Marco Tossati is reporting in Vatican Insider that the Secretary of Ecclesia Dei, Archbishop Guido Pozzo, in a recent interview with the French weekly Famille Chrétienne, is suggesting that Rome is willing to apply a heretofore unknown degree of flexibility in its relationship with the SSPX.
The archbishop said:
Any reservations or positions the Society of St. Pius X may have regarding aspects which are not related to faith but to pastoral questions or the prudential teaching of the Magisterium do not necessarily need to [be] withdrawn or relinquished.
According to Archbishop Pozzo (as reported by Tossati), the Society’s reservations are linked to “aspects of pastoral care or the prudential teaching of the Magisterium.”
Some are suggesting that this signals something of a breakthrough and a newfound openness on the part of Rome. I disagree.
For one thing, it is either a gross misunderstanding of, or an egregious misrepresentation of, the Society’s position to relegate their criticisms of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo to matters of mere “pastoral care or prudential teaching,” as if doing so would in some way make them of secondary importance.
For him to imagine that the SSPX would concede as much strikes me as naïve at best.
One may see in Archbishop Pozzo’s statement a temptation to embrace the error of the false ecumenists that Pope Pius XI so succinctly condemned in Mortalium Animos:
In connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction.
For example, it appears that Archbishop Pozzo is suggesting that it’s just fine for the SSPX to reject (as it should) the contents of Nostra Aetate even as “Rome” professes the thoroughly preposterous notion, “Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles making both one in Himself” (NA 3) as such is presumably less-than-fundamental.
Furthermore, Archbishop Pozzo’s comments also seem to reflect the same dreadful disease that landed the Extraordinary Synod in such critical condition; namely, the insipid notion that “pastoral care / prudential teaching” and doctrine can be treated as distant cousins when indeed (in particular relative to the Society’s concerns) they are more akin to conjoined twins.
The archbishop went on to say:
There is room for further reflection on the reservations the fraternity has expressed regarding certain aspects and the wording of the Second Vatican Council documents as well as some reforms that followed but which do not refer to subjects which are dogmatically or doctrinally indisputable.
Again, we see repeated here the same foolish idea that the problematic parts of Vatican II (and the Novus Ordo) somehow refer to something other than doctrine. That’s incorrect to the point where one has to wonder if Archbishop Pozzo isn’t pazzo, or perhaps making statements that he doesn’t truly believe as if to propose a “creative” way forward.
We shall see how things proceed from here, but any supposed way forward that requires the SSPX to deny the expressly doctrinal character of their concerns is no way forward at all; it’s simply a guarantee that the crisis will endure.
Beyond this, I find Archbishop’s Pozzo’s reference to “the wording of the Second Vatican Council” almost amusing.
What is any council if not its “wording”?
I can’t really say precisely what he means to imply. That said, I am reminded of the “hermeneutic of continuity” illusion which has always been predicated upon the misconception that “the Council” can somehow be understood apart from what it actually said.
Archbishop Pozzo continued:
There is no doubt that the teachings of the Second Vatican Council vary a great deal in terms of how authoritative and binding they are depending on the text … Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum are doctrinal declarations even though no dogmatic definition was given to them; [the declarations on religious freedom, non-Christian religions and the decree on ecumenism] are authoritative and binding to a different and lesser degree.
Setting aside the fact that the Council declared exactly zero of its propositions binding (the requirement expressed in the Nota Praevia found in Lumen Gentium), one wonders exactly what it means to suggest that a given text is just somewhat binding and kinda authoritative.
This is a concept that can only be acceptable to those who have bought into the unfounded novelty of “a little communion” among the heretics such as it was proposed in Lumen Gentium; the aforementioned “doctrinal declaration.”
For the record, I’m not one of those people, and I think it is safe to say that the SSPX isn’t either.
In summary, Archbishop Pozzo’s comments don’t represent a new degree of openness to the SSPX at all; at best they amount to little more than a subtle suggestion for papering over the very real doctrinal deficiencies in the conciliar text (to say nothing of the Novus Ordo) and the havoc wrought on the Body of Christ as a result.
I often think that the fundamental problem with Vatican 2, is that the fathers of the council confused diplomacy with theology, and hence diplomatic with pastoral…
That they continue to insist that instead of faith we work on the basis of human trust, is just madness…
There isn’t any “difficulty” that Rome can’t solve these days by redefining the doctrinal as pastoral.
The only reason why the Vatican will remain open to an agreement with SSPX would be to put the Society under THEIR control. Bergoglio’s henchmen are waiting in the shadows to pounce!!! It is my opinion that Bishop Fellay is well aware of this. Bergoglio is “chomping at the bit” to get the SSPX where he wants them! Heaven help us!
How anyone could conclude differently based on what has played out before the eyes of the world with the FFI is a bit mysterious. The FFI were gutted like fish for *crypto*-Lefebvrian *tendencies* – what happens when you’re plumb overflowing with unabashed Lefebvrianism?
ACT: you’re almost there. Isn’t this really in the manner of “keep your enemies close and your friends closer”? It doesn’t serve liberal apostates in the Church to have their enemies (SSPX) “far away” acting independently and harshly criticizing their modernist agenda. So engage them and use their position vis a vis the Pope against them so that the SSPX hopefully moderates their criticism. If the SSPX falls for the bait, then use the cover provided by the SSPX to crush congregations and dioceses with any tendency toward traditionalism. (Crushing those within the institutional church falls under “keeping your friends closer”). So these cheap publicity stunts with the SSPX don’t cost the liberals anything and may make crushing traditional elements within the institutional church easier. “We’re only crushing the FFI and certain dioceses because of criminal or schismatic behavior – its got nothing to do with them being traditional – see, we’re actually making overtures to the arch trad organization the SSPX”.
Yes, and also attempting to control the situation through Media spin – who are the Holy See’s Media constants again??
Yes, this is the other reasonable hypothesis.
—–
“Total destruction” is what the Society would face IF they were ever foolish enough to be allow themselves to be assimilated into “regular canonical status” – in the present climate. The time is not yet right. Yet, good-faith dialogue – even if that’s really only on one end – must be maintained.
Dear Louie,
Nice description of the error—that “pastoral care / prudential teaching” and doctrine can be treated as distant cousins when indeed…they are more akin to conjoined twins..”
___
Cardinal Burke brought it up regarding the Synod saying “..you can’t have a doctrine that teaches one thing and a practice which does something differently. If people don’t accept the church’s teaching on these matters then they’re not thinking with the church and they need to examine themselves on that and correct their thinking or leave the church if they absolutely can’t accept what the church teaches. They’re certainly not free to change the teaching of the church to suit their own ideas.”
___
The current hierarchy’s attempt to use this watered-down, compromised definition of the relationship- between what we believe and how it is practiced and taught- is nothing new. They’ve used it to justify all their abuses would benefit greatly from officially defining them as less significant matters than doctrine and dogma. So they’ve really just held out an immoral carrot, hoping the SSPX will bite and get them off the hook at the same time.
___
Cardinal Burke also said, ” The point is that for the church, moral teaching is never a matter of ideals. They’re understood to be real commands that we’re meant to put into practice. .. we’re called to conform ourselves to those truths.”
The SSPX knows that, and we’re pretty sure you’re right, they will have to pass on this, as a matter of moral principle.
Dear Roman,
Another nail, hit right on the head.
Dear Cyprian,
Time will tell if you’re right, but we’re certainly seeing less of the public criticism by the SSPX, and more of the machinations by Rome right now. Still it’s hard to know with certainty just what the SSPX’s motivations are, without hearing directly from their priests about it. Have they been more silent lately, or are we just out of touch with what they’ve been saying?
@IF: I didn’t intend to impugn the motivations of the SSPX – what may be a cheap publicity stunt to liberal modernists may be, and is more likely seen as, a necessary act of fraternal charity on the part of the SSPX as suggested by ACT.
Off Topic but rather amazing….
Dear Louie and all, Has Pope Emeritus Benedict finally spoken out against Francis’ false ecumenism? Against planting trees for peace instead of Proselytizing?
–Fr. Ray Blake writes: “Unfortunately the whole speech has not yet appeared anywhere on-line.” ” Oh, for the days of clear thought and clear words!”
___
“Urbanian University heard an 1,800-word message from Pope Emeritus Benedict -at a ceremony dedicating a lecture hall to the retired pope.
“The risen Lord instructed his apostles, and through them his disciples in all ages, to take his word to the ends of the earth and to make disciples of all people,” . “But does that still apply?’ many inside and outside the church ask themselves today. ‘Is mission still something for today? Would it not be more appropriate to meet in dialogue among religions and serve together the cause of world peace?’ The counter-question is: ‘Can dialogue substitute for mission?'”
___
“In fact, many today think religions should respect each other and, in their dialogue, become a common force for peace. According to this way of thinking, it is usually taken for granted that different religions are variants of one and the same reality,” the retired pope wrote. “The question of truth, that which originally motivated Christians more than any other, is here put inside parentheses. It is assumed that the authentic truth about God is in the last analysis unreachable and that at best one can represent the ineffable with a variety of symbols. This renunciation of truth seems realistic and useful for peace among religions in the world.”
___
“It is nevertheless lethal to faith. In fact, faith loses its binding character and its seriousness, everything is reduced to interchangeable symbols, capable of referring only distantly to the inaccessible mystery of the divine,” he wrote.
http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2014/10/in-light-of-movement-of-church-to.html
This sure doesn’t sound like approval of “unity in diversity” or “I’m not here to convert anyone to Catholicism”.
Dear Cyprian,
No problem- as we didn’t take it as any kind of criticism of the SSPX’s motives, – just as factual commentary on the way things are right now. After reading some of what Archbishop Lefebvre wrote, we understand that it was very important to him, not to close the door on talking with Rome, despite the need to refrain from compromising what cannot be compromised–one of the reasons we admire him so much.
Dear A Catholic Thinker,
Sorry to drastically change the subject, but we’re wondering if the blessed event is still scheduled for Dec 6th, and how you’re all holding up. 🙂
Exactly. It seems to me that temptations to both bitterness and to pride are the methods the devil uses most to attempt to ensnare those who hold the true Faith whole & unspoiled in this time of great confusion, and it seems to me that the great Archbishop yielded to neither of them. To spit in the face of Rome, where the prime See of the visible Church exists and has always existed, is not the behavior of a loyal Son of the Church, no matter how much insanity inhabits it.
—–
Pray for us, St. Lefebvre. (Can I say that? He behaved like a saint. He displayed the most heroic virtue in the most trying of circumstances when nearly all of his brethren wilted. I’m saying it.)
Dear A Catholic Thinker,
He’d probably prefer you to assume he’s in Purgatory until he’s officially canonized. The suffering souls can still be petitioned for prayers for us, we’re sure you know. 🙂
p.s. please see our question to you up above if you missed it.
I think Roman Watcher is close, but doesn’t quite get the characterization right. But only because he focuses on imaginary “church fathers” who got “confused”.
–
As Archbishop Chaput spoke in the last day or so “confusion is of the devil” so I think it more accurate to say that those running VII intended the outcome that you correctly identify as the confusion of diplomacy with theology. Perhaps a slightly more precise way of saying this is that those running VII sought to redefine aspects of charity implicit in diplomacy.
–
How was an aspect of charity redefined? By turning the focus away from the charitable act, e.g., the counseling of the doubtful or the admonishing of sinners, and instead onto the disposition of those seeking to do the counseling or the admonishing. First, before you even approach a heretic or a schismatic, you have to esteem their false faith. Second, you have to respect the people who hold false beliefs as people and do nothing that may seem disrespectful. If these preliminaries are not done properly they may defeat the act of charity!
–
So now those infiltrators in the church who want to thwart proselytism can cut it off merely by criticizing those seeking to proselytize as lacking sufficient esteem for false religions, or for doing proselytism in a disrespectful manner. Once the infiltrators have set the example on what is truly important and most blameworthy, the unthinking will follow the example. Pretty soon, those who out of a charitable motivation would like to proselytize or admonish are so self-conscious about it they do it in a half-hearted manner. And even worse, those without sense and a charitable inclination will conclude that proselytizing is inherently disrespectful because only a “bad” person would follow a false religion and no one is “bad”. These latter foolish people then confine their “charitable” acts to “esteeming” false faiths and “respecting” heretics and sinners and criticizing those who actually do the missionary work of the Church.
–
I rather believe that this is the result that was intended. And that is why I am deeply suspicious of JPII. The most traveled pope of all time went to the far corners of the world to do what? – to convert the unbelieving? – NO, to set a public example of how one esteems false faiths and respects infidels.
–
So the first phase of the destruction of the Church was to destroy its missionary nature by making some Catholics very self-conscious in how they go about proselytizing thereby limiting their effectiveness and by shuttling other Catholics off onto fools errands – unending dialogue with those in false religions to demonstrate esteem for the false faith and respect for the adherent.
–
Now we have the second phase – the destruction of the moral life of Catholics and the model is already in place. Just get Catholics to believe that being insufficiently welcoming to an unrepentant homosexual or adulterer is a greater sin than the act of sodomy. So lets see here, Pope Francis or the crypto Cardinal Schonborn can redefine the spiritual works of mercy either out of existence, or into a form where the originals are inverted? Wake up good Catholics and call these wolves in sheep’s clothing out!
–
Of course, this approach accords with threats made by the Alta Vendita, that given enough time, the church would be so corrupted by masonic ideas that “loyal” sons of the church would be marching under the banner of the enlightenment and the French Revolution without realizing it.
Fr. Ratzinger’s journey continues. He is repudiating himself as much as Francis.
How nice of you to ask. My wife informs me that Anastasia Gabrielle’s* due date is actually 12/4.
—–
*If it had been 12/7, she just might have been Anastasia Yamamoto. As it is she takes the name of +Lefebvre’s mother.
Just to clarify, by “falling for the bait”, I didn’t mean that the SSPX would disregard their doctrinal objections and join the modernists without objection. What I meant was that the SSPX would be suckered into a meaningless publicity stunt that did no good for the SSPX and only really provided some window dressing to the modernists, like, e.g. “Pope Francis can’t be THAT crazy because Bishop Fellay didn’t make a condition for the meeting the immediate deposing of the Pope – so don’t you all run out and join the local SSPX chapel”!
Did you ever think that the modernists fear that if they move too quickly they would cause overnight a mass defection to traditionalist groups?
Whether this is good or bad depends on exactly what the content of the faith Pope Benedict would like to see proclaimed. If it is the “Catholic” faith now corrected by the ideals of the French Revolution I don’t think this is a good idea! Just sayin’.
Dear A Catholic Thinker (and family)
Beautiful. We’re keeping you all in our daily prayers. God Bless.
And we also have to wonder whether the Jews are now included in the mandate “to make disciples of all people”…..
“…professes the thoroughly preposterous notion, “Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles making both one in Himself” (NA 3)… ”
## It is to be hoped that the Church does believe the “notion” in question, since it is what St Paul says:
“…19 For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. ”
– Colossians 1
And:
” 11 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 17 AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. ”
– http://biblehub.com/nasb/ephesians/2.htm
– http://biblehub.com/ephesians/2-17.htm
## Whatever may be the problems with Nostra Aetate, it is hard to see how its recalling of what St Paul says in Ephesians 2 & Colossians 1 can be objectionable.
“…one wonders exactly what it means to suggest that a given text is just somewhat binding and kinda authoritative.”
## That is not what Archbishop Pozzo said, however. He implies – accurately – that the different documents differ in their binding force. A pint of milk and two pints of milk are different measures, one being greater than the other – but they are both measures, even though of different size. The difference between documents of different binding force is not in whether they both have binding force – they are equal in having such force – but is in the weight of their force. This is not a novel distinction, but one that is familiar from pre-Conciliar theology manuals. The weight of a dogmatic definition is greater than that of a proposition that is taught non-infallibly but as authentic Catholic doctrine – both are authoritative, though different in force. A law can bind in conscience, even though it is not a defined dogma.
That a conciliar document lacks the force of a dogmatic definition, does not mean it has no authority; and does not mean that, if it teaches, it does not teach authoritatively. Conciliar documents have many claims on the attention of Catholics – they need not define dogmas, in order to be entitled to reverence and respect and obedience. The notion that because a council is pastoral it can be dismissed as being without authority, implies that is somehow not pastoral to teach with authority and the intention of binding the conscience.
I think we are stuck with V2 – and that the way to deal with the problems in the texts, is to take them in a Catholic sense; IOW, to interpret them in the light of Catholic Tradition. It seems the Church is saved from trouble, not by being spared from undergoing it, but by being helped to endure it: the storm on the Sea of Galilee was not calmed by Jesus by being made to “unhappen”, but by being endured while He lay asleep in the boat, seeming idle, but with His Disciples even so. There is in V2 plenty that is Traditional – ISTM that we should use to the full everything in it that is of that description.
““In fact, many today think religions should respect each other and, in their dialogue, become a common force for peace. According to this way of thinking, it is usually taken for granted that different religions are variants of one and the same reality,” the retired pope wrote. “The question of truth, that which originally motivated Christians more than any other, is here put inside parentheses. It is assumed that the authentic truth about God is in the last analysis unreachable and that at best one can represent the ineffable with a variety of symbols. This renunciation of truth seems realistic and useful for peace among religions in the world.””
.
## It does not follow, however, that because false consequences like those described are drawn from the notion that religions should respect each other, that religions should not respect each other. The false conseqences are not the only possible ones – one can be drawn by respect for the admirable features of Islam or Judaism to desire that both Muslims & Jews should become Catholics.
.
The Fathers were able to admire & respect the ancient philosophers such as Socrates & Plato; they even adopted a good deal of Stoic & Neo-Platonic thinking – just as later on St Thomas learned a very great deal from Aristotle. One can respect and learn from ideas that are not wholly free of error – by learning what others have said and thought, one’s own intellectual horizons can be widened, so that one is able to understand more adequately the Faith one holds already.
.
And by understanding the beliefs of others as they hold and value them, one is enabled to see where the differences really lie, & to avoid caricaturing beliefs one does not hold. Even when full agreement is not possible, willing to understand one another goes a long way to defuse the danger of bitterness and rancour that so often disfigures discussions between adherents of different religions & POVs.
.
Besides, if God in His Goodness has not deprived non-Catholics of all light & grace, surely Catholics should give thanks & praise to God that He has granted to non-Catholics sufficient grace and light for them to come and know Him. His gifts and graces always remain His, no matter where they are found. Whatever good is found in creatures has no other source but God Himself, Who is Uniquely Good, and Whose Providence rules all creation, and not His Church only.
Dear ACT:
But maybe modernist Rome does not consider the SSPX as being crypto-lefebvrian?
.
With the new brain trust, anything is possible. 😉
Dear ACT:
Great to hear it.
The Armaticii will keep you and your family in our prayers likewise.
Dear ACT:
I second that motion. 🙂
B/t/w, the Armaticii pray to (the other) St. Marcel nightly. 😉
I do not think it does any good for Catholic clergy to appear to seek agreement with a man, Jorge Bergoglio, who (among so many other things) in his own meticulous language asserts that God does not exist, but that it is his thinking and experience, shared by many others, that God is “a reality”.
If God does not exist, what “reality” does God actually have? Is God only real because we think and feel it?
Or, is God “the supreme Spirit, who alone exists of himself, and is infinite in all perfection” (Penny Catechism)?
Sources (links below must be prefixed with “http:”)
“God does not exist: Do not be shocked!”
//en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/10/09/pope_at_santa_marta_what_we_dare_not_hope_forp/1108212
“God – and this is my thinking and experience, shared by many from past and present! – is not an idea even if a lofty one, the fruit of human thought; God is a reality with a capital ‘R’.”
//m.vatican.va/content/francescomobile/en/letters/2013/document/papa-francesco_20130911_eugenio-scalfari.html
Dear Cyprian:
You touched on a very important point. The actions of the modernist’s could have an “unintended consequence”, just like their brutal manipulation of the bishops at the Synod brought about the revolt.
Dear All:
.
Several aspects of this latest modernist Rome overture to the SSPX need to be pointed out.
.
The full interview is on the Rorate Caeli website at the following link: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-next-steps-between-holy-see-and.html
.
First of all, it is apparent to all that even with Benedict’s very generous act of lifting the ex-communications, the modernists have not been supportive… or I could even say obedient to that Holy Father. What we witnessed was manipulations with respect to the documents that were sent over to the SSPX for their consideration. The texts in those documents “kept on changing” with blame being ascribed to the SSPX, through a fault not of their doing. It was basically dishonest.
.
Next, it would appear that the agenda (hidden) of the modernists has been one of trying to promote “diabolical disorientation” within the Society. This interview by cd. Pozzo is produced in that spirit. I would go even one step further. This interview has the fingerprints of an “Archbishop Bruno ‘slippery as an eel’ Forte” all over it. Bear in mind that there are rumors that Forte will be appointed to the CDF when Muller is sent packing to Germany. And the Ecclesia Dei is under the CDF. And it looks like Francis is setting up the ultimate death match between bishop Fellay and “slippery as an eel” Forte.
Having said the above, please keep in mind the following witticism: “Even though I might be paranoid, it does not therefore follow that someone is not out there trying to kill me”.
.
Therefore, reading the text of the Pozzo interview, it is a classic case of trying to set “brother against brother”, within the SSPX. This campaign has created tension, but has not been successful as of yet. Therefore, it looks like the modernist’s have set out to “make it happen”.
.
But as we know, a sword always has two edges. What is important (IMHO) to take away from the article is the following:
.
The carrot:
1) Personal Prelature : This is huge, since it “could” provide the Society with a level of comfort. This comfort would be created due to the SSPX being outside of the control of the local ordinary where their chapels are located. True independence.
2) The other aspect that also needs to be mentioned here is that of the financial/administrative independence. The SSPX have the upper hand since they own their property and are not dependent upon the local ordinary or Rome for their existence. This is the big difference between them and the FFI. Since the FFI did not have their own property, they were “invited” by the local ordinaries and given churches. And we see who easy it was for those churches to be taken back a single act of Francis. With the SSPX, it is different.
.
The stick, ( and a slippery as an eel stick at that):
I think that the stick is the “cleverness” of our “slippery as an eel” bishop has applied to the distinction between doctrine and practice. By the SSPX agreeing to those conditions set out in the interview, and treating doctrinal matters as just pastoral, what the SSPX will in effect be doing is burning the incense at the altar of the “god of surprises”. This would completely ruin their credibility.
.
Therefore, my humble suggestion is a follows:
Since cd. Pozzo brought the documents of VII into play, we should make that the starting point.
.
– SSPX starts with speaking about doctrinal aspects of their position to that of Rome. SSPX asks for a wider discussion about VII, since cd. Pozzo put that on the table.
.
– SSPX asks to bring .. say cds Burke, Muller and Pell into the wider discussions. The wider discussions would be not only to reconciliate the SSPX with modernist Rome, but also to reconciliate modernist Rome with Tradition, as defined in the SP by Benedicts XVI.
.
The rationale would be that since BXVI put ‘something’ on the table. And now that ‘something’ has changed, there is no need to start from scratch, but just to continue along the road of that something.
.
And this ‘something’ now, due to the Secret Synod fiasco, needs to encompass the entire Tradition of the Church, not just the SSPX. What is critical here is not reconciling the SSPX, but rather after the disastrous Synod, restoring the authority of the papacy.
.
As for practical next steps, Bishop Fellay should invite cd. Muller and cd. Burke to Menzingen. A pontifical High Mass according to the 1962 John XXXIII rubric would be in order.
…..
And they could chalk it up to the ‘god of surprises’, beside, it would be very ecumenical to boot. 😉
______
Further thought, the reconciliation of the SSPX is very simple. According to .New Catholic, the following can be done NOW:
“Note: different sources on the ground have suggested the possibility that one of the “stages” mentioned above in the last answer by Abp. Pozzo could be simply the (obviously unilateral, on the part of the Holy See) recognition of faculties and the end of the suspension a divinis of the members (i.e. clerics) of the Society.”
Besides, who is “Bergoglio to judge” how the SSPX “journeys to God” since “rules that do not lead to God are obsolete”. This must also encompass Francis’ rules.
Cyprian,
Your analysis is profound, I am in admiration. Yet, I distinguish between those who intended this, and those whose theological acumen was so low as not to recognize it. I cite the exampel of the Archbishop, who certainly was Catholic and with a few opposed the course of V2, and I recognize that among men, there are always some with malice, some with good will and some with good will and clear understanding. Thus I think it is wrong to say the Fathers of the Council all knew what they were doing, even when they by a large majority approved of the documents. In any event, since those documents contained no formal teaching, canons or anathemas, they do not bind anyone to anything in particular, so I would not call them “teaching”, though I do accede that your characterization is very apropos, it is exactly, analogously, what the liberals are doing in the civil state, with first attempting to change sentiments, then words, then laws, then outlaw sentiments words and rights, pushing civil society every toward the masonic ideal.
Here is a little note, from a friend of Pozzo who dines with him on occasion: Pozzo at table viciously insults and attacks the SSPX, the ArchBishop and those who attend the TLM calling most of the latter fanatics, and asserting their fanaticism must be controlled and managed, so that they return to the NO!
The source who gave me this is impeccable for his trustworthiness.
I would say to the Bishops of the SSPX, forget dealing with this Janus!
More clerics coming out on our side. 😉
_____
Cardinal Meisner Complains that John Paul II Was Excluded from the Synod
______
Link here: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/10/cardinal-meisner-complains-that-john.html
______
cd. Meisner:
The word and doctrine are both together from “the Word made flesh, the Christian faith.” “Saint Pope John Paul II. was inexplicably excluded as it were from the preparatory bodies of the Synod. How do you explain this?”
______
How do you explain this …. indeed?
______
“JPII/Familiaris Cosortio Miracle Thursday” Marian devotion? 😉
And speaking of “JPII/Familiaris Consortio Miracle Thursday”, turns out that bishop Oliveri played no small part in it’s formation.
______
Albenga-Imperia: Bp. Oliveri responds to Italian media
-Plus: Oliveri-hatred by liberals comes from 1980
______
Link: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/albenga-imperia-bp-oliveri-responds-to.html
_______
New Catholic writes:
” Archbishop Bruno Heim, the Pope’s representative in Great Britain, had been present in person and generally supportive. But his deputy at the Apostolic Delegation in Wimbledon, Mgr Mario Oliveri, was deeply suspicious. While Heim was away ill, he allowed himself to become a channel through which some extremely conservative Catholics could denounce the congress to the Vatican. One paper he forwarded was headed “REASONS WHY THE NATIONAL PASTORAL CONGRESS OUGHT TO BE STOPPED”, and another complained that the congress delegates “appeared to be drawn, on the whole, from either those holding progressive views or from amongst those who know little or nothing about the nature of the Church”. It went on to appeal to the Pope to visit England in person, to “help English Catholics to defend the Faith of their Fathers, for the sake of their children”.
.
Worlock complained that these papers had gone to Rome without the bishops being given a chance to comment on them. Oliveri replied that the bishops had to take seriously the complaints of the people who had written to him.
.
Well, now we know why the heterodox want his blood so much: they have wanted his head for 35 years! ”
_____
Like they say, ‘payback is a ….” 😉
More great news: Tradition advancing.
______
TLM for All Saints in southern Indiana
______
Link: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/event-tlm-for-all-saints-in-southern.html
_____
Deo Gratias
Archbishop Lefebvre, ora pro nobis.
There is doctrinal confusion within the SSPX which has to be cleared. When they admit it then they are in a position to correct Mons. Pozzo and the CDF.
…and Monsignor Guido Pozzo
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/01/and-monsignor-guido-pozzo.html#links
The SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 says that there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus while the last comunique of Bishop Bernard Fellay (to Friends and Benefactors) says there are exceptions in Vatican Council II to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is confusion.
The same errors were made by the SSPX at their annual conferences in Rimini,Italy.
For me LG 16 LG 8, UR 3, NO 2 are not explicit in 2014 and therefore are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So why are they exceptions for Bishop Fellay, Fr.J.M Gleize, Fr.Francois Laisney and the SSPX District Superior in Italy, Fr.Pier Paolo Petrucci?
There is doctrinal confusion within the SSPX and in there interpretation of Vatican Council II while Mons. Pozzo is of no help.
He wants the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II interpreted with an irrational premise.This would be pleasing to the Jewish Left.
Would you say that was also an oversight of Archbishop Lefebvre ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/would-you-say-that-was-also-oversight.html
There is doctrinal confusion within the SSPX which has to be cleared. When they admit it then they are in a position to correct Mons. Pozzo and the CDF.
…and Monsignor Guido Pozzo
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/01/and-monsignor-guido-pozzo.html#links
The SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 says that there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus while the last comunique of Bishop Bernard Fellay (to Friends and Benefactors) says there are exceptions in Vatican Council II to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is confusion.
The same errors were made by the SSPX at their annual conferences in Rimini,Italy.
For me LG 16 LG 8, UR 3, NO 2 are not explicit in 2014 and therefore are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So why are they exceptions for Bishop Fellay, Fr.J.M Gleize, Fr.Francois Laisney and the SSPX District Superior in Italy, Fr.Pier Paolo Petrucci?
There is doctrinal confusion within the SSPX and in their interpretation of Vatican Council II while Mons. Pozzo is of no help.
He wants the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II interpreted with an irrational premise.This would be pleasing to the Jewish Left.
Would you say that was also an oversight of Archbishop Lefebvre ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/would-you-say-that-was-also-oversight.html
Admin.
Sorry for the duplicate message. Please remove one of them.
Thank you.
New Sherwood
Rome and the SSPX are using an irrationality in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. So a pastoral document contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Lumen Gentium is not dogmatic but if you consider LG 16, LG 8, LG 14 as referrring to cases who are saved in invincible ignorance etc and who are now in Heaven without the baptism of water, and who are visible on earth to be explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus you get a Vatican Council II which is a break with Tradition. It has become dogmatic. In the sense, it has done away with the dogma on salvation and other religions.
My2cents
If Vatican Council II is ‘discovered’ to be traditional on other religions and Christian communities then it is the Vatican Curia which will have to go on the defensive.
SSPX will have met the requirement of accepting Vatican Council II ( without the false premise), they will maintain their traditional doctrines and be given canonical status with the independence which they seek.
The first step however is to identify the irrational premise which all sides are using and then there can be a big change in the doctrinal situation vis a vis Vatican Council II.
Dear Roman Watcher:
Thank you for the info.
Why am I not surprised.
Having said that, I personally think that Bishop Fellay is playing this very well. He appears to be genuinely negotiating, but somehow a deal just don’t seem to get done.
Like the Israeli Army, which is always withdrawing from the Palestinian territories, but somehow never manages to complete the withdrawal.
____
Should be interesting to watch play out.
_____
The SSPX should have plenty of new friends in Rome with the Bergoglian Kristallnacht against the Catholics in full view. 😉
Lionel writes:
There is doctrinal confusion within the SSPX which has to be cleared. When they admit it then they are in a position to correct Mons. Pozzo and the CDF.
…and Monsignor Guido Pozzo””
_____
W inning T he F uture!
______
Must be caused by the “diabolical disorientation” that bishop Napier refereed to at the Secret Synod. 😉
From the same speech: “”We proclaim Jesus Christ not to procure as many members as possible for our community, and still less in order to gain power,” the retired pope wrote. “We speak of him because we feel the duty to transmit that joy which has been given to us.””
Still infected with the “new orientation” I’m afraid. It’s still fearful, defensive, still afraid to offend modern man. See, we DO proclaim Jesus to make as many converts to our “community” as possible because outside our “community” there is objectively no salvation. The bottom line is that the joy we wish to share is the joy of eternal life. If it’s not a matter of eternal life vs eternal death, it’s all for naught and our efforts of evangelization become meaningless.
This speech appears to be an improvement, but still has a ways to go.
The whole text of Benedict ‘ speech is online – http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/first-major-text-of-pope-benedict-xvi.html
My take…better than Francis. Still “New Theology”…meh.
Coming out of his retirement is good for Benedict.
_
Too bad it’s w/r/t ecumenism.
_
But I guess he wants to stay away from the ‘third rails’. 🙂
_
Unfortunately, Benedict is acting like Giuseppe Nardi observed: a remote-controlled sheep.
_
How the mighty have fallen.
Cardinal Pell launches another broadside attack on the Secret Synod round II.
_____
“In prepared text for #SumPont2014 Pilgrimage Mass, Cardinal Pell says no ‘doctrinal backflips’ at 2015 Synod
_____
Link here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/in-prepared-text-to-sumpont2014.html#more
______
Key points:
.
Remembering that optics are everything, this:
“The Catholic News Service (CNS) of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was there at the FSSP-administered Parish church of Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini, Rome, for the Mass that was supposed to have been celebrated by Cardinal Mass.”
.
Note: By the USCCB being present at the Pontifical High Mass, this is tantmount to b***c-slapping Francis.
____
Next:
cd Pell letter:
“Doctrine does develop, we understand truth more deeply, but there are no doctrinal backflips in Catholic history,” the cardinal wrote. “The apostolic tradition announced first by Christ and founded in the Scriptures is the touchstone for truth and genuine pastoral practice.”
.
Note: Knowing that it was Francis behind the Relatio fiasco, cd. Pell b***h-slaps Francis.
______
Looks like the forces of Good are mobilizing. And even larger, they are mobilizing around the Traditional movements. Wonder if this letter is not in response to the modernist fanatics actions against bishop Oliveri?
@S.Armaticus: Thank you for your diligence in reporting Church news and your analysis. Your work is very valuable.
–
Regarding the FFI, just a small point of clarification. While it may be true that in many instances the FFI is dependent on dioceses for physical facilities and resources to do their valuable work, that was not true in all cases. As it turns out, some of the houses were owned by the laity, and not by the diocese. I believe that it was necessary that someone else besides the order – whether it be the local bishop or the laity – own the property because the brothers by their vow of poverty could not own property themselves.
–
This small detail became important during the recent unjust persecution of the FFI by modernists within the Church. Modernists who have to be doing the bidding of malign outside interests since they are dead-set on attacking the best in the Church – particularly when that best is growing and showing signs of vibrancy through vocations.
–
Well, in any case the “commissar”, no, I mean the apostolic visitor Volpi accused the FFI of converting (a fancy word for stealing) Church property to private interests – lay family members of those within the order. Thus, he was concerned that the impression be given at the beginning of his unholy “crusade” that the persecution of the FFI was not about their increasingly traditional charism only, but really about an order that was being mismanaged in many ways – both from a practical worldly perspective (property dealings) and from a faith perspective as well. The property in question was never Church property, but was rather property owned by the laity that the laity allowed the order to use. So Volpi was not above bearing false witness – mischaracterizing lawful property dealings by the order as unlawful – to justify his reign of terror against the order.
–
It is a grave scandal this episode in Church history that such an order was attacked by enemies of the Church from within the Church with nary a cry by the faithful. My criticism extends to those within the FFI itself who went beyond the duty of obedience and far into the realm of false obedience by assenting to this evil project.
You should inform Rorate Caeli, they could use the information.
They may not be, using jurist terminology, formal bindings, but they most surely are material ones, de facto embraced by what you incorrectly call the Church.
If you want to be “in communion” and a “good Catholic”.
The fact the SSPX has problems, nay, its very existence, are proof of this.
Dear Cyprian:
Thanks for your comment. Just trying to help out.
.
As to the honesty, or rather dishonesty of the modernists, it is breathtaking. And it is so flagrantly apparent.
.
You just have to wonder about a thought process that can justify breaking all the underlying tenants of the faith that they take a vow to uphold. And this dishonesty can be seen from the Bergoglio, down through his bishiops and all the way to the radical elements in the laity who write letters that they know to be patently false against their enemies, real or perceived.
.
I would understand the above described thought process, if we were dealing with a Marxist revolutionary movement. One that literally based it’s actions on a definition of “good” being that when helped the movement/party, and bad being that which hurt the movement/party. But here we are dealing with people who supposedly know better.
.
Or do they?
how they justify their behavior and that they see the ‘basis’ for their own individual salvation.
The last sentence should read:
I wonder how they justify their behavior and how they see the ‘basis’ for their own individual salvation.
Benedict sends his regards… to SP pilgrimage.
_______
The Message of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI to the Summorum Pontificum pilgrims in Rome #SumPont2014 (full text)
______
Link here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-message-of-pope-emeritus-benedict.html
______
Full text:
.
Benedictus XVI
Papa emeritus
Città del Vaticano
10-10-2014
.
Most honorable Delegate-General,
.
I have at last found the time to thank you for your letter of the past August 21. I am very glad that the Usus antiquus now lives in full peace within the Church, also among the young, supported and celebrated by great Cardinals.
.
I will be spiritually with you. My state as a ‘cloistered monk’ does not allow me a presence that is also exterior. I leave my cloister only in particular cases, [when] personally invited by the Pope.
.
In communion of prayer and friendship.
.
Yours in the Lord,
Benedict XVI
____
Couple of things:
First Benedict uses the term “Usus antiquus” instead of the term “Extraordinary Form”. Could be significant since he is the one who coined the latter term.
.
Second. The Giuseppe Nardi observation of Benedict as a “remote-controlled” sheep is confirmed. Living as a “cloistered monk” yet coming out when Francis lets him out (!). Wonder if this is a similar situation in which Mr. Manelli, former head of the FFI finds himself in, with the exception that Francis never lets Father Manelli out.
____
These questions need to be asked, just because the situation is so bizarre.
Oh. Almost missed this.
_____
jBenedict:
I am very glad that the Usus antiquus now lives in full peace within the Church, also among the young, supported and celebrated by great Cardinals.”
.
Note: Coming out to say that the TLM enjoys support of the young and the great Cardinals is nothing short of a b***h-slap of Francis.
.
Ruins the narrative that it is only the stubborn older types who have an emotional sentiment. Second, the adjective ‘great’ in front of the word cardinals. This implies that the really cool cardinals, are celebrating according to the pre-VII rite.
______
The master will not be pleased. 😉
Congratulations, and God bless you all.
-Dear Cyprian,
We believe there was, and is still a much broader spectrum of motivating factors among those in power in the Church, than what you outline We’ve noticed everything from . well-intentioned ignorance, stupidity at the level of the “biblical fool” ;naïve infatuation with experimentation and novelty, rebellion, personal disobedience, masonic and communist ideals, the list goes on (with many overlapping combinations) all the way to following Satan by choice- who is at the bottom of all the evil on earth.
___
With all that in mind, we assume “diminished capacity” and leave the judging of interior motives to God, applying the benefits of reasonable doubt to every situation we can, without acquiring “Pollyanna” mentality.
____
It’s risky to certify rather than speculate about why a Pope JPII or council father/ theologian went personally astray, when there was so much misleading philosophy being promoted by trusted teachers, which drew its followers with the lures of -good will towards all mankind; solutions to the problems of today; “novelty” dressed up as “return” to what God originally intended or to what He Mysteriously now provides that is in accord with that– in ways we cannot know, “because it is from the (new, illogical, ) “Holy Spirit”. etc…
Should they all have known better because there was clear teaching to compare it to? Yes. Did they all deliberately reject that? Only God knows the answer to that, unless they revealed it explicitly. Most of them seem “duped” to us.
Indignus Famulus,
if you read the complete text of the speech here:
http://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.it/2014/10/benedetto-xvi-agli-studenti-della.html#more
you wouldn’t be so cheerful.
Basically it’s the same ol’ same ol’ relativistic modernist charade, with a tiny bit of criticism towards excessive indifferentism. Nothing more.
Usual concept of Ratzinger of a Catholicism merely a most perfected form of religion among many, whom can all be positive or negative at the same time, nonetheless all expressions of God. (yes, he doesn’t think ALL religions are exactly the same, but who does?)
Catholicism as an evolving, imperfect faith, which needs to be critical of its own past.
Christ to be shared with the world, NOT BECAUSE it is the only Truth and only mean of Salvation or… because He commanded us to, but because He’s “love, joy, etc.”
May I remind you Ratzinger sure thinks Christ is the only way to Salvation, but because of this he thinks all “christian” sects are therefore salvific.
So a recap, in Benedict’s theology, all religions are inspired by the Holy Spirit and long for Christ. Those that do, are salvific (prots, orths, and catholics), and among those Catholicism is the most pure form, albeit perfectable, non extempt from errors in the past, and evolving with Science and Modernity hand in hand.
Indignus Famulus, in my little corner of the world, our SSPX church was, by order of superiors, very proactive regarding the Synod on the Family. We were asked to pray a Rosary novena from the Feast of St. Michael, Sept. 29., through the Feast of the Holy Rosary, Oct. 7. Our pastor, and all at least in the US, were instructed to preach 3 Sunday sermons on the Catholic teachings regarding marriage. Our adult catechism class on Oct. 19 was spent itemizing and correcting the errors of the Relatio.
The SSPX was formed for the purpose of furthering the priesthood, and their priests were very busy during the past few weeks instructing the faithful in their charge.
And.. Benny could help himself and not blaspheme the Lord yet again:
“Peraltro, l’incontro è sempre reciproco. Cristo attende la loro storia, la loro saggezza, la loro visione delle cose”
“Moreover, the meeting (between Christ and the false demonic idolatrous religions!!! -Bert) is always reciprocal. Christ awaits their history, their wisdom, their vision of things”
Wow.
Benedict can give a “jolt” and burn Francis, even when not dealing with “third rail’ issues.
______
Benedict speaks about ecumenism.
______
Mundabor has the analysis. Link here:http://mundabor.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/lethal-to-the-faith-benedict-on-francis/
______
Quote:
“Coming to the paper itself, it is, as always by Benedict, very rich and profound; and as always, the difference in intellectual stature between Benedict and Francis is extremely embarrassing for the latter.”
.
Note: Yep!
+
“Yes, of course he will deny he was attacking Francis. No! God forbid! Perish the thought! He was merely saying the Truth. Can it be the poor man’s fault that every time someone says the Truth this is clearly in opposition to what Francis says?
.
Note: Like clockwork.
_____
Must read.
_____
To paraphrase an old public service announcement: “This is your brain… this is your brain on VII. Your brain, it’s a terrible thing to waste.” !
S.Armaticus October 25, 2014 2:08 pm
Benedict can give a “jolt” and burn Francis, even when not dealing with “third rail’ issues.
______
Benedict speaks about ecumenism.
______
Mundabor has the analysis. Link here:http://mundabor.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/lethal-to-the-faith-benedict-on-francis/
______
Quote:
“Coming to the paper itself, it is, as always by Benedict, very rich and profound; and as always, the difference in intellectual stature between Benedict and Francis is extremely embarrassing for the latter.”
.
Note: Yep!
+
“Yes, of course he will deny he was attacking Francis. No! God forbid! Perish the thought! He was merely saying the Truth. Can it be the poor man’s fault that every time someone says the Truth this is clearly in opposition to what Francis says?
.
Note: Like clockwork.
_____
Must read.
_____
To paraphrase an old public service announcement: “This is your brain… this is your brain on VII. Your brain, it’s a terrible thing to waste.” !
I prefer the audacious, flamboyant, gross, cartoonish theology from Francis than the diabolical, sophisticated, sophistic theology Ratzinger has plagued the world with for decades.
That is not Catholic Truth by a long shot.
Moreover, what has exactly Ratzinger done differently than Francis regarding “false ecumenism”?
Except for that one citation the moslem crazies got angry about and forced him to apologise?
Francis hasn’t had an Assisi as of yet…
Bert:
It’s some sort of “partial truth” that subsists in Truth.
__
But it was that one citation that counted.
___
Do you remember what the then bishop of Buenos Aires said about that citation?
___
At the end of the day, it’s analogous to being able to distinguish what is going on in the Kremlin by observing who stands next to whom on Lenin’s mausoleum during the October Revolution Day parade. 😉
Dear Craig,
You’re right that the “new orientation” tends to dwell exclusively on positives like joy (often with a non-spiritual meaning) rather than on sin and eternal damnation- so you may be right about his “having a ways to go”
___
And yet he truly Faithful today may have become a bit trigger-happy to the point where we reject any mention of joy, automatically, assuming “modernist” error and forgetting how often joy is spoken of in Scripture- in connection to relating the Gospel to others, and not just for the future, but even for now, while we suffer:
___
JOY EVEN IN TRIBULATION:
-St.Paul: ” I exceedingly abound with joy in all our tribulation. (2 Cor.7:4)
” Strengthened with all might, according to the power of his glory, in all patience and longsuffering with joy”(Colossians 1:11)
___
JOY OF FAITH -NEW BELIEVERS IN GOD’S KINGDOM:
-“Which a man having found, ..for joy, thereof goeth, and selleth all that he hath. (Matthew 13:44)
-“They .. passed through Phenice, and Samaria, relating the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren.”(Acts 15:13)
___
JOY IN THE REAL PRESENCE, SHARING TRUTH, MARY THE CHRIST-BEARER, AND GODS FULFILLED PROMISES:
-Gabriel: “And thou shalt have joy and gladness, and many shall rejoice in his nativity.”(Luke 1:14)
– “And the angel said to[the shepherds]:Fear not; for, behold,I bring you good tidings of great joy, that shall be to all the people”(Luke 2:10)
-John-Baptist: “.. the friend of the bridegroom,.. heareth Him, rejoiceth with joy because of the Bridegroom’ s voice. This my joy therefore is fulfilled. (John 3:29)
-Two Marys: “And they went out quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy, running to tell his disciples.”(Matthew 28:8)
-Jesus: “These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be filled. (John 15:11)
-St.John: ” And these things we write to you, that you may rejoice, and your joy may be full.”(1 John 4)
-OurLady andthe Twelve: “And they adoring went back into Jerusalem with great joy.(“Luke 24:52)
___
AND IN CONTEMPLATING THOSE PROMISES YET-TO BE EXPERIENCED
-Jesus: “there shall be joy in heaven upon one sinner that doth penance, more than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance.(Luke 15:7)
-Jesus: “-Jesus: ” you now indeed have sorrow; but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice; and your joy no man shall take from you.” (John 16:22)
-Jesus: ” Hitherto you have not asked any thing in my name. Ask, and you shall receive; that your joy may be full.”(John 16:24)-St.Paul: ”
-St.Paul: “all chastisement for the present..seemeth not to bring with it joy, but sorrow: but afterwards it will yield, to them that are exercised by it, the most
peaceable fruit of justice.” (Heb. 12:11)
-St.Peter: ” Whom having not seen, you love: in whom also now, .. you believe: and believing shall rejoice with joy unspeakable and glorified; (1 Pet.8)
-St.Peter: “But if you partake of the sufferings of Christ, rejoice that when his glory shall be revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy. (1Pet 4:3)
-St.Paul: “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.”(1Cor.2:9)
==============
Dear Maryk,
That’s great to know, and generally taken for granted by us regarding the local activities of SSPX parishes. What we were referring to in our above comment was the general public/more official type comments by the SSPX leaders, regarding the Synod, etc. We had gotten the impression they were not doing much of that lately, versus the amount of press we saw regarding the Cardinals like Burke and the Pope. No denigration of the SSPX intended at all, we hope you understand.
Francis just invites the heretics and pagans to the Vatican. For the right price he’ll even rent out the Sistine Chapel.
Best person to write with “scoop” is New Catholic. His email is newcatholic@gmai.com. If one is on twitter, just go to the Rorate Caeli website and use the twitter functionality.
____
We live in the information society, and Rorate Caeli is read by all, i.e. the sheep, the wolves and the sheep dogs. 🙂
Dear Berto,
Trust us, it wasn’t “cheerful” we were trying to express–more like surprise coming from the Grinch/Pope-writing-as -theologian who attempted to steal Christmas angels singing Glory to God in the Highest and to assure the Faithful that we need not make efforts to evangelize the Jews because God has it all in His plan to convert them. We disagree with those who consider this criticism “little”.. Using the words “renunciation of the Truth” and “lethal to the Faith” are not insignificant especially as the whole criticism is of the very things Pope Francis has been doing for 20 months now. He didn’t have to say that, it’s obvious. So yes, we are surprised, but not crying “miracle”. 🙂
Summarum Pontificum pilgramige b***h-slaps Francis. 🙂
______
Cardinal Burke gets mobbed after Political High Mass.
______
Father Z has the scoop:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/10/rome-day-6-procession-pontifical-mass-at-st-peters-sumpont2014/
______
Fr. Z writes:
“After Mass Card. Burke was pretty much mobbed.”
______
Parolin wrote in Francis’s name. Wonder if they told el papa? 😉
And more great news from the “Old Evangelization”
______
SSPX: A new Dominican community
______
Link: http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/new-dominican-community-5298
______
SSPX website:
“This new community of traditional Dominican friars was founded on November 15, 2013 in Steffeshausen, a little village in the southeast corner of Belgium. They were invited there by the villagers after the death of their parish priest, who had kept the traditional Mass and was persecuted by his bishop some 25 years ago. They offered the church and rectory built by this priest to these friars as a first home for their fledgling community. Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, who assists those religious communities affiliated with the SSPX, accepted to help the foundation as its ecclesiastical superior.”
_____
Brick by brick, village by village. 🙂
Dear Berto,
Right about that . Francis is much easier to see through on the outermost level, anyway. Yet he can use that to trip people up by saying he just “misspoke”.
Just a reminder of the bishop Fellay inteview post Muller meeting.
_____
Link here:http://sspx.ca/en/news-events/news/fellay-doctrinal-questions-must-be-clarified-5120
_____
Bishop Fellay:
“But what has not changed is the fact that the Roman authorities still do not take our criticisms of the Council into account, because to them they seem secondary or even illusory, given the severe problems in the Church today. These authorities do recognize the crisis that is convulsing the Church at the highest level—now among cardinals—but they do not consider that the Council itself could be the main cause of this unprecedented crisis. It is like a dialogue of deaf people. ”
_____
Eels have no ears. 🙂
True,
I had forgotten about Francis inviting the imam in St. Peter itself for him to invoke moslem triumph over the world or whatever he said.
Is it too farfetched to imagine Francis having an interreligious meeting inside St. Peter’s (or maybe St. Paul’s?) itself with demon worship and all completely desacrating it?
Thank you all. Bert, with four kids, it’s not likely I’ll find any time at all to post here anymore; there’s something you can be truly thankful for. 😉
And the walls, they come tumbling down. 🙂
______
Fr. Blake: The Bad Breath of Corruption.
_____
Link here: http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com.tr/2014/10/the-bad-breath-of-corruption.html
______
Fr. B writes:
“So tightly did things appear to be controlled, so lacking in clarity during the Synod, I had a dream that chained and dressed in their blue-grey habits emaciated and pale from their months in prison would be brought into the Synod Hall singing Nabucco a coffle of Franciscan Friars and Sisters of the Immaculate. They were an example of justice in the Church to anyone who might have the temerity to go against the predetermined plan. Their crime after all these months has not been disclosed, either to the the Church at large or to them themselves. Their suffering appear to be that they have simply ‘displeased’. The refusal to disclose the ‘how’ and ‘who’ of the Friars offense is one of the looming injustices of the Church today.
_____
And Mundabor links: http://mundabor.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/pope-belshazzar/
_____
Mundabor writes:
“What TMAHICH (The Most Astonishing Hypocrite in Church History) wants – in its confused and inconsequential way of non-thinking – to say is that adulterers, concubines and perverts should sit back and relax; because others, the corrupted politicians and rich people and, no doubt, rosary counters are all much worse than them.
.
It is, as always, tragically amusing that the man who has been persecuting the FFI without even a shred of a credible accusation for now fifteen months should be so incredibly hypocritical as to go and lecture us about justice. I insist on the moniker The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH, ® Mundabor 2014) because in the case of this man this trait is as evident as the blindness of the Voris school of thought is scandalous. It is healthy to look at reality as it is. It is stupid, and dangerous for your soul, to keep ignoring the attacks of this oh so humble man on everything Catholic.
______
Father Blake blasts away and Mundabor blasts away. A knockout one two punch. 🙂
______
How much longer will this circus go on?
Background to the “le affaire Oliveri”: EF unleashes
______
“Papal Purges and Their Claques — Political Orientation More Decisive Than Allegations?
______
Link here: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/10/papal-purges-and-their-claques.html
______
Quote:
“Edit: a claque is a chorus hired by a play’s producer, playhouse manager, or in some cases an Emperor who’s written a play, to cheer, or I suppose, even boo, a play.
.
Note: And that is just the editors note! 🙂
+
“Pope Francis seems to be continuing his cleansing against tradition. “Ruthless and relentless” says Messa in Latino . Reasons are not known. A stone is thrown into the pond and yet it never lacks worthy men who would not grab it. Francesco Colafemmina, combative art and cultural critic, therefore, speaks of the purges and their claques.”
______
MUST READ
_______
The dots are being connected.
______
Francis and his claque have staged their own version of the Producers! “It’s springtime for Hitler ….. make that Jorge, in Nazi Germany…… make that …..Peronist Vatican”. 😉
______
As one no doubt understands after reading the post: ‘It’s a work in progress”;)
Don’t be silly,
if you’d no longer have the time to post here, you’ll be missed by all.
Our disagreements are speckles in the grand scheme of things.
Congratulations on your four children, they must be an anchor of solace during this dreadful storm (and I’m not only talking about religion here).
I’s hard to put into words HOW MUCH we’d like to believe this is GENUINE..
but Judy Brown (American Life League) has been telling our Bishops the same things for almost 40 years now -even writing books to explain where they took the wrong path.. And SUDDENLY, the African Bishops’ convictions turn on that light bulb?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlCVrC2C16Y
p.s. Or is there a C.Dolan twin making videos?
Once again His Holiness Pope Francis, in his latest homily on the family, is sure to anger both the right wing legalists and the left wing libertines.
–
With regard to the preparation of young people, Francis asked: “How can you lead engaged couples to marry after only two courses? You can not! It is a sin of omission on our part, of the priests. Marriage preparation must start from far off. Many do not know what they are doing when they hey get married, without knowing what it means. The conditions that they promise are important: they all say ‘yes’, but do they realize that this culture of the provisional – not only in the family but also in the Church – destroys? We need to recuperate many things that are proper to the family, but we cannot be scandalized by the crisis”.
People who do not get married, he concluded in his response, “who just live together, who choose ‘part-time’ cohabitation … Here are the new forms, totally destructive and limiting the greatness of marriage. That’s why we have so many separations , divorces … The key lies in accompanying, not proselytizing which leads nowhere. Only accompanying with great patience”.
–
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Pope:-Never-before-has-the-family-been-under-such-attack,-Church-renewal-starts-from-the-heart-32527.html
Dear Ganganelli,
Also he again says: “The Church does not grow through proselytism, but attraction. This attraction comes from our witness” “There is nothing more important.”
and:
“How can we best help in the renewal of the Church?”….Changes must occur “because life changes. … I am helped in this by the freedom of the Spirit, let him free to lead us to do enormous things..”
and:
“The devil exists..and puts so many obstacles on the road. Lack of communication, the tower of Babel, are examples of this. While the Church builds the Holy Spirit, the devil builds something else. That’s where we have to work for a culture of encounter, to help us come into contact with each other..”
==========
We’re afraid to ask what he means by “the Church builds the Holy Spirit.”
God is the same yesterday, today, forever. He seems to speak far more often of “attraction” than of the miracles, and blood of the martyrs and many other dedicated Saints who proselytyzed dilligently for 2,000 years in obedience to the mandate of Christ.
— Scripture says “put not your trust in men”. When people rely on “attraction” they feel through individuals–no matter how holy they seem, sooner or later they will be let down by them. But when they rely on the promises and Truths of God, and Graces through His Sacraments, they can never be let down, because all of those put them directly in touch with God, Who never fails us.
You make some very fine points but, from my point of view at least, I think the Holy Father understands that we live in a “pre-nup agreement” world where the idea that marriage is forever is seen as a quaint relic of the past.
–
How does a Pope deal with that? Well, St. JPII and His Holiness Pope Benedict wrote encyclicals, exhortations, etc. restating the Catholic doctrine. And the world couldn’t have cared less. We got more no fault divorce laws, more pornography, and more of the “hook-up” culture. Oral sodomy is practiced among heterosexuals nearly as much as among homosexuals. This is especially true of the youngsters, the so-called millennials.
–
I recently saw a comment from a person who considers herself very anti-Pope Francis. She said something along the lines of, “well, if the Pope gives communion to the divorced and civilly remarried, I’m getting my tubes tied.” At that moment, I understood why so many “faithful” Catholics don’t like this Pope. Rather than seeing the Church’s teachings as blessings that bring ultimate happiness, she was looking at the Church’s teachings as “rules” that she had to follow in order to get to Heaven.
–
The Holy Father wants to reach the lost sheep who have grown up in this disgusting sex-obsessed society and teach them how really beautiful Christ’s teachings are. After all, when you’re on your deathbed, are you really going to regret that you didn’t sleep around enough? Are you going to regret saving yourself for your one and only spouse? Are you going to regret not giving into temptation and sleeping with someone other than your spouse? Are you going to regret not filling yourself up with synthetic hormones because you were unwilling to abstain from relations a few times a month?
–
The latest homily of the Holy Father just reiterates my belief that he wants to reach as many people as possible and show them that living according to the Church’s teachings will not only bring you happiness in the next life but, truly, also in this one.
@Ganganelli: I am interested in your interpretation of John 14 in view of your apparent conclusion that legalists and libertines would be equally displeasing to Our Lord. I say Our Lord, and not the Pope, because if we are of one mind with Our Lord, it really doesn’t matter what the Pope believes, correct? In any case, here is the portion of John 14 that I am interested in:
–
“Philip saith to him: Lord, shew us the Father, and it is enough for us. Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, Shew us the Father? Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works. Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? Otherwise believe for the very works’ sake. Amen, amen I say to you, he that believeth in me, the works that I do, he also shall do; and greater than these shall he do. Because I go to the Father: and whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, that will I do: that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you shall ask me any thing in my name, that I will do.
–
If you love me, keep my commandments.
–
And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you.
–
I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you. Yet a little while: and the world seeth me no more. But you see me: because I live, and you shall live. In that day you shall know, that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith to him, not the Iscariot: Lord, how is it, that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not to the world? Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him. He that loveth me not, keepeth not my words. And the word which you have heard, is not mine; but the Father’s who sent me.”
–
I am wondering if you are not mistaken in view of John 14 in your apparent claim that Our Lord would be equally displeased with both legalists and libertines. I don’t know what else to conclude from your statement, for your formulation implies that they would be equally blameworthy in the sight of Our Lord.
–
In any case, Our Lord appears in this passage to side with those who take a legalistic approach to his teachings and commandments. Now, the apparent reason he sides with those who take a legalistic approach to his commandments and scrupulously follow them is because Our Lord believes the motivating factor for those who keep his commandments is their love for Him. Also, by negative implication, it would seem that Our Lord would conclude that those who do not keep his commandments do not love him. Have I misunderstood this passage in your estimation?
–
Further, Our Lord here makes no mention of half-measures. For instance, Our Lord did not say that that he would credit in some way those who did not keep the letter of his commandments, but who did manage to honor somewhat their spirit in acts that objectively violate them.
–
No, I fear Our Lord would interpret such a half-hearted approach to his commandments as being half-way to the error of the pharisees who honored neither the letter nor the spirit of the commandments of the Almighty. For example, by erecting a mountain of man-made laws surrounding relatively simple and easy commandments to follow (e.g., dietary laws) while engaging in legalistic hair-splitting to convince themselves that acts which do violate the difficult commandments to honor (e.g., those concerning human sexuality) really don’t.
–
Rather, Our Lord does appear to take a legalistic approach when it is His commandments that are at issue – and not the false “commandments” of men.
I do agree that @Ganganelli makes some good points about the state of affairs amongst the youth and modern views of ‘marriage’. If Francis is genuinely concerned about this, then I would accept varied approaches on the matter.
I get the feeling though that it is really just a trojan horse for the ‘homosexual acceptance’ which is just non-negotiable. The two issues should be clearly separated–which I think even traditionalists are failing to do.
No, I agree with your interpretation. If you love Our Lord, you will try your very best to follow ALL the commandments and you will go to confession when you fail with a firm purpose of amendment.
–
The legalists I ran into when I was attending trad chapels may better be described as hypocrisy. They seemed to commit all the deadly sins EXCEPT lust. It seemed like there was a secret fertility contest going on among many of the women to see who could have the most kids. I knew of one woman in particular that didn’t breastfeed so she could get her fertility back faster. But it was like this was ALL that mattered! So no lust but let’s look at the rest of the 7 deadly sins.
–
1. Gluttony – yep. Most of the fertility contestants were OBESE and would often use the excuse of their pregnancy to flat out engorge themselves.
–
2. Greed – I didn’t really see this one too much although some were on state aid.
–
3. Sloth – Oh yeah. Big time. Some of them sat around watching TV all day while making the older kids practically act a nannys to the younger ones.
–
4.Wrath – Another big one. Someone was always angrily engaging in gossip. Thins like “How could she be married 7 years and only have 3 kids….They MUST be contracepting.”
–
5.Envy – Yep. And this worked both ways. For some it was envy at another family having more children than they did. For others, it was envy at those who couldn’t conceive. Comments were made like, “I’ll pray for you but at least you’l have some peace and quiet with your husband.”
–
6.Pride – The biggest problem by far. “I’m part of the remnant Church unlike those apostate Novus Ordo people” or “I’m such a faithful Catholic because I have 13 kids, nevermind that I weigh 300 pounds and make the older kids cook dinner.”
–
It’s not like EVERYONE had these type of legalistic/hypocritical views but it was very prevalent.
I must disagree here somewhat. The only reason we will get homosexual acceptance is because of the atrocious behaviour of heterosexuals. Both homosexual sodomy and heterosexual sodomy are mortal sins. But my guess is the heterosexual sodomite will suffer more in Hell. Unlike the homosexual, the heterosexual sodomite has a perfectly proper body part to use for those acts that God intended to propagate the human race. It is shameful that a heterosexual would engage in oral sodomy in order to “spice up” the marriage or some other such nonsensical excuse.
–
It’s gotten to such a ridiculous point in this country that I have work acquaintances that go on and on about how disgusting “faggotry” is but then THEY admit to watching lesbian pornography.
–
The Holy Father has such an immense job ahead of him in this sick sex-obsessed world.
Francis is starting to sound like he’s reading from the old 12 step PR policy of “attraction rather than promotion”. Of course it’s a natural fit: the idolatrous group-god spirituality of Bill W’s great hoax of a recovery movement is practically mandated by the American Court system and rented-out church basements the world over.
Pope Francis attacks corruption as a ‘worse evil than sin’ in blistering address. Pope Francis condemned corruption claiming it was a worse evil than sin, but compared it to bad breath… http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2807545/Pope-Francis-attacks-corruption-worse-evil-sin-blistering-address.html
–
‘worse evil than sin’?
In regards to ‘sex-obsessed’ world; the biggest error was in the Church not investing in film studios. Compare the situation to the counter-reformation… or even Catholic history.
Communication of the ‘faith’ was always a multi-level process… not just preaching from pulpits but in providing a spiritually-artistic vision of the soul and its journey.
————
But the issue of Marriage is something else. A healthy marriage (for most of Human history) was not just spiritually beneficial, it was optimal for practical, natural and communal reasons.
With current laws and society–a Catholic union is a severe burden on the ‘sheep’. Expecting the ‘sheep/flock’ to sacrifice like Saints is a bridge too far I’m afraid. Now how this problem is solved is debatable.
Excellent point on Film. So many good movies could be made.
–
I’m not following you on marriage. What do you mean that a Catholic union is a severe burden on the sheep?
Dear Ganganelli, [Regarding your response to us under (#24) above]:
What you wrote strongly suggests a very familiar liberal view, that because a sinful culture has helped to lead a majority of people to refuse to take God’s commandments seriously, (choosing to ignore even strongly worded, past papal corrections; viewing Church teachings as a list of “rules to get to heaven” rather than as “blessings” to help them), that a new more radical “approach” is not only understandable but necessary and justified.
___
You ask: ” How does a Pope deal with that?” , and then write: “The Holy Father wants to reach the lost sheep who have grown up in this disgusting sex-obsessed society and teach them how really beautiful Christ’s teachings are.
=====
To accept your idea, we would have to ignore the facts, as if Our Lord and his Church didn’t want that very same thing for the last 2,000 years. He dealt with what Scripture declared “a world in darkness” and He called a generation so sinful, “deaf” and “blind” that He could only to speak in parables; a generation which ended up calling for a murderer’s release and His Crucifixion, saying “let His blood be on us and our children”.
====
Did Jesus ever say anything remotely resembling the idea that we must learn to adapt our approach to “attract” people, or did He say
“If you follow Me the world will hate you.” and “No servant is greater than his Master. If they hated and persecuted Me they will hate and persecute you….”etc.
=====
You wrote:
“The latest homily of the Holy Father just reiterates my belief that he wants to reach as many people as possible and show them that living according to the Church’s teachings will not only bring you happiness in the next life but, truly, also in this one.”
Then do you also accept his belief that committing sacrilegous reception of Communion, and dying in a state of mortal sin, will bring a soul hapiness, despite the Church dogma that one unrepented Mortal sin will send them directly to Hell for all eternity?. Or do you deny that he is promoting this sinful reception? If you acknowledge it, then should you not refrain from making unqualified statements that imply there is no harm in what he is “wanting”.
Dear Ganganelli,
Please see our response (#29 below) to what we see as harmful in the view you express here.
Dear Ganganelli,
You here define leagalist at hypocrite, and base that accusation on your own external judgments of their internal dispositions and what you believe to be their mortal sins–listing what appears to amount to mere gossip on your part, and sinfully usurping God’s place in judging their hearts..
___
Legalist, when used in the way you apparently intend as criticism, usually refers to those who demand that others keep the “letter” rather than the spirit of the law. Such as the Pharisees demanding tithes to the temple which required people to ignore the care of aging parents. The error lies not in their personal insufficiencies, but in their twisting of the meaning of what is required of all in order to follow God’s Commands.
This from Msgr Pope on October 22. Goes to the truth that the SSPX are among the only priests who preach the Catholic Faith in season and out of season – no matter what. There is surely something diabolically disorienting about the continued persecution of these good priests.
“A former Archbishop of Washington was known to often remark, “There’s nothing deader than a dead priest.” Some wondered as to the meaning of this expression, and those who knew him the best explained that it was a sort of version of the old Latin expression Corruptio optime pessima (The corruption of the best is the worst thing of all).
Of all the men on the planet who need to be alive, vocal, clear, and active, the priest is one of the most critical. For if he is doing as he should, and like a herald, summoning the faithful to be true to the gospel. He can reach thousands, who in turn can reach thousands more. But if he fails, the whole chain of the gospel is broken at the critical link and falls to the ground.
The same Archbishop also told us priests that if we did not go to bed tired most nights, something was wrong. There is nothing deader than a dead priest.
Two images from Pope St. Gregory the Great come to mind in this regard. He writes them in his Pastoral Rule, which is must reading for every priest. But every father of a family and every leader in the Church can also benefit from Gregory’s reflections. Both images are drawn from the ancient Jewish Law in reference to the priests and Levites.
The first image pertains to the priest’s duty to work hard:
Both the breast and the right shoulder [of the sacrificed animal] are offered to the priest for food so that he may learn from the sacrifice that he has received to offer a corresponding sacrifice to the Creator of all things (Lev 10:14-15). Thus, not only is he to have right thoughts in his breast, but by putting his own shoulder to good works he invites to sublime heights those who watch him (Pastoral Rule II.3).
So, it is not enough for the priest to be learned in orthodoxy. That is clearly essential. But he must also be willing to work hard in proclaiming and teaching the doctrinally orthodox faith by patient and persistent work. He teaches not with words only, but also by his works and by his manner of life. He cannot merely speak of prayer, he must pray; he cannot merely warn of greed, he must live simply and humbly; he cannot merely speak of chastity, he must live chastely; he cannot merely counsel love, he must love. To adapt an old expression, he must live faith, heart and shoulder above the rest.
The second image pertains to his duty to speak, to preach:
Moses was enjoined that when a priest goes into the tabernacle, he should be canvassed with little bells, a sign that he must have a voice for preaching, or else by his silence he provoke the judgment of Him who sees everything from above. For it is written, “So that the sound is heard is heard when he entered and exits the sanctuary in the sight of the Lord, so that he may not die” (Ex 28:35). For the priest who enters and exits will die if a sound is not heard from him because he provokes the wrath of the hidden Judge if he goes about without the sound of preaching.
The bells are appropriately described as being inserted into his vestments because what else are we to understand the vestments of the priest to be but good works? The psalmist attests this when he says, “Let your priests be clothed with righteousness” (Ps 131:9). The little bells therefore are fixed to the vestment to signify that the works of the priest should be proclaimed by the sound of his voice and the way of his life (Rule II.4).
Pope Gregory’s ability to see the significance of seemingly small things is magnificent. Here he draws on the simple truth that the High Priest, gone into the Holy of Holies, wore a vestment with sounding bells. And as long as he moved and said the prayers the bells rang, signaling that he was alive before the Lord of Glory. But if the bells (of preaching) fell silent, then he was surely dead, for no sound came from him. All that could be done was to drag his dead body from the Holy place by the rope that was tied to his ankle.
The Image is clear: no sound, no life. A silent priest is a dead priest. And there is nothing deader than a dead priest. He is good for nothing but to be dragged from the Holy Place and buried underfoot.
Let priests and bishops who have ears hear. Let all leaders in the Church who have ears hear! Let parents, catechists, teachers, and elders hear! Let us heed Gregory’s warning: to be silent is to be dead, good for nothing but to be dragged off and buried.”
Dear Ganganelli,
You write:
“The only reason we will get homosexual acceptance is because of the atrocious behaviour of heterosexuals. Both homosexual sodomy and heterosexual sodomy are mortal sins. But my guess is the heterosexual sodomite will suffer more in Hell”
___
If you are referring to masturbation or heterosexual fornication as “heterosexual sodomy” then Church teaching and Scripture disagree with you.
Scripture refers to sodomy as “sins which cry out to God for vengeance”
while St. Paul says fornication should be avoided, recommending marriage to those who have problems doing that.
___
St. Thomas Aquinas taught that masturbation and sodomy are far graver, far more disordered, than fornication between a man and a woman, as the former are even farther removed from God’s intention for sex. ___
Catholic answers writes:
– In the case of fornication, the act itself is completely natural, and the man and woman involved may even have the good (though disordered) desire to please the other out of love, but the context, outside of the marital covenant, is wrong.
-In the case of (masturbation/homosexual acts) the act is completely unnatural, completely foreign to natural law, and always in every case disordered.
-“Why then do we as Catholics seem to treat fornication as a much more serious issue? …there is a disconnect between theology and the moral compass of the faithful on this issue. “
Indignus, your comments are the perfect summing up of the several that go before it. There has been deep injury to philosophy and theology for more than 100 years. We are suffering the results of that now.
—
My new mantra is: if I had been in the very shoes of Cardinal Kasper, given his temperament, his family, his education, his teachers, the influence of his peers, and the demonic pressure he has been/is under – I might be worse. This does not excuse him because as a Catholic he has the DUTY to seek the TRUTH, but it does give us a base from which to judge his ACTIONS rather than his motives.
—
So we try to inform, teach, preach, pray that the very basics of TRUTH will again be revealed. But we have to begin at the beginning not the end. Philosophy – true philosophy must be taught from Kindergarten through university.
Lionel, let’s get the Catholic Church back preaching and teaching and living the One True Faith before we start harping on that the SSPX teaches regarding who gets saved!
—
Remember the story of the Little Dutch Boy with his finger in the dyke? Let’s acknowledge that the SSPX is that little boy. Try to imagine what our Church would be like without their painful struggle to keep the Faith.
—
It is important that all our truths be taught. But we must pull way back and start at the beginning, not half way through, or at the end.
—
I beg you to pray for Bishop Fellay and all the priests there that they hold the waters back.
Yes, and what I see is Bishop Fellay, or his designates, don’t run for a microphone with the fall of every leaf.
—
They generally wait until they have something to say. And when they say anything it’s well thought out, with back-up!
Good thoughts, Jimmy. What I see these days is a lot of open-ended questions like: what are the challenges faced by those in irregular relationships? How can we walk with them? How can we hope to bring them to Jesus if we use harsh language?
—
But I’m not seeing any answers put forth.
—
The answer is, of course, to teach the Truth. To teach the solutions to the various problems. To teach that no solution is put forward in isolation: there is grace to meet any situation. To teach the Truth that there are sins. To teach that sin will keep you out of Heaven, and you will throw yourself into Hell if you are not convinced of these Truths. to teach the Truth that we will walk with you, but only as far as the door of the Confessional.
—
We hear only the questions without the answers.
We must remember that nobody chooses evil as evil. Our psychology will not allow this in a health mind. So the evil we see is the good others see.
—
This of course goes to motives. When one is blind, even wilfully blind, one is really blind.
Nail on head.
—
This is the crux of the matter. Those who cling to VII simply cannot see that the philosophy, and theology behind it are faulty.
—
As I said elsewhere, the blind, even the wilfully blind, are still blind. And they lead others into the pit.
—
How do we expect, short of a miracle, a VII believer to switch to the perennial Truth?
We don’t learn much about this, but the greatest danger for the SSPX is defection within their ranks. There is not an unappreciable number who believe all sorts of silly things, lead by frustrated pastors. They have become afraid of what’s going on, and split away, chapel by chapel from Bishop Fellay.
—
Especially as their society is so large, and in so many different countries – hard for poor Bishop Fellay to keep the lid on.
Dear Barbara,
Thank you for this post, for a number of reasons.
– It is not heard often enough today. And it points a much- needed accusing finger at the seriousness of the errors included in preaching a false, one-sided Jesus Who wants today’s Catholic only to strive only for personal holiness, while “accompanying sinners on their journey” in a deliberately clammed-up state neglecting all teachings that “might”,”may”, “could possibly”- alienate anyone living in sin.
– Walking with them, exposing the innocent to their scandals,while they yet refuse to bend to God’s will. Affirming their “good “contributions to our society as if their ongoing state of scandal does not so greatly diminish the benefit of the good they do, as to erase it;, rather than letting those bells ring while we give the fullness of the love God has to offer sinners-which never neglects the truth that they now need to choose to battle for their own eternal happiness; that they must decide to reject Satan and all his works and pomps by repenting of sin and before it is too late for them and they lose their eternal souls.
====
We need to trash the “hippie mentalities” of the 60’s instead of letting people (including the Pope) not only revive them but go beyond them.
— Out with “Love means never having to say you’re sorry” and “Sharing is caring” when we all know they’ve come to mean ” Let me in right now, AS I am, and forget what the Church taught God wants.” “View me and respect me as “good” no matter what sin I choose to make an integral part of my life”. Or else bear the labels I and my allies will slap on you as “ignorant of the real Jesus” “uncharitable” “hypocrite” “sinful judger” or worse hopeless “phobic” i.e. mentally disordered and in need of treatment.
Enough already.
Dear Indignus,
–
I, too, was caught off guard by that interview. But then I remembered that Cardinal Dolan is about as trustworthy as a used car salesman.
–
http://bit.ly/1DkbEGI
And stop trying to foist the idea on the “modern” world that the failed experiments of the past 50 years will all now be rectified by a more intense application of the licentious beliefs that led to their being tried in the first place.
Dear Barbara,
Our research bears out what you say here. A wise approach considering what is at stake.
Dear Berto,
Why use your imagination in a way that leaves it in need of a hot soapy bath, when there are enough problems in reality to occupy a wise man’s thoughts for a lifetime? 🙂 🙂
http://www.c-span.org/video/?288555-1/mike-wallace-interview-margaret-sanger
Here is a link that I think demonstrates just how far back the rejection of the primary purpose of marriage and the beginnings of the redefining marriage took place. I think this link might just be of benefit for those who still stand behind the poison of NFP. Until one sees that one cannot plan to separate procreation from unity they will be always be in the camp of the contraceptors and sodomites no matter how much they say they dispise this group.
p.s. These last two paragraphs are of course, directed at the false ideas of liberals and not at Barbara’s comment.
Dear Anastasia,
We haven’t yet viewed your link, and we do respect your freedom to voice your opinion here as long as Louie permits it. But what your personally deciding to label NFP as the “rejection of the primary purpose of marriage” disagrees with the teachings of two Popes (including Pius XII), as well as many of the pro-life clergy around today -such as Cardinal Burke -who have publicly contradicted your ideas in this regard, especially your insistence on calling NFP sinful, while lumping it together with the actions of those who misuse and abuse it.
I was referring to oral sodomy which is practiced by a great many heterosexuals.
I disagree. Never before our modern era was there such a thing as a pre-nuptial agreement. Never was there the level of pornography that we see now. I believe the Holy Spirit chose Pope Francis precisely because he can reach people who would otherwise be lost in this Godless age.
Ahh, you see Indignus. There will always be someone who thinks you aren’t conservative or traditional enough. And you are someone who attacks Pope Francis as a liberal. Why can’t Anastasia think Pope Pius XII was a liberal for his laxity on NFP? That would be hypocritical of you.
–
Everyone else, don’t end up like these two. Listen to the Rock who is Peter and you’ll have peace.
@Ganganelli
On FIlm, I just cannot believe the situation that’s developed. 400 years ago, the Catholic Church was the greatest (art) production house on Earth and every cent or florin spent was worth it. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not envisaging an RCC studio puts out uninspired Evangelical-style schmaltz that is critically poor. I mean, consider a Caravaggio painting which is as brutal and confronting as any Crime/action film today–but it still brings and illustrates the faith.
–
So it gets me that these Jewish/Masonic/Atheist studios can spend hundreds of millions pushing their own ideologies and we don’t seem to be able to do anything to counter.
–
If a Loyola was around today, he’d form a film studio because that is the way you convert souls in this age. “Our Father, who ART in heaven.”
–
So many of today’s issues (if not all) stem from that critical failure to abandon the Arts. To me, it’s treasonous. Maybe someone knows more about why this happened?
I totally agree. And there is such a wealth of material that modern audiences WOULD watch. The crusades, the European states and how people lived in them before the rise of international capitalism, the missions, etc.
RE: The burden of a Catholic Marriage.
I mean that for many people growing up today… Pursuing a faithful/sacred union has far more cons than it does pros (at least in perception). The conditions of this ‘Godless society’ just make it extremely difficult. Part of the reason is the complete failure to engage the Culture/Art War–which I discuss in another post.
I am looking forward to you viewing this link and I hope Ganganelli takes the time to view it also.
In John Vannari’s book “Close-Ups On the Charismatic Movement” he wrote, “Anne Roche Mudgerridge wrote that Cardinal Leger, Cardinal Suenens and the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch, Maximos IV Siagh, “all spoke for a new understanding of marriage that would make the sexual union of the couple legitimate without reference to procreation. They wanted the retirement of the teaching that there was a hierarchy of ends in marriage with procreation being considered the primary purpose of marriage and the other values of marriage secondary.” They ” made it clear … that it was catholic morality… that they wanted changed.”
John Vennari also reveals in this book that “The significance of Suenens’ intervention was not lost on the world’s anti-life forces. Planned Parenthood happily noted “some signs of change” in Catholic teaching and stated, “In 1962, the newly appointed Cardinal Suenens seems to be tolerant of family planning.” Of course, in Planned Parenthood literature, “family planning” is the code word for contraception. it was planned parenthood who coined the term.
In Michael Davies book, Pope John’s Council he points out that Monsignor Lefebvre saw Cardinal Leger and Cardinal Suenens document that stresses the importance of conjugal love in a different light when Monsignor Levebvre said, ” Marriage was always traditionally defined by the first end of marriage, which was procreation, and the secondary end which was conjugal love, ( I don’t mean to go off on a tangent but Monsignor Levbvre erred in using ‘love’ when he should have said ‘unity’ for the secondary purpose. Even John Paul II
in his book “Love and Responsibility” had to correct this common
error in using love as the secondary purpose rather than unity. I am not a fan of this book but john Paul does explain briefly and somewhat well the hierarchy of marriage even though i don’t think he promoted it .) Well, at the Council there was an express desire to change that definition and state that there was no longer a primary end, but that the two ends of procreational and conjugal love (should be unity) were equivalent. It was Cardinal Suenens who launched this attack on the purpose of marriage, and I still remember how Cardinal Browne, Master General of the Dominicans, rose to cry “Caveatis! Caveatis! Beware! Beware! He declared vehemently: If we accept this definition we are running contrary to the whole tradition of the Church and we are about to pervert the meaning of marriage. We have no right to go against the traditional definitions of the Church.”
As John Vennari says in his book “Close-Ups of the Charismatic Movement” “this reversal of primary and secondary ends of marriage has direct implications on the Church’s teaching on birth control. If “conjugal love” is the final end of marriage, and not the begetting of offspring, then in the name of conjugal love all acts become licit, even contraception and finally abortion.” And may I add Sodomy.
ford’s critique of dietrich von hildebrand primary purpose of marriage
Here’s another link for those who like what Dietrich Von Hildebrand says about marriage and don’t want to acknowledge that his writings pushed to suppress the hierarchy of marriages purposes for that of a newer “deeper” meaning of marriage.
One cannot “reach” people with lies, or failing to preach the truth – Christ’s teachings, not one’s own. Telling people what tickles their ears leads them further along the path towards damnation. Most Catholics have not been taught the truths of the Faith and the moral life by bishops, priests, religious, parents, for decades.
The entire issue is very disconcerting to me. Clearly these ideas must’ve been raised many times over the last 50-100 years… but why no action?
Does the “Vatican Bank Man” advise against this spending? I see hundreds of millions spent to renovate a Church for a few hundred people but a single film can reach billions of souls.
–
Something is not right here. And to all these people discussing this ‘encyclical’ or that ‘teaching’ or this ‘council in 18xx’ seem to be missing the point. People engage in maybe 25+ hours a week of ‘entertainment’. Well I’d rather tell people, watch Movie ‘x’ if you want to understand Catholic marriage or watch TV show ‘y’ if you want to see the dangers of sodomy and sin.
–
The Renaissance Popes understood this perfectly… why didn’t the 20th Century Fathers understand this?
The truth is unchanging and unchangeable. The Deposit of Faith and the moral law are unchanging and unchangeable. Stop spreading your evil ideas, politicising the objective truths of the Faith and morals. And stop attacking the messengers. None of us may purport to change the doctrine of the Faith.
Thank you, Anastasia. We see the rotten fruits, the destruction of the good caused by the rejection of the truth, all around us. Families will not be strong, spiritually, morally, economically and physically, unless they follow God’s commandments regarding procreation selflessly.
I will not stop defending Our Holy Fathers the Popes whether that be Pope Pius XII when it comes to NFP or Pope Francis when it comes to the attack by secularists on marriage. Oh, and there are even people to the “right” of you that reject all the Popes from 1130AD on. They agree that “The Deposit of Faith and the moral law are unchanging and unchangeable.” so they reject the popes from 1130AD on because these Popes allowed so-called blasphemous, indecent and pagan statues and other works in the Church. There is a word for all of those of you who don’t adhere to the teachings and disciplines of the Holy Father the Pope….Protestant.
Sorry Indignus,
I’m a bit of a pessimist by nature.
And that is positive in what way?
The (un)”Holy Father” is abusing the trust and divine mission and leading people like the woman you mention to error.
Even compromise on one single issue results in damnation, and even one lost soul on Big Berg’s hands is too much.
Shame.
N.O. rot I see.
Point one: you are talking about “homosexuals” as if they were qualitatively different than “heterosexuals” and not people in error
Secondly: you are comparing (minor) sinful activities inside of Marriage, therefore with the implicit goal of reproduction (between a man and a woman) to homosexual vane pure lustful activities.
Also your talk about body parts is disgusting, but maybe that’s me.
Finally, I can’t believe I’m saying this.. but who are you to judge what kind of punishment will whomever get in Hell as if you were some kind of new Dante?
Ultimately I imagine you are putting forth all of these examples and borderline semi paradoxical situations just to promote your agenda.
The Crusades are taboos the “Holy Father”s apologise nowdays
*for
Are you defending heterosexual sodomy? And what do you mean by semi-paradoxical?
And who are these people? Some obese woman at your parish?
Excuse my ignorance.
Also, clearly the seminude sculptures and painting in the Vatican Museums are indecent and were no doubt an error of judgment from past Pontiffs, but how does that relate to Sedevacantism?
Even Borgia was a valid Pope, no matter his private misdeeds, so I don’t even know why are you bringing such lunacy up except for setting up yet another silly comparison to promote your filthy credo.
Is someone saying genocide is worse than murder defending murder?
Bert,
–
You can find their website here: http://www.johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/
Ok thanks for the clarification. It seemed when you were saying they were “minor” you didn’t agree that they are gravely immoral and disordered and are, in fact, mortal sins.
The RJMI does not reject all the Popes since the 12th century, since they cite Leo XIII and Pius IX as valid Popes.
And the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici as valid too.
Dear Ganganelli,
-We are much more concerned with God’s truth, and that His will being known and obeyed in this life so people are able to avoid sin, than we are about what label you or others would wish to use to use describe us or Anastasia or Pius XII or Pope Francis.
___
We would be wholeheartedly helping Anastasia to spread her views if we believed she were right on this issue. As it is, we are merely letting people know that there is a substantial body of thought which contradicts them, supported by the opinions of Churchmen we have reason to respect and trust.
– We are greatly concerned for the sake of young couples using NFP today in good faith, according to the norms for serious reasons, who are being continually accused of sinning by folks who appear to mean well, but may very well be in serious error.
-Given the fiasco we’ve all experienced in our lifetimes concerning Rome, we don’t agree with your solution to this or other problems. We’ve sadly all learned the hard way- we can’t always trust our Popes’ personal views to be in line with God’s will. So until or unless the use of NFP is declared dogmatically correct, there’s a benefit to good, healthy debate and research and attempts being made to determine what God’s will is concerning it.. But also we believe it’s wrong, with these ambiguities at present, for people to be passing judgment on the state of the souls of others. .
– Bottom line, there’s no hypocrisy in it, whatsoever. Not even a double standard.
.
.
– Those can be a useful shortcut when they accurately reflect someone’s stances on a gamut of issues. But that’s about the extent of their usefulness.
We will be happy no matter which side proves “right” on this contended matter, as long as the truth is made known. As of right now, the arguments of those against NFP don’t appear to us to stand up to the arguments of their opponents. So we try to make sure people stay aware there are two sides to this ongoing debate, so users of NFP aren’t made victims of abuse by false accusers. .
els like liberal or conservative, such as you describe. When we study the ideas and teachings of Popes we compare them to what the Church has always taught, -especially if they have not been promulgated. Since there was very little written in this area, on If Anastasia and the people who believe as she does, should prove to be right about their claims, we would be just as happy for that news to be broadcast everywhere as we would be if Cardinal Burke and the promoters of NFP prove to be so, and that news gets out.
Our concern on this topic is for the many couples who have sought the will of God, and followed Church teachings, using NFP for serious reasons approved by the Church, only to be hearing from people like Anastasia that they are sinning by doing that. When Cardinal Burke comes out with an opinion, we take is more seriously than many others, because he has proven himself trustworthy on a number of difficult issues, on which he has spoken the truth regardless of his personal popularity.
If you take a good look at our comments, you’ll notice we are focused on that whether Pope Francis or anyone else contradicts what the Church has always taught. The ongoing discussion about NFP happens to be a subject not discussed very much in the past, and as such, it get’s labeled a “novelty”. We aren’t saying we know who’s right here, just that there are opposing points of view on the topic.
Sorry, the last half of the above comments was notes we meant to delete, which duplicate the first half somewhat.
That is no longer their position.
–
You can read their current position here http://www.johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/documents/articles/rjmi/tr1_rjmi_position_auth.pdf
–
In it, he says, “I reject all the so-called popes from Innocent II (1130-1143) onward as apostate antipopes because they are idolaters or formal heretics and hence not Catholic.”
We can see the fruits of Cardinal Leger’s position now in Quebec. I grew up there and in the good old days Leger was seen as a wonderful faithful bishop! I was so disappointed to learn lately that he was one of the ‘liberal’ ones at VII. His legacy is the almost complete death of the Catholic Church in Quebec, and in the rest of Canada too.
—
1) it’s all about the Mass
2) it’s all about the unleashing of concupiscence.
I guess it depends on details and distinctions we shan’t explicitly talk about here.
I object to your use of the term “heterosexual sodomy” though.
While it may be correct, it is confusing and leads to a murking of the issue, (and I guess it is precisely why you chose to use it..)
Very well articulated position. I will disagree because the advent of the internet is the only reason we could even be discussing these things. In my opinion, God didn’t give us a Church full of laymen with the duty of sifting through the various writings of Popes, Churchmen and magisterial documents and then making our own private judgment about who/what is right. Instead he gave us a Church with Peter as the Vicar of Christ who has “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church”. That’s good enough for me.
Oh ok, I wasn’t aware of that.
I also read RJMI really stands for Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi, which appears to be one single individual writing the blog.
Anyway, the existance of such individuals does not prove (anything, but also) that disobedience of the (perceived) Pope is wrong, no matter what.
Your reasoning is little more than the following: “See? There’s some crazy people who, starting from your same premise, arrive at crazy conclusions!
Therefore: you are crazy too”
Or maybe your intent is to exploit such sad individuals in a relativistic, socratic manner, hoping the news of their existence will lead to:
a)a breaking down/disillusionement on doctrine, which, after all, is not really unchanging… only crazis REALLY think that.. come on, let’s be realist here
b)a descent into uncertainty and nihilistic self-doubt: if “Richard Joseph etc etc” arrived as such insane conclusions, using my own methodology and studying the very same deposit of Faith, then how could I ever be certain I MYSELF am not wrong too?
In both cases.. better come back to the secure, paternal, familiar embrace (of spiritual death!) with the “Holy Father”, sure he will know best…
Dear Barbara:
you may be right. Do not even Satanist themselves choose Satan because they think him good and the One True God, who really “stood up” for mankind and just wants “to break them free from Jehovah’s cruel yoke”?
They truly think that, at least the ones I’ve spoken to.
I’m referring to religious Satanists.
Bert,
–
I can see from your writing that you are more intelligent than me. Having said that, my position is definitely B. I think you accurately described my sojourn from the SSPX to Sedevacantism and ultimately back to the Catholic Church under Pope Benedict and now Pope Francis.
Whether you are in good faith or of bad will, however, I have to tell you, there’s no obscene diabolical argument I haven’t heard, from the malicious lies of Protestants, to the arrogant, pompous declarations from “orthodox”, to the Satanist bizarro scriptural exegesis, to the Khrisna and New Age trips (sometimes literal trips, such as the ones they think Jesus took to India), to the Book of Mormon I have in my library, finally to the N.O. circus of insanity.
N.O.s are possibly the most diabolical ones, as some are directly guided by demons (the reason why is obvious, I will not explain why).
They won’t stop at anything to demolish certainties and are ready to repudiati virtually the totality of Catholicism to push their view.
Once I had the blessing of encountering a N.O.ist so determined he was willing to denounce Papal Infallibility (using the Arian controversy historical events) in order to show me.. I should listen to the “Pope” no matter what.
Another time, one held the view Catholicism had always been a lie since the Vulgate, because of an incorrect translation from the Greek of “ages” with “eternity”, and therefore the christian belief in eternal life after Death was false, and therefore Catholicism was a false religion and therefore whatever Rome wanted to change, could.
Once I even encountered people using Rosaries as black-magic, praying to the Virgin for curses upon those refusing to be in perfect communion with Francis.
A mention to Medjugorje also, where Satan put up a immensely expensive dog and pony show in order to convince people the V:II religious indifferentism is sound doctrine.
Wow Bert, you take ending a sentence with a preposition to a whole new level.
🙂
Funny but the most pro-Crusades film was Lord of the Rings.
Sendros,
I only recently found out Tolkien was apparently a devout Catholic.
While of course a fantasy world, and apparently incompatible with Christianity, in the Lord of the Ring’s universe there is actually only one true God, called Iluvatar :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eru_Il%C3%BAvatar
All the other so called deities, are in fact created beings (comparable to angels, but much more active and powerful).
And just as the Biblical narrative tells us, some remained “good” while others degenerated into evil.
All of these is found in LOTR’s appendixes and in the Silmarillion.
I agree that it is a delicate subject and prudence is required when talking about it on a public forum. I’m quite taken aback though at your objection to the term heterosexual sodomy as such acts, even between married couples, were against the law in Virginia until just this year.
Ganganelli:
no need for praise (no matter if genuine or false).
Given your troubled history, perhaps the prudent course of action should be supportive criticism of others instead of all out attack (tone is irrelevant here, you are using many heavy tricks at your disposal).
Who’s to say you won’t change your mine again? Maybe someday Francis or his successor will say/do something so blatantly wrong to awaken you from your easy and comfortable self-imposed slumber.
As I see it, temptation is not only of the flesh, in fact, in this day and age, the one of the mind is even deadlier and more elaborate.
May be you succumbed and don’t even realise it, if not on a unconcious level.
Sorry Mike,
I can’t seem to get used to not having a “edit” button.
Couple that with being in a hurry most of the time, it is a recipe for disaster.
I’m not quite sure which specific acts you are talking about here, and also fail to see how the laws of the State of Virginia are relevant to Catholic doctrine.
Re: Changing my mind again. Yes, I have already considered that. My position right now is unfailing adherence to the Roman Pontiff. So, and I’ve been asked this before, what would I do if the Pope were to say impose Islam(purposely trying to be hyperbolic here). My answer is that I would embrace deism as believed by Thomas Paine..
Again I want to be discrete here. Both Catholic doctrine and civil law proscribe certain acts that are against the natural law. Both Catholic doctrine and civil law make no distinction whether such acts are committed by females on males or by males on males.
Dear Ganganelli,
You are of course, entitled to your opinion. It is one we once held ourselves, up until we observed the detrimental effects of that kind of blind obedience on the souls of so many people we know and love. The problems which stem from it are as numerous as the clergy who hold differing opinions of what the Pope means each time he expresses himself. If we carry your thinking to its logical conclusion, as we were taught to do when younger, then we never question anything our priests say or do either, as they represent Church authority to us, and speak on Christ’s behalf through the Pope. If you’ve ever known or heard the story of a priestly molestation victim, then you should understand why people have stopped trusting that system to work. The answer is teaching our children and grandchildren to filter everything everyone tells them, through the lens of right and wrong, truth and falsehood-for their own protection. Where do you stop with that? At the level of the Bishop, Archbishop? Cardinal? Pope?
Sorry. Too many lies have been told, and too much false teaching has led people we love astray, for us to take the words you wrote above, and apply them without exceptions, as you seem to be promoting. And if you make the exception in one case, when something seems wrong to you by the rightly formed conscience you pray you have, then you realize it is not about position or office. It’s about protecting the innocent from Spiritual harm, and you have to make that exception any time something which seems wrong, occurs..
You are antichrist.
You put faith in the Pope before Christ himself and openly admit you would renounce Christ (not only not die for Him) if a certain subset of events were to take place.
Thomas Paine!
Lord have mercy.
“I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.” St. Augustine
Pope Close Advisor & Member of Council of Nine Cardinals “Excommunicates” Faithful who go to SSPX Masses – Full Text [ http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/pope-close-advisor-and-member-of.html#more ]
Berto, The Lord of the Rings is heavily Gnostic.
–
Fantasy, Tolkien, and Mystic Flight, part 1 http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20140128-Fantasy-Tolkien-and-Mystic-Flight-part-1.html
–
Fantasy, Tolkien, and Mystic Flight, part 2 http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20140128-Fantasy-Tolkien-and-Mystic-Flight-part-2.html
Christopher,
it may very well be gnostic.
I never said it IS a catholic book, there are many elements utterly incompatible with christian theology.
Off the top of my head, such as Elves reincarnating, no or dubious afterlife for Men, Creatures creating other living beings (dwarves) and I’m sure many many more.
Deistic, with vague catholic connotations at best.
But it’s not nearly as bad and damaging as things like neopagan pro-blackmagic Harry Potter and such.
Thank you for your lecture though, I will try to listen to it soon.
That quote would mean something in the context of this discussion if St.Augustine’s situation in any way resembled yours.
As far as I know, he wasn’t itching to go back to Manichaeism if the “Pope” would turn out to be a manifest heretic (I suppose he would simply accept his invalidity as he believed a manifest heretic ceases to be Catholic).
Also wasn’t his conversion prompted by a supernatural intervention (a voice) and not a rational, personal decision to embrace catholicism?
Where is that quote from anyway? Are you sure it is not simply a rhetorical device or figure of speech?
Moreover, Augustine’s quote speaks of the Church as a whole, not the Bishop of Rome.
And it’s not as if a Great Apostasy is predicted in the Bible itself, or anything.
I wonder how can Faith subsist on such frail and aleatory foundations as the ones you seem to possess!
But thank you both for a great addition to my N.O. list, and another, real, admitted, case of personal need over truth.
Berto, in the lecture by the good priest, he lists quite a few consequences of the effects of Lord of the Rings. If you could listen to the lecture, it’s well worth the time.
Dear Indignus Famulus,
I fail to see how,after everything I have linked and written from Tradition, Scripture and Casti Connubii, not to mention common logic and natural law, do not outway your reference to Pius XII’s private letter to the midwives and Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae and your view on what Cardinal Burk has said on NFP.
As to me judging souls. Please. These duped NFPers need to be told the truth so they can be saved from their errors that are causing them to sin. To remain silent and to not instruct them because one might fear upsetting them is not charity. I am sure you have heard this said before on this site.
Just look at how PaulVI’s Humanae Vitae proceded. It proceded in the exact say manner we see today with the push to change the doctrines on the divorce and remarried in this current Synod. Both were facing huge realities one that the majority of Catholics were gobling down the birth control pill and the other that a geart number of people are linning up for very questionable annulments and divorcing and remarrying and receiving communion.
What did Pope Francis and PaulVI do? Why set up a committee or questionaire to examine and bring up in public our needs and our dirty laundry. They have used these commitees and questionaires to justify what they have already decided to do. Namely to try to change doctrine without appearing to do so while trying to apease the voice of the people. Humanae Vitae gave carte blanche to endorsing the contraceptive mentality when it teaches that one can’t artificially contracept but you can (new word, new idea) “naturally contracept” I think most would be good with that because it all just boils down to what this committee in the sixties wanted, to be confirmed in their contraceptive mentality. And really did Humanae Vitae slow down the contraceptive mentality? I would have to say hardly with over 90 percent of Catholics contracepting today and the utter destruction of sexual morals regarding marriage and procreation.
Watch the Synod results next year as we see them trying to convince us that they have upheld the doctrines on the divorced and remarried while at the same time they tell us that we have come up with a soluttion that will not infect doctrine by announcing that they have decided to streamline the already questionably fraudulent Tribunal system and make it even easier and more private for a person to “fix” their complicated marital situation by keeping the new tribunal system between the Priest and layfaithful only. And then we can all breath a sigh of relief because they kept the tribunal system. They just after all will only change the rules a bit surrounding how we operate the tribunal system.Hey, we can even mayby make Pope Francis a saint for standing up for the doctrines on divorce just like we are hopping to make PaulVI a Saint for his standing up against contraception in Humanae Vitae.
For those who may not have understood the subtext of my exchange with Ganganelli, Ganganelli was using a broad brush to tar everyone who is concerned with Our Lord’s commandments as pharisaic legalists. That is both simplistic and slanderous. Sadly, he echoes the approach of the Pope in this regard.
–
Now, in reality contained in the group of all those concerned with Our Lord’s commandments there are several sub-groups. Those of interest to this discussion are two – the first being those who love Our Lord and wish to honor Our Lord by obeying his commandments. The second group of interest are those who place their love for themselves ahead of their love of the Lord.
–
These latter people are divided in their motivations. They want to be united with Our Lord, but they bristle at the sacrifices Our Lord requires. They may reflect their inner division by honoring Our Lord’s commandments through clenched teeth. Or they may rationalize slight transgressions against Our Lord’s commandments as not in fact violating them. Or they may attempt to reinterpret the commandments outright so that the “revised” commandments no longer reflect what Our Lord commanded. In any case, among this latter group of people are those who are usually called legalists. Like IF said legalists are those who may honor the letter of the law, but not the spirit.
–
When Ganganelli comes here to stir up trouble, one of the ways he likes to do it is by claiming that those who are focussed on Our Lord’s commandments ALL fall into both the legalist and the hypocrite category – if they claim to be traditionalists. In other words, there are no traditionalists who are interested in Our Lord’s commandments so that the may know them so that they can obey Our Lord and thereby demonstrate their love for the Lord.
–
Sadly, the Pope in his pronouncements apparently shares the same opinion of traditionalists as Ganganelli.
–
So, since Ganganelli won’t make the distinction between those who follow Our Lord’s commandments because they love Our Lord and those who do less by either violating Our Lord’s commandments, or by following them only for self-interested reasons I adopted Ganganelli’s approach. Anyone who takes an interest in Our Lord’s commandments are legalists according to Ganganelli.
–
Ganganelli nonetheless is stuck with the fact that those who he falsely calls legalists (those with a pure heart) do manage to honor Our Lord’s commandments, What did Our Lord make of those who followed his commandments? Our Lord assumes those that manage to honor his commandments do so because they love Our Lord. So when using Ganganelli’s overly broad definition that captures those who are not in fact legalists, Our Lord appears to be a legalist too.
–
But Our Lord was no legalist since Our Lord desires that we obey his commandments out of filial devotion – that we honor them in spirit not only in the letter.
–
Now, those who do not manage to honor Our Lord’s commandments all the time can be reconciled with Our Lord even if they only fear judgment and hell as long as they have a firm purpose of amendment when they confess their sins. This fear of judgment is called attrition, and it is an anathematized heresy to say that attrition alone is insufficient for pardon. I pray that Ganganelli understands this distinction, for sometimes his writing indicates that he believes traditionalists are beyond redemption.