In his Santa Marta homily given earlier today, the God of Surprises (aka Jorge Bergoglio) once again took the occasion to mangle Sacred Scripture in order to justify his departure from the Catholic faith; in this particular case, as it concerns marriage.
Today’s victim text was the Novus Ordo Gospel reading taken from Mark 10:1-12 – familiar words that bear reconsidering:
Jesus came into the district of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds gathered around him and, as was his custom, he again taught them. The Pharisees approached him and asked, “Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?” They were testing him. He said to them in reply, “What did Moses command you?” They replied, “Moses permitted a husband to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her.”
But Jesus told them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”
In the house the disciples again questioned Jesus about this. He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
As reported by Vatican News:
The Gospel passage for the day, from the Gospel of St Mark, speaks of the intentions of the Pharisees, who asked Jesus a question precisely in order to test Him. Pope Francis described questions of this kind, about what you can or can’t do, as casuistic.
Let’s stop here for a moment to define (in Catholic terms) this word, casuistic.
According to Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary:
Although the term [casuistry] has taken on some unsavory meanings, due mainly to critics of Roman Catholic moral practice, casuistry is an integral part of the Church’s moral tradition. Its purpose is to adapt the unchangeable norms of Christian morality to the changing and variable circumstances of human life.
In other words, casuistry is the entirely valid process of justly applying a moral norm to a given situation; e.g., when applying Thou shalt not kill to a case of self-defense, one may reasonably conclude that the taking of an aggressor’s life can at times be justified.
In a situation such as this, it is understood that the Decalogue concerns the taking of innocent human life. We see this reflected in the Church’s traditional teaching on capital punishment.
In the present case, “Francis” (as he has come to be known) is determined to relegate Thou shalt not commit adultery, and the words of Our Lord on marriage as recorded in the Gospel passage under discussion, to a moral norm that can be adapted according to certain “concrete circumstances.”
This, needless to say, is a novelty that has no place in Catholic tradition; indeed, on the contrary, it has been condemned.
Be that as it may, according to Vatican News:
He [Francis] explained: “Not the great ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ with which we are familiar. This is God.” Instead, the Pharisees reduce the Christian life, the way of following God, to a question of “yes, you can,” or “no, you can’t.”
So, in order to accept the Bergoglian exegesis, one must believe that when questioned about the lawfulness of divorce, Our Lord simply shrugged His shoulders and essentially said: Gee, I dunno… I guess it depends on the circumstances!
Clearly, this is a wholesale fabrication from someone who hates the Catholic faith and her Head; one that stems from the Bergoglian Christological heresy that I’ve mentioned in this space many times – Francis doesn’t really believe that when Jesus speaks this is God speaking.
Our Lord’s words are very plain; they are precisely the “no, you can’t” that Francis rejects. If you reread his words above carefully, you will see that, in essence, he is accusing Jesus of being a “Pharisee” in the most pejorative sense!
This is nothing new as his insistence in Amoris Laetita that the Divine Law is too difficult for some persons to keep amounts to turning Our Lord’s admonition of the Pharisees against Him: You shut the Kingdom of Heaven to men and do not lift a finger to help them!
According to Bergoglio, speaking on the Gospel passage (again, as reported):
Jesus “lays aside the problem of separation, and goes to the beauty of the couple,” who ought to be one.
The Pope continued:
We must not focus, like these doctors do, on [the answer] “Yes, you can” divide a marriage, or “No, you can’t.” At times there is misfortune, when it doesn’t work, and it is better to separate in order to avoid a world war. But this is a misfortune. Let us go and look at the positive.
This guy can spin toe-to-toe with the slimiest of politicians!
Jesus was asked about adultery. He was not addressing “the problem of separation” at all; much less those cases when (for example, for the safety of a woman and her children) physical separation is warranted.
The headline to the Vatican News piece reads, “Pope Francis: Marriage is an image of God.” The one I chose for this post, however, is far more accurate.
It is reported by Vatican News:
Man and woman are created in God’s image and likeness; and for this reason, marriage likewise becomes an image of God. This makes marriage very beautiful, the Pope said. “Matrimony is a silent homily for everyone else, a daily homily.”
Nice try, but don’t be fooled. Bergoglio is a modernist and thus is wont to pervert the meaning and force of things and words (cf Pope Leo XIII, Ut Mysticum, and Pope Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis).
As such, when he speaks of “marriage,” be aware that he is not speaking of such as the Church understands it; rather, he is, in the manner of liberals and liars, citing the word “marriage” while deliberately seeking to impart to it an entirely novel meaning.
Recall his address to the Ecclesial Convention of the Diocese of Rome in 2016 (available in Italian) wherein he spoke of cohabitating couples:
Yet I really say that I saw so much fidelity in these cohabitations, so much loyalty; and I am sure that this is a true marriage, they have the grace of marriage, precisely because of the loyalty they have. But there are local superstitions.
So, you see, Bobby and Susie are shacking up, with one or both of them perhaps presently married to another, and provided only that they stick it out for some undefined period of time, voila, it’s a marriage! And not just a natural marriage, mind you, but one endowed with God’s grace; i.e., it’s a sacrament!
What we’re witnessing in today’s homily is nothing other than a transparent ploy (transparent to those with eyes to see, at any rate) to avoid at all costs the non-negotiable words of Christ.
And why? For the simple reason that Bergoglio disagrees with Our Lord.
Over the last five years, many of us have grown numb to these magnificent attacks against the Faith, but take a step back and consider what Francis is telling the world:
We must not focus on what Jesus actually said, nor on what the Holy Catholic Church has always taught; rather, I am in charge, you must listen to me!
And this is a Catholic speaking?
For those who still insist (in particular, those who fancy themselves defenders of tradition), that Jorge Bergoglio remains a member of the Mystical Body of Christ in good standing (never mind his claim to the papacy), I will ask yet again in the hopes that even one will demonstrate the integrity to answer:
Is there anything this man can do to sever himself from the Church?
Yep Louie ,you hit the nail on the head ! Toe to toe with the slimiest of politicians. Yesterday Voris reported this
Today he reports Francis barred homosexuals from entrance into the seminary.
I was barred from posting on CMTV for asking Mr Voris why he was ejected from the Dunwoody Seminary.
Question Mr Voris, so is this latest news story from Francis the man or Francis the Pope?
It’s ridiculous. There are bad Catholics, good Catholics, fat ones, grouchy ones, stupid Catholics, sinful Catholics, kind Catholics, as many kinds of people there are also Catholics. But a Satanic person is not a Catholic. A person who inverts the Gospel of Jesus Christ and then spreads that before the world as a teacher and prophet is not a Catholic. He isn’t the Pope, that’s just asinine. I noticed that Steve Skojec is making videos for his wife’s real estate business. I hope it’s so that she makes a ton of money so that his publishing can be independent of his livelihood. I like him, he seems like a good Catholic guy, it’s bad to see good men, honest men parroting something asinine just because it should be true. Bergoglio should be the Pope, Vatican II should have maintained Catholic doctrine. But neither are true. Maybe there are “should be’s” for most facts but people need to grow up and face what actually is. None of what Bergoglio says or does now re sodomites or pagans or Protestants matter because what he has already taught is that one can receive in a state of mortal sin if you want to. He got rid of sin; his teaching is actually a religion so evil, the only comparable would be Satanism. Voltaire encouraged his adepts who struggled with going complete apostate to receive Holy Communion as frequently as possible without going to Confession. Bergoglio’s job is to destroy faith in God and he’s really good. I just laugh when I picture him up there telling a bunch of fags, “Now boys, we won’t be having anymore gays in the seminary.” Get the heck out.
I’ve been married to my wife almost 23 years now. We have a good marriage with “so much loyalty” as the Pope said. But you know what? According to the rules of the Catholic Church, my marriage is “invalid” because we married before a priest of the SSPX. I could walk into my chancery tomorrow and get an automatic annulment for “lack of canonical form”. Easy peasy.
His Holiness is exactly right and my marriage proves it. It is also proved by the absolutely ridiculous spectacle of someone like Newt Gingrich who managed to “marry” wife #2 while cheating on wife number #1 and then “married” wife #3 while cheating on wife #2. He got a slip of paper saying it’s all ok though. Hunky dory.
We will all face the judgment seat of Christ one day. Who do you think will have an easier time? Me, who technically “broke” the rules but has been faithful to my one and only wife my whole marriage or freaking Newt Gingrich?
If you can’t figure out where this Pope is coming from, you’ll never “get” Our Lord.
Ganganelli, Bergoglio’s religion is the one that gives Gingrich that paper, what are you thinking? You’ve got it completely backwards. My goodness have you not read poor Karl’s millions of furious posts about the corrupt annulment process and Priests allowing flagrant adulterous scandal. That’s not Catholic, it’s corruption that Bergoglio seeks to legitimize. I just can’t understand why you wrote that.
Bergolio does this almost on cue! He spouts heresy almost daily, but about every week or two, he tosses in some actual Catholic teaching or something that harkens back to prior Catholic days when we had a better moral order. So here he is saying something that he knows can be used to put out there to the masses, and some folks will say, oh look, the pope is really doing something about that, and it’s all smoke and mirrors and accomplishes nothing. This guy endorses what he appears to be banning, and it’s baloney! We all know the facts, we don’t need to rehash them, he’s ok with it. But this stuff works on somebody, or he wouldn’t do it.
People say he’s stupid. He’s not, he’s good, good at all of this, manipulation, cunning, playing both sides, all of it. Diabolically clever.
As far as who can say what, we are at an interesting point. I feel for good Catholic guys like Steve Skojek, clearly and obviously a sincere and informed gentleman, who is in a weird position as are other bloggers. We’ve hit kind of an apex, and you can feel it. We know the facts. The man’s an apostate, worse than we ever imagined, and just as bad, no one is coming to the rescue. Nobody knows the answer, nobody knows what to do, there is nothing to do, except pray. So knowing that, what’s to be said? What more can be said. The people who read this blog understand the severity of the problem, but there are just so many Obsessive Positivists out there, who either don’t know or can’t handle the truth. People today consider you a massive downer if you talk seriously on any topic, and there are many who feel if you criticize the pope you are an absolute Judas. This means the Pope can be a stark raving lunatic Catholic and God hater and you can’t point it out. That’s papalotry, and I bet Protestants are really enjoying this, and you know what, they have a point. We now see the pitfall.
Louie, I will likely be subscribing to your paper. You have a clear-eyed way of seeing things, you allow people some rope in the combox which is most welcome today, and you aren’t afraid to speak the hard truth. You’ve got your bona fides.
What are you talking about? The entirety of the Gingrich scandal happened under Popes SJP2 and BXVI. Nothing to do with His Holiness. In fact, His Holiness specifically condemns the type behavior shown by both Gingrich’s in Amoris Laetitia.
I can guarantee you that if I could have an audience with His Holiness and told him that I wasn’t technically “married” to my wife and was technically “living in sin” because we were married by an SSPX priest he would a) laugh and then b) ask me what the fruits of my marriage are. When I told him it has been love, children, faithfulness and loyalty, he would tell me good you’re living in God’s grace go receive communion.
And then he would probably remind me what Our Lord said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
That’s because he couldn’t give a rat’s, Ganganelli. My mother would tell you the same thing because she is very nice, would never say something you didn’t want to hear and she really wouldn’t care but I would not expect to get good spiritual advice there.
Well maybe I should get spiritual advice from you.
You seem to be some sort of sede/bennyvacantist. My marriage was considered “invalid” because I was married before an SSPX priest. Am I “living in sin”?
Newt is special and a “REAL CATHOLIC” , (according to M Voris)
didn’t you know?
HE belongs to Opus Dei after his last marriage. Hence, his wife is the US rep to the Vatican. Yes, you can see him pictured in prayer in a NO Catholic Church yarmulka beanie on his head , after his OD conversion.of course, when he became a “Real Catholic”.
Melanie: “There are bad Catholics, good Catholics, fat ones, grouchy ones, stupid Catholics, sinful Catholics, kind Catholics, as many kinds of people there are also Catholics. But a Satanic person is not a Catholic. … He isn’t the Pope”
Council of Constance, Session VIII: error #8 of John Wycliffe: “If the pope is foreknown and evil, and consequently a member of the devil, he does not have the power over the faithful given to him by anyone, unless perchance by Caesar.” – CONDEMNED PROPOSITION
Council of Constance, Session XV: error #20 of John Hus: “If the pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown, then as Judas, the Apostle, he is from the devil a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant, since he is not even a member of it.” CONDEMNED PROPOSITION
St. Catherine of Sienna: “Even if the Pope was a demon incarnate, I should not raise my head against him…”
I mean, my standard Catholic answer would be that it’s a sin to marry illicitly in SSPX and if I left and went to a Diocesan Parish I’d go to the Pastor and ask him to help us out. I can’t imagine that he wouldn’t get us straightened right out. But you are right, being a sedevacantist now, I don’t really know anything. I don’t even know how to get married at all. So, uh, best of luck with it, and may God have mercy on your soul. 😉
Ignatio , we are making the exact same point. The Pope of the Catholic Church could be a demon incarnate and he would not teach an anti- Gospel. Since this monstrosity got elected I’ve heard nothing from trads but the deplorable character of so very many of our Popes and yet miraculously here we are in 2018 and somehow none of these miscreants managed to trash the Religion like it has been in the last 60 years, unrecognizable. Two opposite religions are not the same.
Exactly, we have had bad popes/evil popes and all were still CATHOLIC! The issue is that these post Vatican II “popes” teach and preach a false religion. Logic and my sensus catholicus tells me that a non-Catholic can’t possibly be pope. All of those condemnations above deal with evil Catholics, not non-Catholics.
“My marriage was considered “invalid” because I was married before an SSPX priest”
No Gang, your marriage is considered VALID but “illicit” just like the Masses at SSPX. Illicit meaning that the power for the Sacrament did not come through the Local Catholic Ordinary. Orthodox marriages are considered Valid but “Illicit” also and if an Orthodox couple was to join the Catholic NO church they would not need to be remarried or even have their marriage Blessed by a Catholic priest.
“Illicit” merely means illegal under current catholic canon law.
Oddly though , I have been told the SSPX sends proof of a Catholic marriage record to the local Diocesan Chancery .Jesus Christ is the Sacramental representative , the couple marries each other before Jesus. The priest just fills in the visible presence.
If we want to argue Legal technicalities ask yourself if we even know we Received any sacraments from a priest who went into the priesthood because he is a homosexual and wants to be with other men, having no desire to remain chaste because he believes chastity only applies to sex with women, as Bishop Hubbard and others have claimed.
Do they have the Proper Intention required for a VALID reception of the Sacrament of Holy Orders? I asked a priest Canon Lawyer this same question and his answer was that ,” It appears the Vatican must redefine Proper Intention knowing now that homosexual men were recruited into seminaries by homosexual Seminary Rectors and Order Superiors .”
No you are incorrect on this. The Council of Trent required Catholics to marry before bishops/priests with faculties for VALIDITY. As my SSPX priest didn’t have faculties, I’m considered not married and, like I wrote, could walk into a chancery tomorrow and get an automatic annulment for “lack of canonical form”.
But again, like His Holiness, I believe rules have their place but it should never be forgotten what Our Lord said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
Do you believe that you are validly married? Im confused as to where you stand right now, after almost 23 years. I was married in 1989 by a priest who was ordained in 1956, but he ultimately accepted the Novus Ordo. I believe that I was validly married. Im wondering how you feel as to your marriage.
Canon Law has changed since then many times over. The Traditional Mass and the Sacraments are an entirely different story. You are confusing legalities with traditional sacramental life.
The Protestants don’t really have a point, though. This is exactly what you get without the Papacy, what we see today, which is horrifying. Western civilization could be about to go into freefall.
Yes I believe I am married and I believe you are married. You made a vow didn’t you? You’re married.
You’re wrong. Both the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law maintain Trent’s requirement that Catholics marry before a bishop/priest with faculties for VALIDITY.
Whoa I just realized that his means all the people who got married in the Church BEFORE the Traditonal Latin Mass as it existed immediately before V2 were also not really married so basically EVERYONE who’s ever been Catholic is going to hell. Well played, trickster god, you fooled us all.
Or is development OK , but only when you agree with it?
The marriage rite is one rite that did not change substantially if at all. In addition it is the couple that validates the marriage. I think what is meant in this discussion is licitness.
But it did change Mine was in English. During a Mass in English. Priest said “you” and not “thee” and “thou”….so I’m actually back on the market, according to Traditonal Catholicism? Sweet. I’m pulling me a Gingrich and getting me one of them trophy wives.
Gang , please link to the licit vs validity Sacramental marital Code 1983 and 1917 guidelines. I have been married for 50 years and do not have this same problem.
I have a solution for you ……..become a member of OD and all your perplexities will be solved. Blunder probably has already signed on.
I think that we’re both married as well. I also think that these discussions among Catholics never took place prior to the homosexual church usurping the Catholic Church 53 years ago, and thereby allowing Satan to fully confuse the Faithful. You know full well, as well as I do, that Rome is lost, right?
Gang, argue with them because I am not a member of the Society. Personally I think your here in order to attempt to cause confusion and were not married in SSPX as you say. Blunder on the other hand is well, just one huge blunder .
“Indeed, Church law states that in order to be valid, a marriage must be celebrated before the parish priest or his delegate, and in the presence of at least two witnesses (1917 Code, canon 1094; 1983 Code, canon 1108). But the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are not parish priests. That is why some try to pretend that, without a delegation, a priest of this society cannot receive marriage vows. Such a marriage would be invalid because of its lack of canonical form.
But the same Church law also provides for the following extraordinary situation (1917 Code, canon 1098; 1983 Code, canon 1116): “If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience.” If this situation is likely to last at least one month, then the Church declares valid a marriage celebrated before only the witnesses. If a non-delegated priest can be present, he must be called upon to receive the vows. This legislation is a simple application of the fundamental principles of Canon law: The supreme law is the salvation of souls, and The sacraments are for men who are well-disposed.
And if by chance there still remains any doubt as to this extraordinary situation, we answer that in cases of doubt, the Church gives supplied jurisdiction (1917 Code, canon 209; 1983 Code, canon 144). So all doubt is removed, and the marriages celebrated in the Society of St. Pius X, even without a delegation, were most certainly valid, because of the state of necessity.”
Thank you for admitting I was right. And yes I really was married at Our Lady of Sorrows SSPX chapel in Phoenix.
And I also know the SSPX claim loopholes to the clear teaching of the Council of Trent and Canon Law. If I didn’t know about the loopholes, I would have been scared to marry back when I was a trad. And isn’t it ironic that trads have recourse to loopholes they want to deny to everyone else in their criticism of the Holy Father?
But the point remains, in the eyes of the Catholic Church I am not married and the proof of that is that I could get an automatic annulment for lack of “canonical form”.
And the point of all of this is that Pope Francis is right. What matters is not the finer points of canon law or other legalisms. What matters is the heart. I married my wife and made vows to her and will not Gingrich her. And that’s what will count on Judgment Day.
…….and I walked out of the NO church into a Catholic Eastern Rite in 1978 because our NO parish became a sports themed entertainment Mass. It took about fifteen years but the active sodomite priests there also took over .
We always believed and were taught we go to Mass to give Honor and Glory to God not each other.
Awwww, how sweet. Bergoglio is not referring to couples married without a Parish Priest. He’s talking about couples who haven’t gotten married at all probably because Sacraments aren’t on their radar, but they are in love and ofcourse they’re human so they have to live together and maybe even birth some of their kids. Or persons whose first marriage failed but now being older and wiser have chosen a much better spouse. This is sentimental nonsense. And if you got married illicitly and refused to get the matter rectified, for some mystery reason you haven’t mentioned, that would matter. I agree with Sweep, not sure you aren’t just trying to cause confusion and upset people married by SSPX and what make them think they’re all set if this apostate pretender says they are? I wouldn’t be too comfortable getting the Bergoglio okay along w/adulterers, fornicators, and sodomites if I were them, I’d stick w/the loopholes there.
Ganganelli: You are a proud fool. You state “in the eyes of the Catholic Church I am not married”. Doesn’t that settle it? Isn’t that tantamount to a confession of a mortal sin? Anything else is presumption on your part that you can speak for the Almighty, e.g., “What matters is the heart. I married my wife and made vows to her and will not Gingrich her. And that’s what will count on Judgment Day.” Ganganelli you just claimed that you can speak for the Almighty! You KNOW now how He will judge the matter! Isn’t the real question in view of your present mind regarding your non-marriage whether you should have it regularized by the Church of Pope Francis?
Speaking of Loopholes,
“Pope Francis will grant a plenary indulgence to those who take part in World Meeting of Families events in Dublin next August.
Those who receive such an indulgence would, according to Catholic doctrine, be free of the consequences of sin and, should they die in such a state, would enjoy eternal life.”
I guess that means even if they voted for the abortion referendum because ,”Catholics are obsessed with abortion” , according to Borgolio. BTW ,has he said a thing about the Referendum vote? If not why? He certainly has no problem inserting his opinion in politics.
It is necessary to be in a state of grace to receive an indulgence.
continuing the quote…..
“To attain a plenary indulgence Catholics must also attend confession, receive Communion, pray for the Pope’s intentions and have a heart free of sin.”
But Borgoglio already stated we are too obsessed with abortion so how many will consider their vote a sin?
The ambiguity is endless. Double speak dominates this Papacy.
I’m not worried about getting it regularized. I’m married. Period. The fact that it was in front of an SSPX priest in an SSPX chapel is completely irrelevant to me.
And we’ll find out at the General Judgment won’t we? When every person’s actions during this earthly life will be laid bare in front of every other person who has ever lived on this earth.
Ganganelli the self-admitted co-habitor: Is the Church the judge of your marriage state, or are you?
No Melanie I’m talking about the following. All backed up by current Catholic teaching and practice.
Both my sister and I had Catholic K-12 educations. I married “invalidly” in the SSPX. She married “invalidly” before a Baptist pastor to her Baptist husband. Both of us could, tomorrow, get an automatic annulment for “lack of canonical form”. Those are just facts.
Meanwhile, a protestant who marries a protestant in a protestant Church that believes in divorce & re-marriage, are considered validly married by the Catholic Church.
Now, let’s say this protestant lady divorces this protestant man and 20 years later discovers the truth of the Catholic faith. She is unable to re-marry a Catholic gentleman because HER original marriage is considered valid.
Now I think all of the above is just nonsense. I think the Pope would agree. And whether you agree or not, one thing is true. You and I will know each other some day at the General Judgment. You’ll KNOW then for a *fact* that I was married by an SSPX priest and I’ll know all about you as well. And then, God will judge us.
Let me make sure I understand you. Are you saying all those who were married invalidly by the SSPX or sedevacantist priests are co-habitating?
No, I am only reminding YOU of what YOU BELIEVE ABOUT YOUR OWN MARRIAGE STATE. YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE NOT MARRIED IN THE EYES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. You said it. Own it.
I’ve “owned” it this whole conversation. But my *belief* is irrelevant. The FACT is that I and *any* other person married before an SSPX or sedevacantist priest without faculties could walk into the chancery tomorrow and get an automatic annulment.
Own that Cyp.
You seem to have true disdain in your heart (for something). Who/what exactly is it that you disdain?
I simply disdain what is of the vatican 2 council, as it was certainly a heretical council set up for the purpose of creating a false religion. My discernment of that sickeningly false religion, and then my rejection of same, is easy. Where do you currently stand in regard to your Faith?
Man Rich you make me feel like I’m not communicating too well. LOL.
I guess I do have disdain. Mainly for hypocrisy. When I was a trad, I would see literally obese women obviously committing the objectively mortal sin of gluttony gossiping about other women in our chapel if they weren’t having kids fast enough. Things were whispered like “she must be practicing NFP”. It seemed almost like a “misery loves company” kind of thing.
And I’m a sales guy by profession. So after the gay marriage decision I would go and see customers and they would say things like “can you believe they are going to let those faggots marry?” And in the same conversation they would then say, “Too bad you’re Catholic, your competitor takes me to strip clubs”. That kind of thing drives me nuts.
As far as where I stand in regards to the Faith. I’m a Catholic who supports the Pope and I think I “get” him. I don’t believe he really wants to change any teachings. After all, not too many people on their deathbed repent of NOT sleeping around. I think he has sympathy for people in tough situations. I like to think I do as well although I need to work on my sympathy for hypocrites. It’s often a matter of confession for me.
Statement from Ireland
The 8th amendment did not create a right to life for the unborn child – it merely acknowledged that such a right exists, has always existed, and will always exist.
What Irish voters did yesterday is a tragedy of historic proportions. However, a wrong does not become right simply because a majority support it.
We are so proud of all of those who stood with us in this campaign: our supporters, our donors, our families and our loved ones. This campaign took a huge personal toll on all of us who were involved, and we have been so grateful for their support.
The unborn child no longer has a right to life recognised by the Irish state. Shortly, legislation will be introduced that will allow babies to be killed in our country. We will oppose that legislation. If and when abortion clinics are opened in Ireland, because of the inability of the government to keep their promise about a GP-led service, we will oppose that as well. Every time an unborn child has his or her life ended in Ireland, we will oppose that, and make our voices known.
Abortion was wrong yesterday. It remains wrong today. The constitution has changed, but the facts have not.
That’s right you don’t communicate well because you’re a concern troll and FOC. “Once I was a trad, then customers said “faggots” and then I couldn’t go to strip clubs cuz I’m in Sales and my sister married a Baptist. And in the end Frankie “gets it.” That’s right he “gets it”. Now bye, bye, Rich, I gotta go now and work on my sympathy for hypocrites.” Look up Clement XIV to see why he uses Ganganelli.
Every single person on the planet earth who is pro-abortion has already been born. They survived the pro-abortion laws because their mothers cherished them while in the womb. That is why they are living and breathing. They have all forgotten this basic truth.
Ever mindful–Thank you for posting this statement.
With regard to Francis: It is better not to focus on his words. He is an impostor.
May I add that Padre Pio said abortion is not only HOMOCIDE, it is the SUICIDE of the Human Race.
Sorry, if this is off topic, Louie.
I have disdain for arguments that rely on anecdotal evidence to prove some personal bias. Such as “all trads are bad because I met a grumpy one once.” Or “the NO is bad because a bishop covered up a homo priest scandal.” Can all of you stop telling me who you once talked to and what happened at some chapel 20 years ago. I really don’t care. The issue at hand is a theological problem. Is Vatican 2 Catholic? Answer yes and you must follow one path, answer no and you must follow another. So many trads want it both ways.
Today is a a sad day for humanity and for Ireland.
Gang , no one here would argue that the annulment system is and has been corrupted. You seem to fail to realize that the Mass has been corrupted too along with the canonization process , catechetical instruction and texts , Orders of nuns , seminaries, Vatican Banks, the IOR and APSA, prayers and the sacraments……….
You’re being completely disingenuous if you don’t admit that Trads have some serious issues with gossiping and hypocrisy. And you’d be hard pressed to find anything more anecdotally-based than Home Aloneism.
Blunder, those are not substantial changes like found in certain other rites (but I think you knew that..you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing).
LennyB continues his noble crusade against “concern trolls”. Dude, calling anyone who disagrees with you a troll is very late 90s. It doesn’t work that way on the Interwebs anymore, except in completely wacky comboxes. Oh, wait…
Do you attend Mass every week?
It seems you are arguing that anyone married outside of the Novus Ordo sect can get an annulment from the Novus Ordo sect?
You are being completely disingenuous because you know darn well that TomA isn’t saying that there are such problems. We are all sinners; therefore, there will always be those problems.
He is saying that “THE PROBLEM” is theological.
“This legislation is a simple application of the fundamental principles of Canon law: The supreme law is the salvation of souls, and The sacraments are for men who are well-disposed.
And if by chance there still remains any doubt as to this extraordinary situation, we answer that in cases of doubt, the Church gives supplied jurisdiction (1917 Code, canon 209; 1983 Code, canon 144). So all doubt is removed, and the marriages celebrated in the Society of St. Pius X, even without a delegation, were most certainly valid, because of the state of necessity.”
This is the key part quoted by sweep. Gaganelli, you do realize that, according to canon law, priests without faculties also can not validly absolve penitents? So according to you all of your SSPX confessions prior to 2015 would also be considered invalid.
The issue here is the state of necessity we Catholics find ourselves in since Vatican II. Divine Law overrules…the salvation of souls overrules.
GaNganelli…sorry, I have a block with the spelling of your name.
” I think he has sympathy for people in tough situations.”
Sympathy does not equate with the Papal Office changing the precepts of the Gospels in order to fit today’s culture. That is neither his right or his office. He is charged with upholding the Truths of the Faith. Sympathy belongs in the local pastoral sphere where each person has a priest Confessor who guides the individual soul through Sacramental Confession.
The height of hypocrisy is to place pro sodomite prelates in positions of authority within the Church structure which this Pope has done. To award a public abortion advocate honor,
to accept a Marxist Communist symbolic cross , to kiss the antichrist Koran and to criticize Catholics who stand for the position of life for the unborn and to suppress Catholics who hold onto the Traditions of the Catholic Faith.
The Papacy represents Christ’s teachings on earth , defending
the poor is one thing, defending and softening Mortal Sin is quite another.
Jesus Christ , the Word made flesh, is the same today as He was and always is.
It is not the job of the Papacy to change interpretations of the Gospel messages or take them out of context to make points in order to diminish sin for a relative few he has “sympathy” for. Neither you Ganganelli, or Blunder have a handle on what hypocrisy truly is.
Again , the Catholic Faith is based on Tradition and Scripture.
………..not to mention the Papal office itself.
Yes, pre-Vatican II there were just a few HUNDRED annulments WORLDWIDE. Now there are tens of thousands just here in the US. As part of the Revolution, the “Church” added new reasons for annulments almost to the point where just about anyone can claim, “My marriage was invaaaaalid! I want to marry my second, third husband!”
Yeah! And those 100’s went to the very wealthy, connected and famous so that everyone can know: they get annulments but Joe Blow doesn’t. Like Frank Sinatra, terrible scandal. Create a problem and then solve the problem, everyone must get annulments. Devil’s game never has to change too much.
No the hundreds was before Sinatra. Sinatra was one of the annulments procured after Vatican II.
Now it is more common to cohabitate (openly fornicate )
Ganganelli’s “sympathetic” Francis ………..
“In off-the-cuff remarks, the pope made the dual claim that the “great majority” of Catholic marriages are “null” – in other words, not actual marriages – and that some cohabitating couples are in a “real marriage,” receiving the grace of the Sacrament.
“I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity,” he said”
SO Fornication ( mortal sin) is gracefilled according to Borgolio as long as it is with ONE person.
So according to your Pope Gang, your null marriage may just be less Grace filled than another couple who , never were married in sspx or in any other denomination including your nervous ordo church. But a sodomite couple or two heteros shacked up together might be filled with Actual Grace because they do not have other sex partners at any one time .
Does that sound right to you? Anyone else think this is a Catholic statement from a Catholic Pope?
So you – or Louie Verrecchio, or Michael Matt, or Fr. Gruner, choose your Trad – define which changes are substantial and which aren’t for sacraments. But I can’t. And your judgment overrides that of the institutional Catholic Church. Because you’ve read a lot about it.
So tell me two things: why have we ever needed an institutional Church, and how are you any different from Martin Luther or anyone else who’s broken away from the Catholic Church over the centuries?
The difference between you and I is that you aren’t being sincere in your arguments. Your posts reek of ridicule and sarcasm.
Above is just one more example how Borgolio continues to undermine Catholic families , especially traditional parents ,who teach their children that sodomy, fornication, adultery and abortion are serious mortal sins. How can these NO Bishops claim they have the right to usurp these parents and teach sex ed to students in their schools? What right thinking Christian would trust this post V2 church with their souls and the souls of their children now?
You know, sweepoutthefilth, the more you write, the clearer it becomes why Americans and Europeans are so in love with the secular state and the notion of separation of religion and civil law. Aside from the fact that in the USA a theocracy would be Evangelical Protestant by sheer numbers (and Catholicism therefore likely outlawed) you and several others here are a sneeze away from witch hunts. G was married in an SSPX chapel? The Sanhedrin has determined that he lives in sin and it’s off to prison for him and Mrs. G to rot with the “sodomites” and “fornicating cohabitators.”
If we’re all qualified theologians and can solve this, then why do we need an institutional church?
Well, according to you and TomA, we don’t and home alone is just fine.
But you’re still Catholic and everyone else is not. Gotcha.
Gang yes, you and Blunder boy won your points on this comment page just like flies who are stuck on fly traps .You say you are in Sales .How does that work for you ?
You sure did not sell anyone here on Borgolio or the post Vat 2 celebration fests.
Nope ,Blunder boy that’s what his “sympathetic” Pope said.
In fact, he equated him with the same . No prison though, this side of hell.
After all, the cohabitators and the sodomites maybe more filled with Grace than him and Mrs G. according to Borgolio ! LOL
Blunder the more you and Gang write ,the more transparent you anti Catholic views are.
Blunder and Gang Trolls,
Neither of you substantiate anything you post . I provide links to actual quotes and videos for reference.
I also read , research and have a long memory.
Both of you just blather hoping to cause confusion and discord for Louie’s excellent blog analysis of the current state of the Church and it’s history tied to Vatican Two.
What a serious exercise in futility you find yourselves occupied with.
I’m well aware nobody wins an argument on the internet. I comment here to expose the hypocrisy of the frauds in tradism.
Not quite. All of the following can be confirmed by calling your local chancery by the way.
Catholics *only* are required for VALIDITY to marry before a priest/bishop who has faculties. Period.
Protestants,Jews, Muslims, etc. who marry are presumed to do so validly and cannot receive the automatic annulment available to *Catholics* called “lack of canonical form”.
This automatic annulment also has nothing to do with V2/pre-V2 teaching as it dates back to the Council of Trent.
Except I’m not sure you exposed “trad” hypocrisy. Can you please be specific as to the hypocrisy you are trying to expose in this particular combox? Similar to others, I’m not sure what you are trying to expose.
I’m not sure what this date is a reference to….if it Sinatra’s annulment the date was 1976.
Never said any of us will solve it. Because, yes, we Catholics do need an institutional church. The problem is that the post Vatican II “institutional church” contradicts the pre-Vatican II “institutional church”. You seem to think that there is no contradiction or you refuse to see that there is a contradiction. Rather than ridicule those of us who are trying to grapple with this, it would be helpful if you joined the debate on an intellectual basis.
My apologies, I was in error. You are correct, 2Vermont.
No problem. 🙂
I’m not expecting *you* to see it. You’re a trad!
Just one example for you. Like I said, in my chapel I would see OBESE women hoovering donuts who were constantly engaged in lying, calumny and detraction with certain trad women in our chapel who weren’t having children fast enough for their taste so they would assume that they were practicing NFP. If that’s not hypocrisy, I don’t know what is. A) You’re committing gluttony and B) you’re condemning something that Pope Pius XII taught wasn’t even a sin.
How many people commenting here are actually traditionalists in real life and not masquerading as one on the internet? And by traditionalist, I mean you attend mass weekly at either a SSPX, sedevacantist, diocesan, or independent traditionalist chapel.
Oh so you are referring to hypocrisy in behaviors. Yeah, we all do that Gang, trad and non-trad alike.
And thanks for the condescension: “I wouldn’t expect *you* to see it because you’re a trad!”
Blunder, no group is immune to gossip nor any other sin. Its called Original Sin and we all suffer from its effects. Trads, NO, protestant heretics, pagans, hindus, athiests, and especially me.
Blunder and Gang, 2Vermont laid it out perfectly. There is or appears to be a glaring contradiction between pre and post Vatican 2 teaching. If you have anyway to help your fellow Catholics understand this contradiction, the charitable thing to do would be to help others understand the issues and work toward a Catholic conclusion. Sedes have not rejected the Papacy, only those who have claimed it these last 50 plus years. If you think we are in error please help us understand the contradictions between pre and post V2 teachings.
Wow Gang. Now that anecdotal snippet from your past is more than conclusive to get me to rethink my whole outlook on life. And to answer your question I have not been to a Novus Ordo in about 5 years. I also no longer go to diocesan indult masses since there are grave questions concerning the validity of NO orders. Perhaps you can address Holy Orders for us and assure us beyond a shadow if doubt how the new Rites are just as valid as the Old Rites. Start by explaing what is meant by the “governing spirit” and why UT was removed. While you are at it, tell us why the word SUBSISTS is better that the word IS. If you have no idea what I am talking about, do your apologetics homework.
So there are no OBESE women AND men at your local NO parish and that is your reason for exiting the Church you were married in?
“I’m well aware nobody wins an argument on the internet. I comment here to expose the hypocrisy of the frauds in tradism.”
The ONLY thing you and your buddy Blunder have exposed so far is ignorance of the Faith and the blatant admitted fact that you are trolling Louie’s blog in an attempt to expose him and those who read and post here
You get an “F” for fool little man.
It just occurred to me the last time my husband and family attended a NO Mass, we saw many obese women and men , only they were wearing shorts , skimpy tops and casual sport tees , dressed for a day at the beach rather than for the House of God.
That was approximately twenty years ago .
The ONLY reason Borgolio is showing sympathy for the sodomites and fornicators is because that is what has become of over 50 % of his clergy. He has no clue as to how to rectify the auto demolition of Vatican Two and boost Church income.They’ve tried it all : Clown and circus Masses, dancing girls, Polka and Folk Masses and every new Evangelization and Renew and Protestant Group under the sun !
Looks like he is exploring out right satanism now.
The NO pewsitter is properly dressed for the NO man centered worship service he attends and the SSPX/sede pewsitter is properly dressed for Holy Mass. How people comport themselves is a dead give away as to what they believe. The NO cookie is simply bread and the NO crowd treats that bread as bread. Oh they may get a little solemn as they walk up the line and listen to One Bread One Body, then stick out their hand and pop it into their mouth. But the solemnity doesn’t last long thanks to a timely joke or call for applause from “Fr” Mike or “Deacon” Joe.
Answer the question, 2Vermont. If not the Pope and the hierarchy, who decides what changes are in or out, compatible or incompatible, substantive or inconsequential?
sweep, I don’t know Ganganelli and this isn’t a trolling operation.
If you’re going to claim to be more Catholic than other Catholics, denounce the hierarchy and the Pope, you better be perfect or really, really close. If you’re going to denounce and condemn gays, you better be pure as the driven snow. If you don’t and you’re not, and then take the additional step of gossiping about others’ lack of faith and morals, it’s really, really offensive. I have also seen it and experienced it and that’s why I don’t run in those circles any more either.
That was a perfect description of the average NO service. Almost five years since I stepped foot in a NO church and haven’t missed it a bit.
Blunder you both are Trolls . Period.
I know what is mortally sinful , apparently you do not.
What is really offensive is your presence on this site along with Ganginelli’s, who at least admits he is here to attack Traditional Catholics and the very Catholic viewpoints Mr Verrechio has and posts .
Blunder, the pre V2 Popes pretty much laid out the Faith and what must be professed to be Catholic. Along comes the post V2 popes contradicting those teachings. Who to follow? Well most went with the hierarchy, but those that knew the Faith left the false NO religion once they realized that something went terribly wrong. Sedes are sheep without a shepard because we realize the guy who appears to be our shepard is actually a wolf. You can stay with the wolf but one day he will eat you. I cannot tell you why this happened, when it will end, how it will end, where one should go to Mass on Sunday’s. But you cannot show in any manner how the NO religion is the pre V2 religion. Also, there is no need to accuse me of heresy or schism because I freely admit that I am no longer part of the NO religion. But it really doesnt matter because your religion no longer belives in EENS anyway.
Melanie: “A person who inverts the Gospel of Jesus Christ and then spreads that before the world as a teacher and prophet is not a Catholic. He isn’t the Pope…”
I’m no fan of Francis, but did read what he actually said before getting so worked up? Or did you make the mistaken of relying on Mr. Verrecchio’s commentary, which was a complete misrepresentation of his words?
No where did Francis suggest that adultery was acceptable. He didn’t even mention adultery. He was addressing the question that the Pharisees as Jesus, which concerned divorce, “Is it lawful for a husband to DIVORCE his wife?”
Mr. Verrecchio spun this by saying: “In the present case, “Francis” (as he has come to be known) is determined to relegate Thou shalt not commit adultery, and the words of Our Lord on marriage as recorded in the Gospel passage under discussion, to a moral norm that can be adapted according to certain concrete circumstances.”
That is entirely false. Read Francis words for yourself and you will see that there is nothing objectionable in them. They can be found here. https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope-francis/mass-casa-santa-marta/2018-05/pope-francis-mass-santa-marta-marriage-image-god.html
After reading his actual words, re-read Mr. Verrecchio’s commentary and see how the error free sermon was twisted and presented as being heretical. –
This is one of the evil tactics of the sede-vacantists. As bad as the situation is in the Church, they make it appear far worse by focusing exclusively on the problems, and then spinning and declaring “heretical” even unobjectionable statements from the popes. The Protestants have used a similar tactic with success for years to lead Catholics out of the Church.
Ignatio, Bergoglio lost me at Amoris Laetitia. Those who tried to spin that into something orthodox were not being honest. But just to make sure that Catholics didn’t believe this spin, that AL wasn’t heretical, Bergoglio had his letter to the Argentine Bishops published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. This clarified, quite superfluously, it’s heresy. Tom A says this ALL the time, so I hate to beat a dead horse, but you either believe this guy is Pope and adhere to his teaching with religious assent or you determine that he is not the Pope. Anything in between is silly and maybe worse. Unless a Catholic like Mr. Verrecchio does quote this heretic, I avoid apostates and their writing as a danger to the faith so I will not read Bergoglio’s words. Why should anyone? He says one thing on Monday and the opposite on Tuesday, is there a bigger exercise in futility? And that’s aside from the fact that he blasphemes the Lord with some regularity; I don’t like that, at all.
Excellent commentary about Fr Fahey by Fr Ahern concerning Ireland and how Vatican Two helped destroy the Faith there.
” The words of Christ are being fulfilled in our land, where Satan uses all his stratagems against the Church. After the Second VAtican Council Satan succeeded in twisting the meaning of texts. He got accepted a false ecumenism that all religions are equal and none of them very important. The heresy of Religious Indifferentism is central to Satan’s plan. The Church of Christ is put on the same level as man-made religions…
Worldwide, Satan has got accepted a catechetical method totally lacking in those clear truths which Denis Fahey learned in his schooldays…Surveys show that many children [today’s pro-abortion voters] are not taught the existence of Hell, are not taught the Commandments, are not taught the basic prayers of the Church and are not even taught that Christ established only one Church to show mankind how to serve and worship God and so gain Heaven. In the field of sexual morality the directives of the Masonic Lodge, Alta Vendita, would seem to be operative here… ”
By “Bergoglio”, you mean Pope Francis, correct? Or are you playing the #notmypresident game where you define your alternate reality and really really really hope that if you just believe enough it will be true?
The guy hasn’t been a member of the Catholic Church, in decades likely, but just for the hell of it…..Anathema Sit!!
TomA is wrong, as usual. But rather than addressing that, quote the worst part of Francis letter to the Argentinian bishops and I’ll comment on it.
Gang, I guess NO marriages are not valid either. While they have faculties they are not priests or bishops due to a new ambigious Rite of Holy Orders.
Ignatio, I sincerely thank you. I really believe your intentions are pure, actually the salvation of souls. I’ve given this much thought because I do not want to be in schism. If I am wrong, than schism doesn’t even exist and neither does anything I’ve ever believed. So, I’ve gone for broke and I’m going to Catholic on, believing in the faith entirely. Jesus Christ promised us that we could follow the Pope, that we’d be safe bc he’d have the divine protection of the Holy Ghost. I believe that, so I know Bergoglio is not the Pope. I believe in the words of our Lord more than I do even a very elaborate ruse to effect a fake papacy. So, I do really appreciate your offering to comment but I’m going to say, no thank you. Ofcourse you’re free to write an argument defending that letter & AL for other readers.
Bergoglio is in rare form twisting scripture to obtain his preconceived opinion that divorce is ok and we should be a Church of “accompaniment”, what ever that means. When I was in the Anglican communion, the same sort of shenanigans went on in the name of love, mercy and acceptance of those who we should be all so sensitive to. I am so very sick of this one sided gospel that only wants to preach mercy. We also need to hear about judgement and discipline and a proper evaluation of sin. so much for the church of NICE.
It is even worse than that because young women are actively taught an alien ideology that sets them at odds with their own families, communities and ultimately nation. This alien ideology is evil even from a purely naturalistic viewpoint. The alien ideology teaches them a radical individualism where no expectations can be placed on them to, for example, perpetuate society by reproducing at replacement rates of reproduction.
You hear from these young women “its my body and no one can tell me what to do with it”. It is interesting how they don’t even stop to think that the state has been requisitioning the bodies of citizens for years – the bodies of young men who are sent off to war to defend the state.
Regarding the truths of the faith that are not taught, I believe the single Christian teaching that is most neglected by far is the obligation of wives to obey their husbands. Heck, many women deny the moral need to marry and have become serial fornicators.
Examining the current situation, the west is being stolen from its prior possessors by muslims who are out-reproducing Europeans. The muslims are frequently criticized for their often crude and barbaric attempts to protect the chastity of their daughters. Western society concludes from this that any attempt to guard the chastity of its daughters is ridiculous and medieval. But look at the consequences – the patrimony of the west is being stolen from it because the west cannot even bring itself to rein in the civilization-destroying ids of each succeeding generation of young women.
I look at what happened in Ireland with the recent vote. I am reminded of a recent story of a young Irish woman vacationing in Prague who decided to fornicate with a muslim and who was then shared by him against her wishes with his muslim friends. The point made was that she sought out a muslim – an apparent rare find in Prague! The Irish vote is a vote by young women that they have no obligation whatsoever to perpetuate the Irish race or even mankind in general. When you stand and observe them, keeping in mind that the Almighty is the author of the sexes, it is hard not to conclude that they have become abominations. They can’t even bring themselves to do what the female of every other species in the world does naturally – reproduce.
Of course there are men and women at my local NO parish who struggle with gluttony. The main difference between them and those I knew at my SSPX chapel was that they don’t tend to get involved in other people’s business.
For God’s sake people, Our Lord specifically told us that, “For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.  And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?  Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye?  Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
That should scare the literal Hell out of some people.
Big hat tip for Louis Verrechio “an honest guy” and his “Catholic inquisitor” from Frank Walker on Canon 212’s Stumblingblock !
Gang eat your words above.
Ganganelli: You are COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY BLIND TO YOUR OWN SINS. You are convinced that your reversion from what I believe to be the true Catholic faith to a false faith of the VII “Church” was the morally correct decision. You admittedly occasionally defend your decision with reference to what you represent to be as traditional Catholic teachings. But at least half of your arguments against those you claim to be mired in a false notion of traditional Catholicism are not arguments at all but ad hominem attacks – that those mired in a false sense of traditional Catholicism are evil, sinful, judgmental hypocrites themselves. Such attacks are PURE EXAMPLES OF THE SIN OF DETRACTION. You continually bring up the moral failings of others when they are technically irrelevant. The fact that someone advocating a particular theological position in a disputation may be a GIANT HYPOCRITE is irrelevant to the disputation.
In fact, the sum total of your participation in this blog has been an exercise in the sin of detraction. This is your participation in this blog reduced to its essence – “my fellow readers who are entertaining traditionalism but have not yet committed to it – these people who come on here and defend tradition are most likely in real life gluttons, gossips, etc. and anything they advocate, however persuasively they advocate, should be called into question because they are likely in real life bad people.” This is detraction. Every time you come on here and make attacks like that you are sinning. Stop doing it!
Disagreeing with someone doesn’t make you a troll.
My experiences with Traditonalism were similar to Ganganelli’s. As I got older, I got better at weeding out the lunacy and hypocrisy, but others did not, and I still get emails espousing and urging me to espouse absolute madness from the “true believers”. Sad.
I poked around online, thinking that it must be just a small group of Trads that acts badly, but was shocked to see just how many there were.
Trads are anti-Semitic? No way, I thought, that must just be a few of the people I knew.
Yet here and elsewhere, no matter what the topic, someone’s always willing to pipe in with “and we all know who’s responsible, right? Da Jews.” And then the agreements pop up. And someone else is happy to deny that the Holocaust happened. Sick. Talk to a real live Jew. Most of them are really nice people.
Trads are crazy conspiracy theorists? No way, I thought, that must just be a few of the people I knew.
Yet over and over I see false prophecies, talk about chastisements that never happen, Planet X, and superstitious numerology. And when the prophecies of doom doesn’t play out, there’s always some Harold Camping-esque explanation.
Trads are narrow-minded and irrational? No way, I thought, that must just be a few of the people I knew.
But here and on other sites, even after you get beyond the sick rantings of certain bigots (AdolphusJr), all of the endless kvetching is about the state of the Western European and North American Church – now a shrinking minority in the universal and global Catholic Church. Apparently, God only cares about what the white folks with their cathedrals are doing, and is about to destroy the world because they contracept and abort their babies. Screw the Africans and all those brown converts!
The God I worship wouldn’t do that. I welcome the day that devout Africans and Asians and South Americans fill the churches that Europeans and Americans have abandoned. Most Trads, seemingly, do not. Talk to a real live Nigerian Catholic. You’ll see what actual courage and commitment to the faith is about, and it will come from (gasp!) an African black person who speaks perfect English. Shocking!
So you go on and carve off all of the Catholics who don’t fit your perfect mold. Soon, it’ll be just you and Pope Michael, hand in hand, preserving the True Faith.
It’s not detraction at all. This is what drives me batty. You claim to be a traditionalist but don’t even know what detraction is?
From the Catholic Encyclopedia completed during the reign of Pope Saint Pius X:
“Detraction is the unjust damaging of *another’s* good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer.”
You are allegedly driven batty by traditionalists who don’t know what they are talking about, and I am driven crazy by ecclesiastical boot-lickers and lickspittles who come on here to defend the frauds in a wide range of institutions claiming to be Catholic by misrepresenting Catholic teaching. or claiming that others don’t know what they are talking about when they actually do, etc.
Lets deal with simple explanations of two related sins. Calumny is when a person makes stuff up to damage the reputation of another, and detraction is when otherwise true and damaging information about a person is divulged without good reason (it is typically revealed for a selfish, self-serving reason).
You are revealing damaging information about others (traditionalists) when that information is irrelevant to the current situation. The only reason you divulge this information is to discredit those who hold a traditional Catholic position. That makes it unjust. We are engaging in theological disputes. The fact that any party to the dispute may have moral failings is irrelevant to the dispute. The “rightness” or “wrongness” of a particular theological position is an objective fact and the moral failings of a person arguing for the position has nothing to do with its “rightness” or “wrongness”. Bringing up those failings to win a debate is UNJUST because the person bringing up the moral failings is trying to win the dispute by underhanded means that are not relevant to the dispute. When I accurately describe your modus operandi (for all I know you may be making your anecdotes up and therefore engaging in calumny) you cite the correct description of detraction but then misapply it. You have just added to your sins.
So following your logic St Athanasius was guilty of detraction against Arius.
Eat your words, Gang……..
Exceedingly well stated St Cyprian !
Gang :”I comment here to expose the hypocrisy of the frauds in tradism.”
Blunder :”Disagreeing with someone doesn’t make you a troll.
My experiences with Traditonalism were similar to Ganganelli’sBut here and on other sites, even after you get beyond the sick rantings of certain bigots (AdolphusJr), all of the endless kvetching is about the state of the Western European and North American Church ….”
Troll according to Miriam Webster
to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content
to harass, criticize, or antagonize (someone) especially by provocatively disparaging or mocking public statements, postings, or acts
Trolls plain and simple.
There are some young women who were not taught an alien ideology too and who are not at odds with their families. For these young women dating a man who does not expect cohabitation in lieu of marriage has become increasingly rare.
They become educated and work and wonder if they will meet a chaste young man , marry and ever have any children before they age. I know several very attractive thirty and forty something young single women who complain about how difficult it has become .
It seems the more attractive they are, either single men think they are already married or are free swinging like the plethora of divorcees.
Our entire social culture has been turned upside down and quite a few people look more like cartoons than even human beings anymore.
That distinction is lost on many; some wilfully and some out of ignorance.
For the wilful, nothing will probably change; for the ignorant, some will change when presented with the truth.
The truth on this matter is:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
Pope Puis XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 23
There are certain commenters here who should be ignored. It’s useless arguing with them. Let’s get back on track. After all, it is Louie’s blog. It’s turning into a tennis match with no end in sight.
Blunder, I really have no problem with you observstions about trads. Unfortunately, in many cases you are correct. But there are people on this site who have pointed out the theological contradictions that exist between pre and post V2 teaching and you and others keep the topic focused on externals and anecdotal tidbits meant to characterize entire groups. Can you not see that your stereotyping of trads is exactly the same as the stereotyping you denounce. You are guilty of stereotyping the stereotypers. And thus you illustrate once again the contradiction in modernism and relativism: all is to be tolerated except those who do not tolerate. All religions are good except those wacky trads. See that is your problem. You seek an all inclusive paradigm but it can never be because it cannot accept those who do not want to be included. So inclusion must be enforced through the power of the state or societal virtue shaming. You basically seek a system of “it doesnt matter what you believe” as long as you believe “it doesnt matter what you believe.” That is the essential philosophy of the NO sect.
Wow Gang, if I were you , metaphorically speaking , I’ ld consider retaining St Cyprian to plead my case on Judgement Day.
Yes, and then there are traditional young men who when they describe their spiritual commitment are told to their faces that they are patriarchal throwbacks whose role as the head of the household will be subverted, or that their desire to have a family will not be met (e.g., “you’re crazy if you expect me to have kids”), or when they are chaste in their courtship behavior are dropped because they are not meeting the current dating expectations (e.g., “Tom, you’re not very aggressive, are you sure you’re not gay?”), or that they aren’t exciting enough (“Tom is a really nice guy but he is sooo boring! I like jerks”), or that they will have to participate in mortal sin for the first few years of a marriage because “I don’t want kids right away and will be using artificial means of birth control”. The first couple of these examples are admittedly uttered by young women traditional young men shouldn’t be dating. The fourth has to do with a time-honored recognition of the fact that the fairer sex often doesn’t know what is best for them and when left to their own devices will make the worst possible dating decisions (e.g., the fictional depiction of Marianne Dashwood’s infatuation with Mr. Willoughby in “Sense and Sensibility”) but the tragedy is that the fifth example has actually been facilitated by the institutional Church. How often does one hear about the evils of contraception from the pulpit? How often is the teaching of the Church defended in the confessional? Not very often apparently when so many families are the “perfect” size of four – mom and dad and two children.
What is in witness in this horror is the abdication of those in authority – whether they be parents, clergy, or other authority figures to socialize the young of either sex in time-honored norms of behavior.
My2cents, it is sometimes good to go back and forth in order to unmask the intentions of your opponent. I think we have discovered that some are not here to seek truth but to rail against hypocrisy, but not all hypocrisy. Only the hypocrisy of a small subset of proclaimed Catholics.
I have asked in several posts that out of charity if they know of a way that they can help us trads understand the apparent contradictions between pre and post V2 teachings can they tell us. To date, crickets. Why? Well, it can’t be done otherwise it would’ve been done by someone these last 50 plus years.
Im a sede and I should probably be ignored here based on what I profess as opposed to what this site professes….but Im not banned (thanks LV). I think that an open forum, as long as it remains civil, is a good thing. It allows us to hash out our issues with each other. I dont think that there are any people of ill will on this site. I have some major issues with Gang and Blunder, but I dont think that they are bad people.
Apologies 2 Cents , I don’t know about you but I have learned quite a bit, especially from St Cyprian’s rebuttals . I’ve had quite an education concerning the hatred and ignorance from those who profess the Faith against people standing up for what the Church has always taught. I’ve learned that despite the heterodox teachings coming from Francis there are still people who will defend it . It appears to me some consider our Faith to be kind of like a club while ignorant that the very Church Jesus Christ and His Apostles established is based on Tradition and Scripture .That there are people who hate Tradition and think only Protestants should read the Scriptures and then when they do cherry pick passages to support their opinion they have no idea of it’s complete contextual meaning and are counting on others not knowing it either i.e., “Who am I to judge.”
We all know it is Louie’s blog and he has the tools to delete comments and end the informational exchanges here and anyone else can jump in with a new point to press.
God Bless Louie. I thank him and everyone for their patience. Please take a look at Frank Walker’s glowing endorsement of him posted above in his stumblingblock video !
I don’t think it is a good idea to allow the “trolls” to go totally unchecked. The proverbial troll is a completely bored thirteen year old boy who derives perverse glee from interrupting the friendly online interactions of others for the sole purpose of basking in their consternation and frustration. Some of the trolls who participate here are not trolls at all but disinformation agents or provocateurs who are attacking Mr. V’s efforts because those who they work for or do the bidding of view Mr. V as a threat to the status quo.
As an example, many of those who argue for the sede position here are apparently “amateur” or “solo” sedes – they thought about the predicament of the Church, researched it, and came to a plausible explanation of it. When they come on here and argue about such issues I don’t get the impression that they have been ordered to do so by the infamous Father you-know-who from St. Gertrude the Great.
What has bothered me about the anti-sede provocateurs – e.g., those publicly doing the bidding of the SSPX – is that they are part of a corporate effort. Are they attacking sedes because they believe sedes are wrong, or are they attacking sedes because an unchecked sede “outbreak” is a threat to the “business model” of the SSPX or the cozy relationship the SSPX has with the Conciliar Church? Is the SSPX attacking sedes on behalf of the Conciliar Church?
Keep in mind the way the SSPX attacks the sedes hasn’t changed. Sedes are for the most part not attacked by the priests of the SSPX or those with training in, e.g., canon law. The SSPX uses “pro-am” laymen without a formal position in the Church, or formal training in canon law to make their anti-sede attacks. You have to ask yourself why the SSPX acts in this way. If the anti-sede position is objectively correct, why doesn’t the Society commit their institutional prestige to it by allowing its priests or other allied professionals like academics to make the arguments? Is it because the issue isn’t cut-and-dry and the Society wants to preserve its prestige if the sede position is proven by events to be the correct position? Or is the Society using these “pro-am” laymen anti-sede “experts” as dupes to make arguments that no priest or professional could make in good faith? One wonders. How else does one determine if they are genuine other than by occasionally challenging them to defend their positions?
2 Cents, I should add that Louie is probably getting a lot more hits. My own emails attest to a new interest from others in Louie’s blog .
I am an Eastern Catholic with no church due to the very same reasons that plague the Latin Rite Traditional crowd. The Liturgy is still fairly Traditional but the clergy have certainly been infiltrated in the same way. I have not paid too much attention to Francis but to support what I already knew from a Catholic from Argentina
( “He destroyed the everything that was Catholic in my country”) I was forced here to take a closer look at his words by way of linked statements. What he has said about Faith and Morals is especially appalling and definitely Communist.
So women are all whores and “chaste” young men are wandering around desperately seeking virgins. And women don’t know what’s good for them.
You do know that a lot of men actually prefer a woman with personally that they respect and admire and isn’t simply a baby maker who brings slippers, mixes drinks, cooks and cleans, and asks “what am I thinking now, dear?”, right? And that in most parts of the country, unless you inherit money and property or the husband’s making a ton of money, the wife has to work if you don’t want to live next door to drug addicts. You also know that many women with personalities also prefer men who have them too, right?
Keating’s remark about guys sitting around wondering why they can’t get dates suddenly makes a lot of sense.
The Mass is in the vernacular. The priest faces the people. The Church laid off the notion that 99.999% of humanity is going to hell. It also decided that after almost 2000 years of people butchering each other over religion with nothing to show for it, maybe it’s time to stop and try to get along. Doctrine didn’t change.
Where does one even begin? ::sigh::
What is interesting, in contrast, is that those who argue/defend the sede position are, by and large, clergy who do have the training, etc. (although I agree, not here in this combox…we are mere lay folk).
St. Cyprian–I believe your assessment of the SSPX is right on target even though I don’t know what “pro-am” means. Can you fill me in? Thanks.
sweep–no argument here! What should a person, who is CATHOLIC in mind, heart and soul, do when there is no church to go to for the reasons you mentioned? I wish a reliable, sincere, CATHOLIC could give some guidance. We need Our Lady’s help!
pro-am = like a camera – not amateur level but not pro either – half- ***ed.
I asked you to show how teachings did not change and you, Blunder have shown us how teachings have changed. I guess there’s not much left to discuss since we are basically in agreement.
“HEAR THE WORD OF THE LORD, YE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, FOR THE LORD SHALL ENTER INTO JUDGMENT WITH THE INHABITANTS OF THE LAND, FOR THERE IS NO TRUTH, AND THERE IS NO MERCY, AND THERE IS NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IN THE LAND.
2 Cursing, and lying, and killing, and theft, and ADULTERY have overflowed, and blood hath touched blood.
3 Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth in it shall languish with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of the air: yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be gathered together.
4 But yet let not any man judge: and let not a man be rebuked: for thy people are as they that contradict the priest.
5 And thou shalt fall to day, and the prophet also shall fall with thee: in the night I have made thy mother to be silent.
6 MY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SILENT, BECAUSE THEY HAD NO KNOWLEDGE: BECAUSE THOU HAST REJECTED KNOWLEDGE, I WILL REJECT THEE, THAT THOU SHALT NO DO THE OFFICE OF PRIESTHOOD TO ME: AND THOU HAST FORGOTTEN THE LAW OF THY GOD. I WILL ALSO FORGET THY CHILDREN.
7 According to the multitude of them so have they sinned against me: I will change their glory into shame.
8 They shall eat the sins of my people, and shall lift up their souls to their iniquity.
9 And there shall be like people like priest: and I will visit their ways upon them, and I will repay them their devices.
10 AND THEY SHALL EAT AND NOT BE FILLED: THEY HAVE COMMITTED FORNICATION, AND HAVE NOT CEASED: BECAUSE THEY HAVE FORSAKEN THE LORD IN NOT OBSERVING HIS LAW.
11 FORNICATION, AND WINE, AND DRUNKENESS TAKE AWAY THE UNDERSTANDING.
12 MY PEOPLE HAVE CONSULTED THEIR STOCKS, AND THEIR STAFF HATH DECLARED UNTO THEM: FOR THE SPIRIT OF FORNICATION HATH DECEIVED THEM, AND THEY HAVE COMMITTED FORNICATION AGAINST GOD.
13 THEY OFFERED SACRIFICE UPON THE TOPS OF MOUNTAINS, AND BURNT INCENSE UPON THE HILLS, UNDER THE OAK,AND THE POPLAR, AND THE TURPENTINE TREE BECAUSE THE SHADOW THEREOF WAS GOOD: THEREFOR SHALL YOUR DAUGHTERS COMMIT FORNICATION, AND YOUR SPOUSES ADULTERESSES.
14 I WILL NOT VISIT UPON YOUR DAUGHTERS WHEN THEY SHALL COMMIT FORNICATION, AND YOUR SPOUSES WHEN THEY SHALL COMMIT ADULTERY: BECAUSE THEMSELVES CONVERSED WITH HARLOTS, AND OFFERED SACRIFICE WITH THE EFFEMINATE, AND THE PEOPLE THAT DOST NOT UNDERSTAND SHALL BE BEATEN.
15 If thou play the harlot, O Israel, at least let not Juda offend: and go ye not into Galgal, and come not up into Bethaven, and do not swear: The Lord liveth.
16 For Israel hath gone astray like a wanton heifer: now will the Lord feed them, as a lamb in a spacious place.
17 Ephraim is a partaker with idols, let him alone.
18 Their banquet is separated, they have gone astray by fornication: they that should have protected them have loved to bring shame upon them.
19 The wind hath bound them up in its wings, and they shall be confounded because of their sacrifices.”
Apparently our present predicament is a result of the fact that men who should know better, because of their lack of love of the truth, have not rejected falsehood when they should, and have “burnt incense” to the false pieties of the day “to keep peace in the household”. When men behave in this manner they reap the whirlwind.
Let me see if I’m understanding your positrons correctly. This isn’t intended to slander or upset anyone, just making sure I’ve understood where y’all stand, so please correct if I’m wrong. If I forgot someone, apologies and please add yourself:
my2cents: homemaloner, does not attend Mass
StCyprian: homealoner, does not attend Mass
TomA: homealoner, does not attend Mass
2Vermont: SSPX, attends Mass
LennyB: homealoner, does not attend Mass
rich: SSPX, attends Mass
Melanie: SSPX, attends Mass
sweepoutthefilth: homealoner, does not attend Mass; was Eastern Rite for a while
Funny Blunder, I am not a home aloner. Lets see where you fit.
Blunder: attends NO worship service, does not attend Mass.
So what’s the difference between you and a home aloner? None, you don’t go to Mass either.
Maybe my nomenclature is wrong. How would you describe your position? Visible Church does not exist, no valid priests or sacraments, and you don’t go to Mass – correct?
Good question. I don’t know. I do believe there are valid priests and bishops, but no valid Roman bishops with jurisdiction. I am not sure if the Eastern Catholic bishops and Patriarchs have any authority or not. I tend to think they do. Home aloners think one must stay home because there is no jurisdiction. Then there are the sedes who make a very good case that one should not attend an Una Cum Mass. So every Sunday I struggle whether to go to an SSPX chapel, a Sede chapel, an Eastern Rite Catholic Church, or stay at home. There being no Pope, there is no authority to command me where to attend or not. I have only Tradition to guide me. I have learned that the most inportant thing has always been Divine Law and sanctifying Sundays. I make more effort now these days to do just that. It is amazing how the secular modern world has destroyed the sanctity of Sundays. Most Catholics think it OK to just go to Mass and then rest of the day do whatever you please. It is not. We should avoid servile labor, shopping, and all the worldly profane things we do the other 6 days. The issue can get more complex when you throw in conclavists and the sedeprivationist theory. All this confusion is to be expected amongst Catholics precisely because there is no Pope. The situation would be all cleared up if someone can explain to me how to tie pre V2 teaching into post V2 teaching without a contradiction. Start with IS vs SUBSISTS. Tell me how the latter is a clearer explanation of the former.
Whoa Ignatio scroll down and see what was reported by LifeSite news regarding comments Borgolio has made in the past about marriage and cohabitation. Most marriages being null and void while cohabitating fornicators have “grace filled real marriages”. I linked to his exact words and double checked with other websites because his statements were jaw dropping! Unfortunately , one can only use one link and a time in any single comment here but even priests on EWTN described that little talk of his as “RECKLESS”.
He spews herterodoxy and outright lies and then the next day says something conservatives want to hear. For example through his friend
Yayo or Juan Carlos the clerical abuse victim ,now gay rights proponant, ” You were born gay”and then four days later “homosexuals should be barred from seminaries”. REALLY?
How does he plan to enforce that one when many SD, Vocation Directors and Seminary Rectors are all part of the LGBTQ cadre???
He said the people in Chile were guilty of calumny ,while having the full report on Barros on his desk for some time. He called the Chilean peoples “dumb”. Then after the global press picked up on his hypocrisy he was forced t backtrack precipitously.
Barros is still in office and he calls in all the Chilean bishops for the PR stunt of mass resignations making them ALL appear to share the burden of guilt for the cover ps .Yet if you g back to the Barros’ appointment by Borgolio himself ,you find group of bishops wrote to him warning him NEVER to consecrate the perv a Bishop.
Amidst ALL the confusion he himself purposely creates, he blames fake news. He slithers like a snake around e truth.
The Eastern Catholic bishops have equal authority in their Sees as do the Romans. They all belong equally to the USCCB. Trouble is that during Vatican Two the bishop voting in concert nationally speaking, claim they have equal authority to the Pope when they vote together on something in their own country.
The Vatican has been honoring that false claim since the Council.
The bishops have gotten away with punishing good priests for reporting pederast clergy to the civil authorities as an example Fr Haley and now also Fr Gallagher and others who decided to keep quiet and wait out their suspensions.
Fr John Gallager and a seminary graduate, Kevin McKelvney in NJ , have gone to court BUT the courts are loath to involve themselves in work related issues regarding the church and what they consider an employee of the Bishops.
This blinds he public to the fact they the Bishops punish god priests and solid seminarians when they report perverted sexual infractions to the authorities.
No on digs deeper to see that the priests and Bishops being sued are guilty as hell but the judicial system would not rule on church discipline matters.So the deep pocketed Bishops win appeals over and over and punish good priests who speak out. Disgusting. They deserve NO MONEY in donations!!!!
Marxist communists cannot be both Catholic and adhere to the antichristian internal beliefs of their own political policies.They have to change and confuse the meanings pf the Gospels to fool people. Borgoglio has been doing just that. “Who am I to Judge?”
You are supposed to be the Pope buddy and your own Papal Nuncio rightly ejected Ricca from his country and is a homosexual who has been caught with a suitcase of child pornography.
Blunder, this is sad. I can see that at least half of these are probably wrong. I am sedevacantist and attend mass.
“Home aloners think one must stay home because there is no jurisdiction.”
This is a very important point. I don’t think most who use this term realize that there are a certain group of folks who are “home alone” …. as in every week specifically for this reason. They also tend to think that anyone who goes to any of these “illicit” masses are in a state of mortal sin.
There are also those who do not have valid mass options within a reasonable distance, so they are sometimes home on Sundays. They are not “home aloners”.
That’s why I’m asking. You attend SSPX Mass – yes?
2 Cents , a very good RC priest who was head of ecclesia dei answered this question for myself and another friend. He said he would advise if you live where there is no acceptable Catholic Mass that does not cause you stress and anger or feeds your heart and soul by elevating it to God , go to an Orthodox church to fulfill your Obligation. I have done just that when our old pastor, disgusted with the Byzantine Catholic Diocese filled from ME to Florida with actve sodomite priests and boy lovers of whom the Bishop exposed himself as being well aware, retired into the Orthodox where he continues to celebrate the Divine liturgy and Sacred Mysteries. His parish, including Catholic Deacons ,who left sodomite RC Catholic seminaries and parishioners who are Catholics . love him as do Catholic Byzantine priests ( three or four chaste heteros) described him to me as ,”the most quintissential priest” whom they ever met who kept them sane amidst their perverted fellow priests and Bishop. So , both a Latin Rite Trad priest and Byzantine priests advised searching for a decent Orthodox parish to fulfill your Obligations. now according to Canon Law they may not offer you the Sacraments while the Catholic Church may offer to any and all Orthodox .
Go search and learn .Fr Trenham on youtube is a good place to start. i love the Divine liturgies of St John Chrysostom and St Basil the Great in English as much as I love the Traditional Latin Mass. It is in Canon law that you may but the argument maybe that you have plenty of local Catholic Churches to go to……….that does NOT take into consideration what some of us have endured in these Catholic parish Masses.
Of course Pray the Rosary because it is a Liturgical Prayer according to the Church.
Do you even read my posts? I just told you that I am sedevacantist and attend mass.
I’m very familiar with the Eastern Rite churches in communion with Rome.
Answer the question. You don’t attend Mass, do you?
Thanks, sweep. I appreciate your response.
Right. But what Mass? Novus Ordo?
SMILE LOUIE and everyone !
Blunder I do not answer Trolls all the time ,especially ones who think ONLY Protestants read the Bible.
ENJOY ……this almost covers the Borgolio Reign of Terror for True Believers.
Seriously? You’re actually asking me whether I attend the Novus Ordo?
This is why I say this is sad. You are sorely ignorant in these matters and I would think that after reading and posting on this blog you would be more educated. That’s why I wonder whether you actually read the posts we make here.
Sedevacantists do not attend the Novus Ordo. I’m pretty sure that SSPX’ers/R&Rer’s don’t either. We all attend the Latin Mass. I don’t even think trads in communion with the NO church attend the Novus Ordo service.
Excuse me are you the official KoC poll taker for the Bishops? It would figure if you are.
“Doctrine didn’t change”.
But Blunder no one even told you that Catholics read the Bible !!!
The Bible IS Dogmatic and Scripture is Doctrinal !
According to this a few Doctrines have changed in the practical sense.
Detraction or OBVIOUS truth ?
Great. Latin Mass offered by a priest and parish that acknowledges Pope Francis as Pope?
Not a troll. Catholics and Protestants can and should read the Bible. But Protestants believe they can and should interpret it themselves.
If you’re Catholic, you should be comfortable talking about how you practice your Faith, especially with other Catholics.
So I’ll go first:
Each Sunday, I attend a very reverent Novus Ordo Mass. They have Communion under both species and altar servers – boys and girls – who hold Communion-plate under each parishioner’s hands or chin as they receive in the manner they choose. Incense. Bells. Our Pastor preaches sermons that – while lovingly affirming the Faith of his sheep – don’t shy away from tackling the hard issues like abortion, contraception, and the like.
If other obligations mess with my schedule – and anyone who owns an old house and has land will agree that that happens on occasion – I go to the Novus Ordo Mass in the next town’s parish, which has a different Mass schedule.
Pastor there is as orthodox as the day is long. Wears a cassock. Calls on us to actually follow the Gospel, no matter how tough it is.
Both parishes have many large families. Who are embraced and admired.
So do you go to Mass every week?
How can a NO “priest” be orthodox. Thats like saying pork can be beef. No Blunder, if you are serious about your Faith you reject all of that filth, no matter how nice they are.
So you’re SSPX and attend Mass every Sunday – correct?
Why do I get the feeling that blunder’s poll isn’t just out of pure curiosity?
Troll, you fit the definition perfectly!
FYI ,we did not take exiting our local NO RC parish lightly. when the opportunity arose we met IN our RC Church a wonderful Byz Cath priest , invited him over to dinner and wound p building a mission Church with him.
Now I have no doubt our former parishioners continued to believe their parish was fine and their NO Mass was reverent. But we knew something was not right. The Mass kept getting shorter and shorter , the responses sounded inane and women were running everything.
I went to Confession during the regularly scheduled evening hour. I knelt down to pray the rosary before the Blessed Sacrament …the priest paced onviously annoyed despite the fact we were still in the first quarter of the hour for Confessions. Not a single soul came in and the priest stood glaring at me at the door eager to lock up. ten years later I am on a bus heading to DC for the Pro Life march listening to sheep bleating about how holy that same priest is and falsely accused of molesting young girls . ” He even made rosaries” , yeah right ,but he could not wait to get a rosary prying penitent out of the church so he could walk across the parking lot to the rectory to relax.
He is still wanted by the FBI and the pastor died in disgrace in another state doing his court mandated community service after stealing 5 grand from the basket and giving it to him to skip the country. You see the pastor knew for over ten years he was a pedophile abusing young girls and did nothing.
The adjacent RC parishes were just as bad . They kept embellishing the Mass with entertainers, guitars songs and carnival Masses. I knew one lady banished by the Monsignore at her parish after she saw the balloons tied to the the hands of Christ on the large crucifix over the burlap covered altar complete with stuffed chimpanzees. She tore everything down and he told her never to come back. she explained she felt like Jesus when he saw the money changers in the Temple.
2 Vermont , Because your instincts are spot on.
I removed the beam in my eye in 1978 ,the day I walked out of an Easter Mass with our pastor who that sounded more like he was doing a a sports caster commentary. You ,on the other hand, left a Latin Mass because of fat laity eating doughnuts and gossiping after Mass. I’ld say extract the forest from your own eyes.
No Blunder boy, the majority of Catholics have been dumbed down to accept anything and you are an excellent example of same. What passes as morality is a foreign culture to them now and the man in the Vatican reflects it perfectly in what he says and does.
My thoughts exactly!
Sweep, you’ve laid down about a thousand words telling stories about your experiences. Super. tl/dr
Answer the question: Do you – or do you not – attend weekly Mass?
2Vermont – do you attend Latin
Mass that is in communion w/Rome? Answer the question.
I don’t know why it takes all this virtual ink to avoid answering a simple question. I told you my experience. Tell me yours.
TomA had the guts to actually spell out his position. I think he’s wrong and very much misguided and I’m sure he thinks the same of me. But I have a lot of respect for where he’s coming from, and for his search for truth.
Why can’t you guys lay it out there like he did?
I am getting tired of answering questions I have already answered/answers to questions you should already know based on those answers and your plentiful time here.
I also think your poll is questionable. How about being honest as to why you’re doing it in the first place and what you plan to do with the results? This feels more like an interrogation than a sincere person just wanting to better understand us.
“I am not sure if the Eastern Catholic bishops and Patriarchs have any authority or not. I tend to think they do.”
They are in communion with the Novus Ordo church. They have never publicly denounced the new religion. In fact, their 1990 Code of Canon Law (promulgated by JPII) teaches ecumenism and encourages communio in sacris.
AS far as I’m concerned if they aren’t already infected with the false religion they are well on their way.
You are Trolling . For what purpose? Stop with the “sincere” denials because you have already exposed yourself as an agit prop novus ordite over and over. Okay , we get it. You are a real catholic in the church of the dancing girls ,clown masses, grab it and chomp it communions with little girl and boy altar servers.
You do not want to be a Protestant and read your Bible nor do you even realize the commentaries at the bottom of the pages ARE the Catholic interpretations.
We are the enemy because we do not ascribe to a heterodox “pope”, sodomite clergy or fast food Mass that has been altered to an unrecognizable pagan service over the past sixty years !
But you want us to answer your trolling polling in minute detail??
What planet are you from ?
Sweepoutthefilth: “Whoa Ignatio scroll down and see what was reported by LifeSite news regarding comments Borgolio has made in the past about marriage and cohabitation.”
Comment: If Pope Francis says something objectionable, by all means object, but there was nothing problematic in the sermon that Mr. Verreccio wrote about in this blog post.
Francis’s sermon was about the beauty of marriage, as an institution created by God, in which the two become one flesh that “cannot be divided”. It was about how to have a successful marriage, not about divorce and remarriage. Yet Mr. Verrecchio took Francis’ words ENTIRELY out of context, and then accused the Pope of relegating “Thou shalt not commit adultery” to a moral nom “that can be adapted according to certain concrete circumstances.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Regardless of what objectionable things Francis has said in the past, Mr. Verrecchio’s commentary was slander, pure and simple.
Here is the entire sermon, taken from the link Mr. Verrecchio provided. Ask yourself if this is a defense of adultery:
“POPE FRANCIS: MARRIAGE IS AN IMAGE OF GOD
Despite the difficulties in marriage and family life, Pope Francis invites us to consider the beauty of marriage in his homily at the morning Mass at the Casa Santa Marta.
Pope Francis spoke about the beauty of marriage in his homily at the Casa Santa Marta on Friday. Among the faithful present at the morning Mass were seven married couples celebrating their 25th and 50th wedding anniversaries.
“YES, YOU CAN” OR “NO, YOU CAN’T”
The Gospel passage for the day, from the Gospel of St Mark, speaks of the intentions of the Pharisees, who asked Jesus a question precisely in order to test Him. Pope Francis described questions of this kind, about what you can or can’t do, as casuistic. He explained: “Not the great ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ with which we are familiar. This is God.” Instead, the Pharisees reduce the Christian life, the way of following God, to a question of “yes, you can,” or “no, you can’t.”
LET US SEE THE BEAUTY OF MARRIAGE
The question posed by the Pharisees concerned marriage; they wanted to know if it was lawful for a husband to divorce his wife. But, said Pope Francis, Jesus goes beyond the simple question of lawfulness, going back to the “the beginning.” Jesus speaks about marriage as it is in itself, perhaps the greatest thing created by God in those seven days of Creation.
“From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” Jesus words in the Gospel are very strong, the Pope said. He speaks of “one flesh” which cannot be divided. Jesus “lays aside the problem of separation, and goes to the beauty of the couple,” who ought to be one. The Pope continued:
We must not focus, like these doctors do, on [the answer] “Yes, you can” divide a marriage, or “No, you can’t.” At times there is misfortune, when it doesn’t work, and it is better to separate in order to avoid a world war. But this is a misfortune. Let us go and look at the positive.
YOU CAN ALWAYS GO FORWARD
Pope Francis told of how he met a couple who were celebrating 60 years of marriage. He said he asked them, “Are you happy?” They looked at one another, and with tears in their eyes, answered, “We are in love!”
It’s true that there are difficulties, there are problems with children or with the couple themselves, arguments and fights… but the important thing is that the flesh remains one, and you can overcome, you can overcome, you can overcome. And this is not only a sacrament for them, but also for the Church, a sacrament, as it were, that attracts attention: “See, love is possible!” And love is capable of allowing you to live your whole life “in love”: in joy and in sorrow, with the problems of children, and their own problems… but always going forward. In sickness and in health, but always going forward. This is beautiful.
THE COUPLE: THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD
Man and woman are created in God’s image and likeness; and for this reason, marriage likewise becomes an image of God. This makes marriage very beautiful, the Pope said. “Matrimony is a silent homily for everyone else, a daily homily.”
It’s sad when this is not news: the newspapers, the TV news shows, don’t consider this news. But this couple, together for so many years… it’s not news. Scandal, divorce, separation – these are considered newsworthy. (Although at times its necessary to separate, as I said, to avoid a greater evil). The image of God isn’t news. But this is the beauty of marriage. They [the couple] are the image and likeness of God. And this is our news, the Christian news.
PATIENCE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT VIRTUE
Marriage and family life is not easy, the Pope repeated. He pointed to the first Reading, where St James speaks about patience. Patience, he said, is “perhaps the most important virtue for the couple – both for the man and for the woman.” He concluded his homily with a prayer that the Lord “might give to the Church and to society a more profound and more beautiful understanding of marriage, so that we all might be able to appreciate and reflect upon [the fact] that the image and likeness of God is present in marriage.”
Comment: There is nothing objectionable in these words. Yet Mr. Verrecchio found one sentence he was able to take out of context, and used it to “spin” then entire sermon by presenting it as a defense of adultery, and as clear evidence that Francis cannot be the pope.
This is a perfect example of the evil lengths to which sede-vacantists will go to defend their schism.
Blunder, it matters not that your “mass” is reverent or not, that is accidental to the substance of the Novus Ordo. Trads can argue till the cows come home (or till there is a Pope) on what is proper in regards to Mass attendance, but one issue is crystal clear, a Catholic does not worship as a protestant and that is exactly what the NO service provides.
@2Vermont – I’m not going to do anything with the results. Seems strange that nobody except TomA is willing to respond, though, doesn’t it?
@sweep – The fact that you refuse to answer and instead blasphemously insult the Masses I attend is also interesting. As a non-practicing Catholic, why should anyone listen to your opinions about the Church any more than those of an athiest or Protestant?
I’m starting to get the impression that most of the people here refuse to go to Mass or receive the Sacraments, yet feel that they are the best Catholics of all and roundly condemn those who do go to Mass. How odd.
“I’m starting to get the impression that most of the people here refuse to go to Mass or receive the Sacraments, yet feel that they are the best Catholics of all and roundly condemn those who do go to Mass. ”
Which was the whole point of your poll, right blunder? You didn’t fool me.