, but it is more fitting than ever to get the historical perspective on how such radically non-Catholic heresies as “ecumenism” and “religious lliberty” were rammed through against the wishes of many (most?) of the bishops at Vatican II. IMO John XXIII was not an innocent victim, but the one that hatched the plot to “hijack” the council and he appointed Cardinal Bea to be the one to carry out this plot.
I very highly recommend reading the whole article titled “In the beginning: How the work of Christian unity got started”
http://americamagazine.org/issue/5152/article/beginning
This is from the Jesuit magazine “America”, so you can imagine that it is 100% sympathetic to the cause of “ecumenism”. And yet it is absolutely damning evidence of how the whole movement was driven by anti-Catholic (demonic?) forces.
Notice one very strange thing about the title. It says “got started” instead of just “started”. The implication is that it didn’t “just happen”, but that some outside force was at work to “get it to start”. I think I know the ultimate source of that force — it is a diabolical wind that sweeps up from the deepist pits of hell in order to push the Barque of Peter off of her divinely charted course.
+ + +
A private meeting between Dr. Visser ’t Hooft [the first general secretary of the World Council of Churches] and Cardinal Bea [president of the secretariat for Christian unity] took place on Sept. 22, 1960, at a convent in Milan. The local archbishop, Cardinal Giovanni Montini, was in on the plan too. As Pope Paul VI, Montini would guide the council to completion after the death of Pope John XXIII in 1963. In hindsight, the requirement that the meeting be secret seemed “ridiculous,” as Dr. Visser ’t Hooft later noted, but he agreed that the delicate process of establishing relationships could easily have been complicated by public discussion at that point. Dr. Visser ’t Hooft’s first recommendation to Cardinal Bea was that the council must address religious freedom to ensure that future Catholic statements promoting Christian unity would be taken seriously.
Louie’s analyses are getting progressively more clinical. The video he discusses here brings to my mind the concluding paragraph, quoted below, of an effusive article on “Post-Modernism” published 100 years ago in 1914, that is, during the reign of Pope Pius X, and with specific reference to his clampdown on Modernism.
The article is interesting for a number of reasons. It vividly demonstrates how old (Post-)Modernism is and how false the claim that “circumstances changed” in the 1960s. In two recent videos highlighted by Michael Leon and Louie, we have seen clergymen imply that decolonization “necessitated a change” in the Catholic Church and the end of the Soviet Union “vindicated it”. This article, on the other hand, which reads to me like an interview with Jorge Bergoglio, was written when Germany had a Kaiser, the Romanovs ruled Russia and the First World War was yet to come. If it had suited their propaganda, I am sure some would have appealed to the Jazz Age as a watershed moment in religious history.
</br
The article concludes thus:
“But the Post-Modernist sees no sense in sham fighting. He has done once and for all with the old antagonisms between faith and reason, grace and free will, the Church and the world. He would put his Christian experience and his Catholic resources at the disposal of any who will use them, and who will contribute, in their turn, something that he does not possess. He would ask for the co-operation of all in that adventure which is too great for anyone alone to undertake – the discovery and the development of the kingdom of God.”
Did the council create a new church? Try to imagine one of our great saints of old returning to earth, entering a modern post-Vatican II church, expecting to assist at “the Mass of All Time” and then being assaulted by the Novus Ordo “mess”. Surely, they would think this is a terrible nightmare (they would be right!). This is only they beginning. They would be astonished at New Church’s theology and scandalous behavior both inside and outside the church. Yes, friends, we are living that nightmare! May the Saints of Old protect us, guide us and intercede for us!
There really is nothing new – least of all VIIs excuse of ‘circumstances’. One thing that did change was ceasing to defend the Church against her enemies:
–
“…The encyclical Pacem in Terris (‘Peace on Earth’ by John XXIII) is a vigorous statement of Masonic doctrine.. we do not hesitate to recommend its thoughtful reading.” (quoted from the ‘Masonic bulletin’, the official organ of the Supreme Council of 33rd Degree Scottish Rite Masons in Mexico, ‘May 1963’, in ‘The New Montinian Church’ by Fr. Joaquin Arriaga, pp.147-148)
–
Roncalli also did away with Pius XII standing excommunication of known communists. VII declared enemies to be friends effectively thumbing its nose at Christ: ‘He that is not with me, is against me; and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.’ VII, if one is being charitible, declared both for and against null, and both scattering and gathering void. The VII mission is a radical and substantial change from the True Mission.
“The sense of universalism that is rampant in Rome these days, is very close to our purpose for existence. With all our hearts we support the revolution of John XXIII.” (Yves Marsaudon, State Minister of the Supreme Council of French Scottish Rite) After the Roncalli’s death, Marsaudon wrote: “To the memory of John XXIII, who has designed to give us (freemasons) his benediction, his understanding, and his protection.”
–
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B095_PopeMason.html
–
“Spiritually speaking, “universalism” is the idea that all religions have equal validity. As one interfaithist recently stated, “all spiritual paths lead up to the same mountaintop called God.”
p.s. Marsaudon, in his book ‘Ecumenism Viewed by a Traditional Freemason,’ wrote:”Catholics … must not forget that all roads lead to God. And they will have to accept that this courageous idea of free thinking, which we can really call a revolution, pouring forth from our Masonic lodges, has spread magnificently over the dome of St. Peter’s.”
–
masonic triumphalism would be funny – after all Christ is the only magnificence over St Peter’s – if it didn’t harvest so many souls for satan.
It’s pretty scary to say the least how many people take this buffoon seriously. I think his popularity mainly stems from the fact that he offers clueless “catholics” an utterly painless way to “salvation” (*cough*,*cough* ehem damnation I should say) whereby we can toss out the way of the cross, Calvary, and in short, we don’t need the saving power of sacrifice, and as Luther said, “sin valiantly, only have an unshakeable faith”.
–
I believe “Fr” Barron goes further than Luther because his thesis suggests that repentance for our sins is not needed for our salvation, because “God is good”, he understand “our weakness”, and well, surely he wouldn’t condemn us for breaking such trifles as any of the ten commandments? So, “Fr” Barron’s success stems from offering people a way to God (ehem the devil really) via unrestrained vice. “Fr” Barron is the alchemist who has finally discovered the way, after two thousand years, to convert the path to damnation to a path of salvation.
–
Surely, we can accomadate our buddies Mao Tse-Tung, Comrade Stalin, and Adolf Hitler in the bosom of Abraham? “There”, they will laugh at us that we did all those silly penances and will mock us for being “Pelagian rosary counters” while they were still able to attain the beatific vision after causing the murder of countless millions souls. “See” – they will say “why bother believing in God. We have all attained eternal happiness. Even our buddy Judas Iscariot is up here keeping us good company.”
–
And who is the progenitor of the “we have a reasonable hope all are saved” thesis? Why, none other than Hans Urs von Balthasar, who died shortly before being given the red hat of the cardinalate by “St” JP II “The Great”. What did Joseph Ratzinger “The great restorer of Tradition” aka B XVI “The Abdicator”, have to say about von Balthasar at his funeral in 1988?
–
“What the pope intended to express by this mark of distinction [i.e., elevation to the cardinalate], and of honor, remains valid, no longer only private individuals but the Church itself, in its official responsibility, TELLS US THAT HE IS RIGHT IN WHAT HE TEACHES OF THE FAITH.”
–
Of the “Conciliar faith” presumably? Certainly not that of the Roman Catholic faith.
–
“And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet, who wrought signs before him, wherewith he seduced them who received the character of the beast, and who adored his image. THESE TWO WERE CAST ALIVE INTO THE POOL OF FIRE, BURNING WITH BRIMSTONE.”
Revelation 19:20
As an antidote to Fr. Massa’s saccharine gushing: http://bit.ly/1lVWLkg
here’s some comic relief from Mundabandal – the mother of all apparitions:
–
http://mundabor.wordpress.com/2014/06/21/mundabandal-the-mother-of-all-apparitions/
–
“After the Great Miracle, the World will suddenly see the light, and I will become Pope with the name Pius XIII. He told me to start selecting my newsagent, cobbler, and favourite Rabbi from now, because you never know when the need for them may arise. My objection that whilst I am a bachelor I find it a bit far-fetched to be elected Pope was answered with the words:”shut up, you little human; we have just made it with a night club bouncer”…
Has everybody seen this one (I think from Ireland), featuring clown priests, balloons, “inclusion” and rainbow banners, plus cool and groovy music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWWpghwjMTI
“Candle Week Video”
It only takes a second to click the down arrow. Score so far is 0↑ and 9↓
The SSPX now has at least one priest in Italy who was almost literally “refused entry” by the NO convert-blockers. He was a Prot minister of some sort and told again and again and again that “God wanted him where he was”, etc. Well, now he’s where he belongs.
“Horrendous milktoast monotone intonation” – boy, you nailed that.
“I think his popularity mainly stems from the fact that he offers clueless “catholics” an utterly painless way to “salvation” (*cough*,*cough* ehem damnation I should say) whereby we can toss out the way of the cross, Calvary, and in short, we don’t need the saving power of sacrifice, and as Luther said, “sin valiantly, only have an unshakeable faith”.”
–
Yes. That’s Protestantism, as you point out, and “Protestant” is the NO Church (whatever that entity itself exactly is). Protestant and masonic, which both have as their root religious “liberty” – that is, non servium. “Thou wilt do what thou will”.
–
The lie is “and it won’t matter”. The world will always find this an intoxicating elixir.
Thorough answers to these questions can be found in classic works like “The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber”, “Iota Unum”, and “Pope John’s Council”.
—
Concerning the complete invalidity of the entire concept of the existence of “modern man” as an entity different from “man”, and requiring some radical new type of evangelization, von Hildebrand’s treatment in “The Devastated Vineyard” is truly excellent.
Does Dolan live in opulence?
I used to have a link to a AJC.org archive (since lost) that discussed meetings with Cardinal Bea during the time of the council.
LOL!!!
While I am no fan of Mundabor due to his support of warmongering president George W Bush, I will readily credit him for having written a brilliant piece of satire:
“…he [the “archangel Gabriel”] always forced me to kneel in front of him. This, I found strange in an angel, and very arrogant; but hey, if this angel seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”
Catholic Thinker,
I can’t help but wonder how Von Hildebrand could see the distruction of the Church at times but fall for the subordination of the primary purpose of marriage of procreation and education of children for God’s glory. Deitrick von Hildebrand was one of the many forunners of redefining marriage. He believed in the population explosion theories and believed that One can have recourse exclusively to the infertile period in order to avoid having children of course for (cough cough) noble reasons. He was married and had one child and after his wife died he remarried at seventy someone thirty tears his younger with whom he had no children. He was famous for promoting a deeper meaning of marriage by stating that the meaning of marriage was love. Of course he would acknowledge once in a while that the primary purpose of marriage was procreation and education of children because he knew this was the teaching of the Catholic Church but that he wished to convey a deeper “meaning”. This manipulation of the meaning of marriage was and is to this day very grave. It has confirmed many in accepting contraception, abortion, homosexuality. sodomite unions as equivalent to marriage, married incontinent clergy and a loss of the teological teachings on purity.I am always concerned that even though some Catholics seeking truth and clarity will get it right on most doctrinal issues pertaining to the Catholic Faith they often fall very short on getting right the Divine and natural laws pertaining to marriage.
dear Anastasia,
I’ve found that to be astounding, actually. Your comment is compelling, excellent and well stated.
I am trying to restrain myself from saying something like, “Where are the other 2 Gay Caballeros?”
When a pope finally casts an anathema and excommunicates all those apostates like “Fr” Barron running around the NO Church in the manner of St Thomas Becket, I will weep like a child for joy.
Dear salvemur,
We may put in a comment later, but right now we’re still trying to catch our breath from laughing so hard. THANK YOU this link is hysterical!!
I agree. Anastasia’s comments were excellent.
Dear Akita,
Your comments here are very much on target and appreciated. We can think of even more examples, but your line about Catholics championing what the wider culture dictates, covers most of it.
—–
Some of the greatest damage to families has come from a more hidden source- destructive “advice” being given in the confessional – where it is impossible for the laity to witness or defend against it unless the penitent recognizes it and makes it public.
We wonder if you have researched the Von Hildebrand’s thoroughly enough before making the judgments you mention here concerning the number of children they had.
We ask that, because we have experienced difficulty in childbirth involving numerous miscarriages, and know several Catholics who suffered greatly because they were infertile, only to have added to that personal cross, the instant judgment that came so often from Traditional Catholics whose first question upon meeting them was, How many children do you have? Followed by the introduction of their own 6 to 13 or so. While we respect the sacrifice involved in large families, we must deplore the assumption that every Catholic family with one child or only two or three, must be of a certain immoral mindset, such as you present here.
dear Indignus famulus,
My heart goes out to you for pointing this out. I meant only to express my astonishment at Dr. A. Von Hildebrand’s viewpoint, and not more.
Having lost many children myself to miscarriage, death of a child, and also having today many adult children, I think it is courageous of you to point out how we must exercise caution on how we are so quick, me too, in making assumptions in this particular sphere. Many, me too, do this no matter what, I find, especially in counseling women ante and post partum too.
From where I stand, thank you for the most needed fraternal correction, as I take it.
When faced with fully processed conciliar castrati like Fr. Massa, along with every other variety of Judas Council wreckage, it’s good to recall the true nature of the situation. Our situation today is akin to that of those unfortunate souls in The Road Warrior movie. The nuclear bombs have exploded. Cities have been leveled. Fields of corpses have long since rotted and been scattered to the winds. In the wasteland remain two tiny camps, the barbaric marauders and those who seek to preserve the fuel of grace and life. We’re the wild inhabitants of the wasteland desperately clinging to the fuel of grace, constantly under siege by powerful, leather-clad barbarians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdv5EtZQ6jg
“At the close of a long life (for I was born in 1905 and I now see the year 1990), I can say that it has been marked by exceptional world events: three world wars, that which took place from 1914 to 1918, that which took place from 1939 to 1945, and that of the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965. The disasters caused by these three wars, and especially by the last of them, are incalculable in the domain of material ruins, but even more so in the spiritual realm.”
-Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, Prologue to his Spiritual Journey
To deMaria regarding #11
Dear deMaria,
Our hearts go out to you, too, and please don’t give it a second thought as far as we are concerned, personally. Actually, it’s good to have something like that posted where others can read it. It’s just human nature and something people are unaware of, which can be corrected when they respond with charity as you just have.
God Bless you.
The voices of some, crying out in the wilderness.
I didn’t recognize Barron’s name, but then looked and recognized him as the host of the multipart “Catholicism” pseudo-documentary on PBS. No one who is not politically-correct gets a show on PBS. Plus he recommends the atheist/radical-environmentalist movie, “Noah”. Plus, he heads a seminary in Chicago.
.
Verdict: he’s a liberal loon.
Did the council create a new Church, or a new church? A church for everyone, regardless of their creed (if any)?
—-
Well, it seems that isn’t true: Cosa Nostra is not welcome here, as they “are not in communion with *God*”. It would seem that those “excommunicated” are merely those who don’t, apparently, even make an attempt to rise to that high level of moral perfection of “following one’s conscience”.
—-
http://news.yahoo.com/video/trending-flight-attendant-delivers-hilarious-171441668.html
—-
(Of course, they may well be – who knows how they were formed.)
Anastasia (incidentally the name of our 4th child if she’s a girl, which will be known in three weeks),
—-
What I posted referenced nothing other than Dietrich von Hildebrand’s (correct spelling) statements regarding that mythical “modern man”, which I will again assert are quite excellent. I agree with you that the inversion of the ends of marriage is an evil and I must also admit that I was not aware that von Hildebrand was in support of this moral error – if that is indeed the case. I am going to look into it.
—-
Pope Pius XII called him “the 20th century doctor of the Church” and Pius XII, of course, reiterated the Church’s teaching on this topic:
—-
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm
—-
As has been noted, the number of children a family has cannot be used to draw conclusions about NFP or other practices. However, I’ll take your word for it that VH erred on this topic. That’s a shame, as he had a monumental intellect. Regardless of this question, “The Devastated Vineyard” is a superb read for any intellectual Catholic.
.”Father Massa, who pursued doctoral studies at Fordham University under now-Cardinal Avery Dulles, wrote his doctoral dissertation on “The Communion Theme in the Writings of Joseph Ratzinger,” the German cardinal who became Pope Benedict XVI.He is currently writing a book on the ecclesiology of Pope Benedict and is a priest of the Diocese of Brooklyn, N.Y.
————–
Plus a lot more, including the usual “interfaith” angle.
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/James-Massa/316337285
Well, I sure pasted the wrong link above. Here’s that article:
—-
http://news.yahoo.com/mafiosi-excommunicated-pope-says-151122053.html;_ylt=AwrBJR_AsaVTY1QAwG7QtDMD
—-
(The newsworthy content in both is similar.)
Huh??? And the gay lobby in Francis’ own backyard – nay, his very own independent state of which he is allegedly its head – is not “an example of “the adoration of evil” and a force to be fought against”???
–
If someone is a mafiosi, and he follows his own conscience, who am I to judge?
Longenecker criticizing Francis’ double-standard?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2014/06/greedy-child-killers-excommunicated-by-pope.html
“I was just about to observe that Pope Francis’ harsh words about the mafia killers in Calabria might just as well be applied to the money grubbing abortionists and the politicians who back them up in our country…”
Er, you are not following. The world loves gayness now. However, everybody in in the world is completely comfortable with “excommunicating” mafia. The mobsters themselves are quite comfortable with it. And the common folk get to say “Yeah, I ain’t like them! I don’t kill people – I’m a goin’ to heaven all right”. This is feel-goodism for EVERYBODY.
Get this:
–
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/06/this-is-most-beautiful-mass-our-parish.html
–
something has got to give – this is simply not Church – it is just being sociable. People have questioned Montini’s rite of Episcopal Ordination – which means, if they are right, they ordain no valid priests. The above scenario – of which there are thousands of daily examples in Novus Ordo churches, many not so extreme, but of the same mind-set – tells me that there a many presiders out there who are not and never have been priests which is why the Holy Altar of the August and Supreme Sacrifice of the Mass is something that needs to make way for a cot. And they think this is just great.
–
I really do not believe that there can be a priest who is simply misinformed about the sacrifice of the mass and its absolute necessity and his absolutely necessary role in this supreme Grace, so as to have him believing it’s not such a big deal. If he thinks like a priest and sacrifices like a priest, he might just be a holy priest of the Apostolic Body; if he thinks like a neo-Florence Nightingale, he probably isn’t either a priest or a Nightingale.
p.s. although i’ve never seen dirty socks in the ‘holy water’ font, it usually doubles as an historic reminder of dust-bowl.
These NO priests, besides committing the sacrilege of profaning the sacred and converting the house of God into a place of anthropocentric “altruism” (the latter it certainly is not), are useful idiots for the Masonic diabolically inspired plan of diluting even further whatever vestiges of Christian culture remain in modern day neo-pagan Europe. Walk along some cities in Europe, and you might as well be in Tangier, Morroccos’ most international city. Most people who arrive to Europe via Lampedusa or the straight of Gibraltar are not Christian, but are Muslims who are idiotically welcomed with open arms while they set up their mosques and minarets in European cities.
–
The city of Marseille in France has been described as the first Algerian city in France. Rivers of blood flood the city due to the massive slaughtering of lambs during the Muslim festival of Eid-il Fitr.
–
These NO priests therefore, become key levers, in the fake “altruism” espoused by Francis at Lampedusa, (which astonishingly enough, was his FIRST, yes FIRST visit to ANYWHERE in Italy outside of Rome, as if there are not Italians – of which he is the patriarch – in desperate need of charity).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUhKoYvDcLs
–
And sadly, a good many catholics, pressed on by these priests, buy into the notion that motivating desperate refugees to risk their lives crossing the Mediterrenean, whilst ignoring the needs of your very own brothers, is a laudable act of “charity”.
The priest there is a liberal, not a Christian. The main aim of liberals is not to help anybody, but instead to make themselves feel superior by putting on a public display of how “caring” they are. Rabid liberals are really egomaniacs – just like Francis himself.
It’s like the inversion of Christendom. All the centuries of missionizing, and allowing God to fulfill Christ’s message of ‘baptizing all nations’ and establishing everywhere Christ’s Church whereby all who accept Christ can have a God given life long means of sacramental Grace, had been stabbed in the back;by who? by the so-called church with this so-called mission.
–
you would never get a rabbi boasting that he tore up a torah scroll to form a makeshift pillow for his neighbours head. you’d never get an Orthodox taking down an icon to use as a dinner plate so his neighbour had something to eat off. but you’ll get a ‘catholic priest’ in fits of self-congratulations over ‘substituting’ the altar of eternal grace for his neighbour to snooze on. ridiculous.
“People have questioned Montini’s rite of Episcopal Ordination – which means, if they are right, they ordain no valid priests.”
—
What you mean is that sedevacantists question the validity of the Rites. “People” have questioned every element of the Church at one time or another. Though the new Rites indeed contain very disturbing elements – they were certainly created in the new “ecumenical” spirit – it is silly to believe they cannot confect the sacrament validly when form, matter, and intent are present. What is the form of Holy Orders? What is the matter? I assure you these elements are still present.
—
Because of this monumental confusion in the Church – a guaranteed result of the diabolical New Orientation – everything is up for grabs in terms of belief. It can indeed be difficult to walk the tightrope at times.
It sure is ridiculous, disgusting, and diabolical. (And good analogies there. Not only would no orthodox Jew treat his sacred instruments thusly, if anyone did, and the MSM got ahold of it, there’d be a firestorm.)
Another few words from me regarding the subject of the validity of the post-Vatican II sacramental Rites.
—
If there have been no valid Holy Orders for nearly 50 years now, every instance of Penance is a sham. Forget supplied jurisdiction – not even the Church can supply jurisdiction to a non-priest. This would mean that tens or hundreds of millions of souls that believe (certainly through no fault of their own) that they had their sins forgiven are mistaken, and in fact will be damned for them (unless they also happen to experience perfect contrition, of course).
—
I do not think it is possible that Christ would abandon His Church to the wolves to *that* extent. This would also mean that the grace I discerned from the sacrament in my Novus Ordo days was all a sham – though, indeed, “the heart lies”, I don’t believe it.
—
It’s the same story regarding the Mass. The Novus Ordo is an illicit Rite because it is not a “received and approved Rite” – it has *no Apostolic origin*. And it is diabolical in its deliberate subjugation of Catholic doctrine – core doctrine. However, the Society has never taken the position that the Rite cannot be used to confect a valid Mass under any circumstances because, again, form and matter are present. (Whether proper intent is present in specific instances is definitely a legitimate question.)
—
Here is some very good reading (all of it):
—
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-3.htm
—
Something to consider – and weigh very heavily in my opinion – is that there have been instances (at least one) of valid Eucharistic Miracles at Novus Ordo Masses. There is documentation on the web. When the accidents disappear and we have nothing but the actual, physical Blood of Christ on the altar, the question is settled.
—
I was once privileged to assist at Mass in the presence of the incredible Eucharistic Miracle in Lanciano, Italy – the first major Eucharistic Miracles and probably still the most impressive. It’s unfortunate that this was a Novus Ordo Mass – this was before my conversion to Tradition – but I do not have doubt that this was a valid Mass.
—
Such things, again, have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the Novus Ordo Rite is illicit, a “banal” “fabrication” of men with diabolical intent. This is one of the ways in which the Holy Ghost protects the Church.
Archbishop Lefebvre initially considered it invalid. Put it this way, if you felt you had a vocation to the priesthood would it be a matter of indifference if your bishop was made in Novus OrdoTM?
No, that is not true. He considered it an illicit Rite that should be avoided, but never stated that it was impossible that the Rite could not confect a valid Mass. In fact, he said the opposite.
—
From a Society document: “Granted that many such Masses are invalid for one reason or another 0 ”defective words of consecration, defective Eucharistic elements, etc. – ”it is not possible to say that the Novus Ordo Missae is in and of itself invalid as a sacrament of the Roman Catholic Church. Archbishop Lefebvre insists that this is not his position nor that of the Society of St. Pius X; Michael Davies, in his important review-article in the May, 1982, issue of The Angelus, stresses this same point: God would not permit the Holy Father to promulgate even vernacular versions of the New Mass that were intrinsically invalid, since this would constitute world-wide separation of the Conciliar Church from the Catholic Church. This has not happened and could not happen.”
—
http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=645
Continuing from the same document, for “balance”:
—
“Another difficulty is in the understanding of the word “valid.” “Valid” is a technical term referring to essential ingredients that must be present for a Mass to be a real Mass. “Valid” is not by any means synonymous with “acceptable.” A celebration of the New Mass may be perfectly valid but perfectly intolerable for sensitive, traditional Catholics to attend. A Mass (in any rite, new or old) is valid if: (1) a validly ordained priest intends to do and does what the Church intends; (2) uses valid Eucharistic matter (bread made exclusively of wheat flour and water, wine unadulterated by chemical preservatives); (3) says the Mass according to an approved rite of the Catholic Church. All these requirements can be present at a Mass where there is also flagrant irreverence, a sermon proclaiming all sorts of non-Catholic teaching, a “sign of peace” that degenerates into an orgy of hugging, kissing and squealing; dancing girls, lay ministers of Communion while the clergy sit and watch and perhaps chit-chat. No amount of this nonsense or liturgical abuse is in itself enough to render a Mass invalid; only a failure in any one of the points listed above. Even a near-riot at the Sign of Peace can somehow be justified as being within the framework of an approved rite of the Church!
—
***In other words, traditional Catholics need not lean on dubious claims of invalidity to justify their boycott of the New Mass***.” (Empasis mine.)
I think I’ve discovered who Dolan’s honored guests for dinner today will be:
“Bisexual Couple Discusses Open Relationship On HuffPost Live”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/16/bisexual-open-relationshi_n_5499766.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
–
The main focus is that they talk about *everything* in front of their children, such as what they did last night with whom. This is the inevitable result of liberal “tolerance”. In non-deviant times, their children would have been taken away.
–
Since regular deviance is already old hat, the public needs more and more to slake their need for prurience. All this eventually gets into the Church.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that the new rite of episcopal ordination is invalid – that would mean that pre-n.o. bishops could continue to validly ordain; as such those priests whom they ordain continue to confect the sacrament. But it would also mean that it is only a matter of time before the Montini haggadah gathering has, through ‘natural selection’, eliminated all validity in the novus ordo. What would happen then? We would probably get Catholics, priests and laity alike, becoming indifferent to the ‘old’ meaning of the mass. We would get indifference to idea of the sanctuary and altar – the tabernacle loses meaning. Confession loses meaning. So people stop going, Confirmation loses meaning so that ‘catholics’ stop bothering. Without the Real Presence we really would lose our Catholic Faith. Well, all these things have and are happening. Do we honestly believe that God does not permit us to reject Him? Montini rejected the sacraments that preceded him and most Catholics must have felt there was something wrong but went along with it. Happily Abp Lefebvre didn’t and we and future generations can reap that great mercy.
–
We blame ‘vii’ for somehow revoltutionising Catholicism to become just another masonic universalist sect – at lest on the ground – but how can this happen if, although the outward appearance of the church has changed, the sacramental integrity is still 100% intact?
I agree that the Holy Ghost protects the Church and we will always have a True priesthood and a True Magisterium that cannot fail; but does that mean every eponymous Catholic parish no matter how emptied of faith? If we accept heresy and lies as worship would it not be reasonable for God to say, ‘let Us depart?’ The seven churches of Asia addressed in the Apocolypse are a good example of Christ warning that if a church falls far enough He will ‘depart’. Has the novus ordo fallen far enough?
The sacramental integrity is, *in practice*, *not* intact because, in practice, intent is lacking, there is terrible irreverence, etc.
—
Even when there are valid sacraments, the abuses and sacrilege therein are still horrid sins that call down the judgement of God – in some ways, of course, this is actually more serious. In fact, sacrilegious Masses, heresy taught from the pulpit, a stunning lack of Catholic belief and practice, and on and on, are quite sufficient to cause & explain the crisis without resorting to “dubious claims of invalidity”.
—
As with sedevacantism – holding to the position that individual Catholics have the authority to declare a pope deposed – a declaration that the new Rites are “invalid” is not just a bad conclusion, but demonstrates a lack of understanding of Catholic teaching. For it to be *impossible* for a Rite to confect a valid Sacrament, there has to be an absence of form inherent. Attempts to prove this always demonstrate a lack of understanding of what is absolutely necessary.
—
Do you know what words were used when Paul laid hands on Timothy? Why do you have complete confidence that his ordination was valid?
—
In any case, please be aware that you have, above, misstated the position of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society on this topic.
p.s. I was only addressing the argument that montini’s rite of episcopal ordination being invalid.
I may have mixed up illicit with invalid. Fr Cekada who was at Econe heard from Abp Lefebvre himself a perception of the new episcopal rite – i was sure it was that it was invalid, at least initially:
–
http://www.fathercekada.com/category/epis-cons-68-rite/
here’s some ‘old’ Catholic exegesis of the happenings after the third Angel sounds his trumpet in the Apocalypse:
–
” 10. As the third angel sounds his trumpet a great star falls from heaven like a flaming torch and poisons a large portion of the streams and even their very sources. The name wormwood denotes a bitter and poisonous nature. This vision is a striking image of unfaithful bishops and priests who fall from the firmament of the Church where Christ has placed them to enlighten and direct the world. By false teachings and example they poison the very sources of doctrine which should be pure as water from the mountain torrent. Like our divine Saviour, the bishops and priests of the Church must be “fountains of water springing up into life everlasting. ” 11. Unfortunately many of the faithful drink from these poisoned streams of false doctrine and so perish.”
https://ia700209.us.archive.org/2/items/theapocalypseofs00berruoft/theapocalypseofs00berruoft_djvu.txt
lol imagine the grand mosque of Damascus being filled with cozy beds and pilllows to accomodate Christians fleeing the terror of persecution by the Mohameddan jihadists trying to wipe out Christianity from the middle east.
–
It ain’t happening, that’s for sure.
In pointing out Dietrich von Hildebrand’s promotion of a deeper meaning of marriage at the expense of putting into question the Church’s teaching on the primary purpose of marriage to be the procreation and education of children for God’s glory, I did not wish to point out the insinuation that he and his wives themselves did not want children. I am aware that unless you know for a fact that they wanted to subordinate the primary purpose of marriage one can not assume whatever one pleases. My point is that couples who are childless and have never given any indication as to why they are childless and wish to at the same time be theologians and write public papers on the a deeper meaning of marriage must be questioned formost on their beliefs on the primary purpose of marriage and their adherance or lack of adherance to this teaching. I can fully imagine the incredible cross it must be to be of wanting one’s own children and not being blessed with them right away or ever.
I am just surprised that someone like von Hildebrand is hailed as one of the greatest theologians on marriage. We need theologians who understand why children are the primary purpose of marriage. I believe that the only way that marriage will be saved is that the true teachings on marriage will have to come from those who embrace the Church’s teachings on the primary purpose of marriage regardless of wether these teachers are celibate, or are married and blessed with many children, are married andhad to adopt or are married and were childless.
I just don’t believe that one who espouses NFP should be hailed as someone who fully understands the deep “meaning” of marriage.
Many blessings to your new child. I hope if it is a girl she will cherish her name as much as I do.
New Church? Father Feeney had it right and he was censured back in 1949. Father Feeney was getting loads of converts. His “strategy” of proclaiming No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church was increasing the Church with converts daily. This got back to Cardinal Cushing and he saw to it that Father was ruined.
____
New Church? Well, at least according to the men who now own the buildings, yes it is. Emerged from behind the scenes the modernists are out in the open and they have their new Vatican II bible to cite and sweet and sugary evil men like Fr. Massa can get cushy jobs in seminaries.
Candle Week is here
http://cherryorchardparish.com/candleweek.html
I have two comments. First, if it is true that +Lefebvre once believed the new Rite to lack proper form, according to the same source, he changed his opinion (the Archbishop never claimed infallibility!). Secondly, given that Archbishop Lefebvre did expel Fr. Cekada from the Society – over issues just such as this one – I personally would not give his testimony weight without corroboration.
A truer word has ne’er been spoken. There is so much slander and calumny heaped upon Fr. Feeney it makes one cringe.
Oh no… now Feeneyism.
—
Fr. Feeney did not teach the Catholic faith. Baptism of desire – even implicit – is a valid teaching with Apostolic origins. Fr. Feeney denied this.
—
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm
heh-heh–
Yes. Of course, Fr. Feeney was a bit off, { to say the least,} What I meant by the above was that Father was not excommunicated for heresy, which is the widespread myth. Aren’t the Feenyites, {if you will,} currently incardinated? A somewhat moderated position is a position that Catholics are allowed to hold— I think?
Mundabor quote de jour:
–
“We are not the Church Pussyfooting. We are the Church Militant.”
Ahh, haha,
my dear salvemur,
well, at least I wish I were, anyway. Militant, that is. All I can manage, as I’ve said, is raising my nausea threshold, to be quite honest.
I have anti-nausea tablets for that.
under the ‘you can’t make this stuff up’, category:
Bergolgio excommuicates the Mafia:
” ‘Those who in their lives have taken this evil road, this road of evil, such as the mobsters, they are not in communion with God, they are excommunicated.’ So, what did he mean? Reuters has the explanation:
Vatican spokesman Father Ciro Benedettini said the pope’s stern words did not constitute a formal over-arching decree of canon (Church) law, regarding excommunication, which is a formal legal process.”
–
The ‘pope’ declares ‘they are excommunicated!’ and we can legitimately ask, “so what did he mean?” the answer, ‘he mean’t they aren’t really excommunicated.’
–
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/06/ok-they-are-excommunicated-but-perhaps.html
also under the ‘you can’t make this stuff up’ category”
–
Italian Freemasonry celebrates VII: “Apparently, that is the Grand Lodge’s position: the Second Vatican Council was an “innovative and paradigmatic” highly positive event, which was not “put into effect” very well — but the “revolutionary abdication” of Benedict XVI that made the pope “a bishop among bishops” set the stage for its “strong and decisive implementation” by Pope Francis. Grand Master Gustavo Riffi, leader of the Grand Lodge at the time, had set the tone in his congratulating message for the election of Pope Francis: “With Pope Francis, nothing will be as before. The choice of fraternity for a Church of dialogue is clear, uncontaminated by the logic and temptations of temporal power.” (March 14, 2013) This was the same Grand Master who had criticized the Italian Episcopal Conference in the 2006 Italian election campaign, in the previous pontificate, for daring to speak up against… abortion, euthanasia, marriage during the campaign.”
–
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/06/who-needs-conspiracy-theories-when.html
One person tweeted: “Pope Francis declares mafia excommunicated. Still nothing on pro-choice politicians…….”
Fair enough.
These people are never asked to defend their positions. Of course the first questions to be asked of the Father and those of his ilk is (1) didn’t the Church have unity for many hundreds of years? (2) Wasn’t this unity shattered by schismatics and heretics whose descendants hold to the same schismatic and heretical positions to this day? (3) Hasn’t this priest ever read, and more importantly understood 2 Corinthians 6:15: “And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?”
Of course those are serious Catholic questions. Snarky questions can easily be imagined as well. Is the goal unity with all 40,000 sects of protestantism? How many doctrinal obstacles will have to be removed if the goal is full union with all the protestants? Since the number of protestant sects is changing all the time, will the Church adopt a cut-off date indicating that unity will only be sought with all protestant sects existing at the time of the cut-off date and none coming into existence after the cut-off date? Exactly how expansive is the scope of union sought? Does it encompass Unitarians? Mormons? Jehovah’s Witnesses?
It’s just too much sometimes to concede that a validly ordained priest could truly have no sense of the immesurable gift of the Holy Ghost bestowed upon him (re: the awful scandals involving the mass these days and the outright heresy so common in homilies, the ridiculous state of ‘confession’ – and not even getting into cots and liturgical dances substituting the Altar.)
–
I got up and left mid-celebration once when the headmistress and a couple of other teaches went up and grabbed the Altar to drag it aside for a liturgical dance of the school kids in the sanctuary. And yet my absolute appall would be considered nothing but a lack of charity in me.
One more serious Catholic question: (4) If the supposed disunity between Catholic Christians and others claiming allegiance to Christ came about because of heresy and schism of the non-Catholics, it really isn’t disunity at all is it? It was, is and always will be schism or heresy, which never harms the unity of the one true Church?
Cyprian,
–
Welcome to the Church of the People of Good Will, where the gate is wide and the way is broad.
“If someone is a mafiosi, and he follows his own conscience, who am I to excommunicate him?”
Some words of sanity from Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, the very anti-thesis of post VII “ecumenism”, leading to the climax of ecumania in Assisi in 1986 by “St” JP II “The Great”:
“…And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. FOR AUTHORS WHO FAVOR THIS VIEW ARE ACCUSTOMED, TIMES ALMOST WITHOUT NUMBER, TO BRING FORWARD THESE WORDS OF CHRIST: “THAT THEY ALL MAY BE ONE..And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,” with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and LONGSTANDING DIFFERENCES OF OPINION which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, MUST BE ENTIRELY PUT ASIDE, AND FROM THE REMAINING DOCTRINES A COMMON FORM OF FAITH DRAWN UP AND PROPOSED FOR BELIEF…
–
…HOW SO GREAT A VARIETY OF OPINIONS CAN MAKE THE WAY CLEAR TO EFFECT THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH WE KNOW NOT; THAT UNITY CAN ONLY ARISE FROM ONE TEACHING AUTHORITY, ONE LAW OF BELIEF AND ONE FAITH OF CHRISTIANS. BUT WE DO KNOW THAT FROM THIS IT IS AN EASY STEP TO THE NEGLECT OF RELIGION OR INDIFFERENTISM and to modernism, as they call it. Those, who are unhappily infected with these errors, hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is, it agrees with the varying necessities of time and place and with the varying tendencies of the mind, since it is not contained in immutable revelation, but is capable of being accommodated to human life…
–
…So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: FOR THE UNION OF CHRISTIANS CAN ONLY BE PROMOTED BY PROMOTING THE RETURN TO THE ONE CHURCH OF CHRIST OF THOSE WHO ARE SEPARATED FROM IT, FOR IN THE PAST THEY HAVE UNHAPPILY LEFT IT. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: “The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.” The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that “this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills.” For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head…”
dear Cyprian,
thank you.
you state; “–it really isn’t disunity at all is it? ” Correct.
—-and
“– which never harms the unity of the one true Church?” Exactly.
—
The Bride of Christ is Undefiled and Inviolate. She does not pine away for, long for, look forward to nor desire unity. Holy Mother Church has always been , is now, and will ever be whole. Despite what nonsense blurts out of the mouth of the current Occupant of the Chair.
—
This is one of the very first things I address in that solemn nonsense of proselytism in which I engage, because the correct understanding of this prevents a misunderstanding, right in the beginning, of so much more.
C’est magnifique.
Associated Press have printed a retraction – albeit half-hearted – regarding the ‘Tuam scandal’:
–
http://americamagazine.org/content/all-things/associated-press-issues-correction-based-america-query
–
–
G.K. Chesterton once wrote, ‘Journalism is a false picture of the world, thrown upon a lighted screen in a darkened room so that the real world is not seen and the unreal world is seen…. We live under secret government, conducted by a secret process called Publicity.’
‘Ahhh, Grasshoppahhh. Yooow have mahstshaad the ahht of modernism.’
@4:18-4:20 – “Restoring unity to the Body of Christ” ? That implies the Body of Christ was divided by the time of V2. Which is (1) untrue (2) impossible (3) contrary to Catholic dogma (4) contrary to Scripture (5) contrary to the repeated and insistent teaching of the Magisterium before V2.
This is idiotic. Why should any Catholic care a brass farthing for the documents of V2, when those who do so expect Catholics to reject, not the teaching of the last 50 years, but the dogmatic teaching of the last 1900 years ? And by what right is the babbling of Bad Pope John & his horrible successors to be given precedence over the dogmas of the Tradition until their time ? Did it not occur to them, that by playing ducks and drakes with Catholic teaching – which is *not* their property, to vandalise, poison, mutilate, distort & wreck according to their own sweet pleasure, but a bequest to the entire Church – they risked making the Papacy odious, loathsome, detestable, vile & abhorrent to Catholics ? That is what has happened. This is indeed a miracle.
The Church of Christ, AKA the Catholic Church, cannot be divided, not even by God Himself, Who is Unchangeable; for to say the Church can be or is divided, would require Christ Himself to be divisible or divided. This is madness, nonsense, or blasphemy – take your pick. It is detestable that a priest – a priest !!!!!! – should utter such inanities, and even worse if this raving nonsense has been substituted for the Traditional dogma of the Church. This really is giving snakes & stones, rather than bread 🙁
“I think traditional Catholics should collectively demand “sui iuris” status in the Church.”
.
## That wouldn’t be a solution to anything, because the rot is in the Church.
.
I think that part of the solution is for the Papacy to be abolished, & for the Popes to become what in effect they were previously: Bishops of Rome with very extensive ordinary authority. This would not mean unsaying any of the teaching of Vatican I; that would stay. But they can’t be allowed to do what Paul VI did, and dump a very unsatisfactory Liturgy on the Roman Rite. And they should be subject to Church law, just like the rest of us: otherwise the Church is at the mercy of evil or incompetent Popes, & has no means to defend herself.
lol pretty hilarious, but who’s voice is that supposed to be imitating exactly?
I must be showing my age – there was a popular show the 70s called Kung Fu – that was the voice the master – can’t remember his name to – his apprentice, Grasshopper.
my dear salvemur,
you’ve a great memory for being only 15 months old at the time, seriously.
@jimmy – Yep, this is the stumbling block I most hear Orthodox talk of when they refuse to come in union with Rome. If the Pope has complete power and can change canon law, sacraments, the liturgy, etc. then the Orthodox feel their traditions can be destroyed by the Pope also.
Which, BTW, reminds me of a debate I was having with an Orthodox guy who said, “your Church just officially canonized modernism with John XXIII and JPII being made Saints”
“Michael Davies, in his important review-article in the May, 1982, issue of The Angelus, stresses this same point: God would not permit the Holy Father to promulgate even vernacular versions of the New Mass that were intrinsically invalid, since this would constitute world-wide separation of the Conciliar Church from the Catholic Church. This has not happened and could not happen.”
## Before 1962, people might well have argued that the “self-destruction of the Church” for all these years, throughout the world, on a massive scale, at the command of a line of Popes & not merely one Pope, “could not possibly” happen; but it has. That God “would not allow” it; but He has. That the paedophilia scandals could not possibly be allowed to happen; but they have. All these things, and many many more, that “God would not” ever allow, have been allowed. They have happened. They are facts, realities, things that have actually occurred.
I think Davies’ reasoning doesn’t stand up – for God could in principle perfectly well allow a Pope to deceive the vast majority of the Church, even in a matter of faith, by dogmatising a falsehood, or by canonising someone who is in Hell. But as long as there was an individual or a group somewhere that refused to accept the error, that person or group would be the Catholic Church on earth, and would be the rightful inheritor of the Church’s Tradition that the falsely-teaching Pope & the deceived majority had lost. Maybe the SSPX will eventually become the Church, through the apostasy of the Popes and the rest of the hierarchy. If so, Abp Lefebvre may turn out to have saved more than the priesthood.
I think it’s a very bad idea to say there is anything that could not possibly be permitted to happen by God – it puts limits to the almost infinite wickedness and folly of human beings. If one Apostle was allowed to betray Christ, another to deny Him three times, and the others to desert Him in His darkest hour, to say that there are limits to the cowardice, folly, blindness, unbelief and impiety of Popes or anyone else seems to be unwarranted. I would not be in the least surprised if eventually we have Popes or other bishops adoring the Devil – indeed, I should be surprised if that doesn’t happen eventually. IMHO, things can, and will, get a lot worse in the Church before they get better; and I expect them to get worse for a long time to come.
Mmmmm…this is the line of reasoning the Orthodox use when claiming Papal infallibility cannot be found in the early Church Fathers. They regard Papal infallibility as a novelty that was falsely made into dogma and deceived the West. What say you?
Dear Cyprian. You asked if we seek unity with Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. A good question.
The idea of “ecumenism” started among the protestants. Vatican II saw the Catholic Church adopt this totally non-Catholic idea. In fact it seems to have been one of the main goals of VII. Cardinal Bea headed up the group on “Christian Unity” that promoted this effort.
As if the idea of the Catholic Church adopting “ecumenism” wasn’t a big enough offense against God,, VII also adopted Nostra Aetate. This document extends the concept of “ecumenism” beyond even nominally Christian groups — such as Jews and Muslims. And as if to just show how bizarre (and diaboliclal) the inner workings of VII were, the group that drafted Nostra Aetate was none other than Cardinal Bea’s group on “Christian Unity”. And all this was done with the full knowledge and blessing of Johhn XXIII (and later PaulVI).
And even that wasn’t enough for these crypto-masons, because they went even further and adopted a decree on “religious liberty”. The effectively extended the concept of “ecumenism” to even atheists, freemasons and devil worshipper.
So if you’re asking would Jehovah’s Witnesses be included in the concept of “ecumenism”, the answer is most emphatically, “YES!”
Ratzinger used to complain about the “dictatorship of relativism”, but it was he and his cohorts at VII that pushed through the votes at VII to “elect” this dictatorship! (Through a “free and democratic” process of course as demanded by masonic principles.)
God will be the final judge of men like Bea, Ratzinger, John XXIII, Paul VI…. How many innocent souls have they dragged down with them? What would the world be like today if the nuclear catastrophe of VII could have been averted?
A CatholicThinker wrote:
____
“Oh no… now Feeneyism.” …. Rude.
____
“Baptism of desire – even implicit – is a valid teaching with Apostolic origins.” This is a bold and dangerous statement with nothing of substance to back it up. Yes I know that SSPX does not like Fr. Feeney. So what.
___
Anyone may read:
Council of Trent, Session VII. On Baptism: Canon II.
___
Let us debate not. Can we agree, in the objective order, that outside of the Catholic Church there is absolutely no salvation?
John, I suppose that a Feeneyist would consider my comment rude. I stand by it.
—
Feeneyists – and it seems you are among them – deny the Catholic teaching that baptism of desire – even implicit – IS BAPTISM. That is the teaching of the Church – and it is not new.
—
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature%20-%20Salza%20v%20Goddard%20on%20Baptism%20of%20Desire.pdf
Unfortunately, though they’re still wrong in the end, such arguments will carry weight with many people. Because, the Vatican has does just what the claim: Canonize modernism.
—
Outside of the facts that canonizations were never doctrinally infallible, even before the new process, with its drastically-reduced standards, and that one can even question if the new popes intend to “do what the Church does” in the modern canonizations, there is the question of whether or not the “matter” of the latest canonizations (the popes themselves) was “valid”. John Salza explores this tack in a recent article.
Actually, I didn’t and don’t mean to be rude. But, Feeneyism – the denial of Baptism of Desire – is a clear error. And a pernicious one.
brethren,
for the sake of rounding out a bit discussion of the aforementioned, let us consider visiting the modern day Feenyites-in union with Rome.
This:
http://catholicism.org/our-status-in-the-church.html
and this:
http://catholicism.org/author/fatherleonardfeeneymicm
correction-
that is: “Feeneyites”–granted, it does seem ludicrous to ensure correct spelling of that which is already a derogatory term-but for the sake of ——
“But, Feeneyism – the denial of Baptism of Desire – is a clear error. And a pernicious one.”
___
I am not a “Feeneyist” just a Catholic. I personally don’t care how you want to label people I just find it curious that you feel a “necessity” 😉 to do it. Regarding your link to the John Salza article, who I like to listen to by the way, especially on Fatima, well, it is not exactly “clear” as you say. These type of articles put people to sleep with overly pedantic writing, and if you don’t agree, well, they just call you a “Feeneyite.” Ain’t that the truth.
___
He quotes the well known Trent canon on justification and after wasting breath talking about “and” versus “or”, tries to harmonize this with Trent’s own canons on baptism and the words of our Lord. He does this by proclaiming that baptism involves only a necessity of precept and not a necessity of means, when, and this is my position, according to Jesus Christ in the Gospels, it is actually both.
___
And since Fr. Feeney’s name is being dragged through the mud I will let one of his modern day followers stand in defense:
___
http://catholicism.org/necessity-of-baptism.html
___
You may quote St. Thomas all you want but the Church has never endorsed every single word out of his mouth, and funeral orations and various and sundry theological speculations, and I can quote St. Augustine against St. Augustine, but at the end of the day, when we look around (read this blog) and see a modern Church all but proclaiming universal salvation for all, or for all practical intents, IMPLICIT Baptism of Desire, anyone thinking clearly can see where the real “pernicious” error lies.
dear John314,
I’m glad you wrote this. I hope I made it clear that I was attempting to lift out of the mud the rampant for decades myth, slander and calumny hurled at Fr. Feeney.
The actual teaching of Catholicism on baptism of desire, baptism of blood states that those can endure only under highly limited, to say the least, circumstances.
I’ve found that trads can get very emotional about this matter, I am not certain why, but it’s what I’ve observed at least. And the more Catholics cure their ignorance on the matter,{which is why I linked to the same source you did,} the better.
And thanks again for sourcing also, his modern day followers. I hope this will assist. As you know, Fr. Hesse gives an edifying defense of Fr. Feeney, video easily searched.
To: de Maria numquam satis:
Thank-you for your thoughtful reply. I’m not exactly sure what video of Fr. Hesse you are referring to but I believe I have listened to everything he put out and then a second or third time—may he rest in peace. He was always careful to explain the difference between objective and subjective theology. I put BOD in the latter category.
___
For example, the truth that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is an objective reality while considering what happens to the individual good protestant when he dies (as the example Fr. Hesse liked to use), subjective. We don’t know what happens, but as Fr. Hesse concludes, the possibility that something good happens reduces to practically zilch considering the rampant modernism of today’s clergy. Why? Because they are not exposed to objective truth and thus led to convert.
___
Yes, this is an emotional issue because it has been made into a political football by certain groups and individuals. Truly, I personally think that it is better to firmly hold on to what we have to believe as Catholics, hard enough as it is, and leave the native on the island or the catechumen who gets run over by a bus in God’s hands.
___
I was attending St. Rogers and Mary’s independent chapel in Boston (before it closed) and Fr. John Allen Peek was the pastor. There were sedevacantists, “Feeneyites”, indulters, and you name it all in attendance. Father Peek did not have what I would call a “pastoral” personality but he never once gave a sermon on BOD or even made mention. I don’t recall any particular sermon on the necessity of baptism. He made it known though that he did not accept sedevacantism but he did not outlaw thoughts or opinions. He was a model traditional pastor IMO and he is missed. Here is a link to a nicely written obituary: http://arturovasquez.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/fr-john-allen-peek-sspx-r-i-p/
and I earned my black belt in karate at 16 months – I knew even then, I was a prodigy and could spell it as well.