Challenge: Are men like Karl Keating, Michael Voris, Jimmy Akin, Marcellino D’Ambrosio and others willing to answer this one very important question:
Is Mortalium Animos still the faith of the Holy Catholic Church?
See VIDEO of the Holy Father’s latest ecumenical get together.
An excellent question. And a good one for the likes of Cardinal Burke. Why did Cardinal Burke support St. JPII and Benedict XVI’s ecumenism, interreligious dialogue and Assisi I,II,III?
Why doesn’t any “journalist” worth his salt ask the following question to Burke? If Cardinal Burke, as you say, Church teaching never changes, how could you enthusiastically support the papacies of St. JPII and Benedict XVI in light of Mortalium Animos? Burke is a hypocrite of the highest order.
This is not about Cardinal Burke. The challenge is for the four amigos in the header.
As Keating and Akins are converts it’s pretty easy to find words that suggest they have a tendency to the kind of unity not in Mortallum Animos. I’m happy they converted to the One True Church, but from listening to them over the past 10 years they should NOT be advising others about the Catholic Faith.
Voris I think is solid. The other fellow I only know by name.
The deeper question is why do the documents of Vatican II diverge so severely from this wonderful old teaching? Mortallum Animos is short, clear as crystal, and there would have to be a really good reason to change one comma of it.
Vatican II, and every word coming out of Rome since 1965 has made MA seem like it was written on parchment with a quill pen. It’s just so yesterday. We’ve evolved into mature Christians and welcome and love, oh and don’t forget mercy, are where it’s at.
As for the video, PLEASE!!!! I couldn’t get more than a few seconds into it….
It is about Cardinal Burke and the “four amigos” and for everyone else. Do you believe Catholic doctrine can develop or do you not? If you don’t believe Catholic doctrine can develop, stop being a hypocrite and condemn ALL of the doctrinal developments since Vatican II.
Otherwise accept, like I do, that God knew what he was doing when he gave the Vicar of Christ “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church”.
I don’t mean Louie’s video! But Pope Francis’ words are very upsetting and hard to watch. Poor man, he really seems lost.
Well, if I was like many who take umbrage at the least hint of personal criticism I’d ask who the heck are you to call me a hypocrite….but I know you are just ‘enthusiastic’ about what you are saying, so I’ll move along.
I think we all agree about the very important points of our Faith. And we certainly believe, without a shadow of a doubt, every precious Word that comes out of the blessed mouth of our Saviour.
But I hope also that we believe it’s possible to express ourselves in diverse ways.
I don’t believe doctrine can develop. I believe that the present Pope, and the four before him were/are infected with the Modernist Heresy.
A very good question, but I would not put the focus on Burke(which, as usual, sound trollish), but on all traditionalists and Catholics in general.
See, because of what you believe about all the post conciliar popes you are most definitely NOT a hypocrite so no need to take umbrage.
I don’t think the focus on Cardinal Burke is out of order. There are, I believe, basically 3 categories of Catholics.
You have people like me who believe doctrine has developed and therefore can develop.
You have people like you and Barbara and many others who believe doctrine doesn’t develop and so are opposed to all the post-conciliar popes and not just Pope Francis.
Then you have, inexplicably, men like Pell and Burke who go around saying that Pope Francis can’t change doctrine but accept all of the doctrinal changes of Vatican II including ecumenism and religious liberty.
Love the passion with which it is made, as much as the challenge, Louie, thank you.
-Jesus taught we’re on two different paths–one wide that leads to hell, the other narrow which leads to Heaven.
-He calls and says “Follow Me” on the narrow one, and leads the way for anyone willing to take up his cross.
It goes uphill with a cross on your back, while the world spits and lashes you, and crowns you with thorns as you come to meet your sorrowful mother who encourages you to continue on up till the end of your time on earth, following her Son in life and death, and resurrection, just as your Baptism has done for your soul.
-Pope Francis nags, bullies, and berates, those who resist joining him on the wide one, journeying together as closely as possible with those who’ve refused the cross and are condemned by God and the Church as heretics, non-believers and unrepentant mortal sinners.
-It leads downhill, unburdened by awareness of the gravity of sin or the guilt-induced by rightly formed consciences bearing reminders of God’s restrictive laws; arm-in-arm with smiling sinners, praising one another’s open mindedness, rejoicing in the freedom of not having to follow anyone, but walking side-by-side; and the shared belief that the end of the journey is heaven, where waits a God who will ignore their nakedness and filth just as they do, and welcome them with open arms into the wedding feast prepared for all who reject the close-minded sin of division.
Catholic journalists who face these facts, can use their God-given talents, to help the blind to see and the deaf to hear. Those who don’t, help more souls to join the unfortunate crowd on the wide road.
I don’t know if Burke or Pell are actually saying that, but it seems to be a very common behaviour among conservative/traditionalist catholics, some of whom seem to have just now woken up due maybe to the crassness of Francis versus the more respectable appearence of his predecessors.
Assuming you are right about those two, it’s not as if a person cannot change his mind, or can be judged as if he’s privy to the same set of information you are using to make that consideration.
Of course, are you not saying this only to imply they are either hypocrites?
Or attempting to discredit “their” arguments only recently voiced for Francis, because of some personal motive.
As if perseverance in error is a virtue, and the truth of a matter depends on the proponent’s honesty.
It is not a court drama, and we are not lawyers.
are modernists and quasi-deists such as yourself even interested in hypocrisy?
Maybe in the year 3156 a.D. the doctrine of the “Church” will officially list it as a virtue, let’s be “charitable” here.. no?
Dementia is beginning to be talked about.
It seems pretty clear that the recent Popes have been violating the clear teaching from Pius XI from their false ecumenical activity, taking part in meetings and rituals with clearly entrenched heretics and unbelievers who have no intention of converting. So the question is, can a currently sitting Pope overrule a former in teaching? What is the law? Does anyone know?
All this talk about doctrine developing:
Don’t we need to define our terms? Do we all have the same understanding of what doctrine is? Does developing mean changing? If not, what does develop mean?
When Our Lord said marriage is till death is that doctrine? How would this develop and why would it? Traditionally the Church does not tamper with anything just to bring it up to-date. If it ain’t broke, She don’t fix it. Most of change (pardon, I mean development) comes in response to attack.
In fact I think that is the most important question: Why would anyone want a doctrine to ‘develop’?
For example, we can have an understanding of a doctrine but have a need to explain that understanding in language the young might understand. Although even that is dicey – if the young are properly taught their Catholic Faith in age appropriate ways they will ‘grow’ into a mature understanding.
Anyway, I’d like to see a discussion of this instead of us just repeating the same stuff.
@mpoulin: Your question needlessly generalizes the dispute. Ask yourself the specific question that is at issue here – Can the “oneness” of the Church be re-defined from its original understanding – unity in faith, communion and leadership – to a new meaning where oneness is defined as disunity in faith, communion and leadership?
Actually, this is about Francis.
But he doesn’t do interviews with anyone who would pose such a question.
I made this observation once before, but I think it’s worth repeating it here. Without further ado, I bring you brave pope Francis. Link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYFefppqEtE
It’s not about what any individual believes, but the objective and unchangeable nature of truth given to us by Divine Revelation and God-given reason, as upheld and preserved by the infallible Magisterium.
This is an absurd question. Truth does not “develop”; it cannot change.
Thank you, Mr Verrechio, for standing up against the lies, and the Stasi-type persecution. It’s truly horrifying to see so many people turn their back on the truth, out of fear, abandoning the reason (and adherence to the Faith) that they upheld before Francis became pope. I can’t bear to listen to any more of the wicked heresy coming from him. Blessed Michael defend us in battle . . .
Thank you, Indignus Famulus.
It’s infallible Catholic teaching that doctrine doesn’t change. And it’s a simple fact that Vatican II, according to the promulgating pontiff, issued no new doctrine at all. People who do not understand such things will be perpetually confused.
Again: It’s infallible Catholic teaching that doctrine doesn’t change. And it’s a simple fact that Vatican II, according to the promulgating pontiff, issued no new doctrine at all. People who do not understand such things will be perpetually confused.
A bit of clarification on the first point above: Doctrine can “develop” in the process of becoming more specific and more formalized. This is obvious, and it is history; thus was the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God present in some form of the early Church, but with dimmer understanding.
As Vatican I infallibly declared, doctrine cannot, however, change in meaning, it must always be believed “in the same sense”.
This is basic Catholic teaching.
In the Novus Ordo “church”, the foundation is Vatican II. Anything before Vat2 is ancient history or a figment of our imagination. I doubt any of the “amigos” could answer this question without betraying their belief that the Catholic Church began with Vat 2, the same council that will bring it to total destruction without the intervention of Our Lord and Our Lady. May all the saints in heaven hear our prayer on this All Saints Day.
Thank you, Louie, for challenging the “amigos”. I doubt you will get a clear and definite answer.
I agree. This word develop has always grated on my nerves. I have been told by a so called theologian that “develop” doesn’t mean that doctrine is being changed but that it is being more “fleshed out”. Please spare me the nonsense. There are other words to use like “doctrine being clarified and more fully explained.” This word “develop” gives us the impression that the Church never really fully understood the doctrine but has all of a sudden during our sophisticated, modern and hip times has cracked the code on what the doctrine truly means. These jokesters are aware of the honest words they should be using but the word develop “suits” by far-more their agenda to disorientate and confuse people while they promote a new definition and
explanation of the Churches doctrines that ultimately will make their lives more easy.
It’s all about the other ‘heresy’ – evolution. So doctrine, and dogma can develop – meaning it naturally evolves – where have we heard that before?
Here’s a link to a fantastic talk on what evolution really means, and how it has infected our world, and our beloved Church. Does the ‘Golden Calf’ ring a bell?
It’s a Video Sancto and really, really, really worth an hour.
This also reminds me of a comment someone gave on the teachings on the primary purpose of marriage. He said, and I tend to agree with him from everything I have read on the Church’s teaching on the hierarchy of the purposes of marriage, that the teachers of doctrine on marriage failed to include that the primary purpose of procreation and education of children was not only to mindlessly populate the world but to be fruitful in bringing souls into the world so that these souls may glorify God and populate the heavens.
This is a good example of a doctrine that desperately needs to be clarified. This whole movement to redefine marriage to mean a “communion of love” for the sole purpose of the sanctification of the couple, has come about for many reasons. Pride, sloth, envy, greed, lust and a misunderstanding of the purpose of procreation are the roots at which there was a desire to redefine marriage. This inexact teaching on the primary purpose of marriage that has failed to state that this procreation is for the purpose of God’s glory and that our Lord is not just asking couples to mindlessly procreate to populate the world needs to be clarified.
Thank you, Louie. I hope you will receive an answer from at least one of the gentlemen you mentioned. It is so important for Holy Church that a question such as this be not ignored!
marykpkj – If you’re not on Facebook, perhaps you didn’t see that Jimmy Akin posted a reply. Here it is along with Louie’s response back to him.
“My normal response to any kind of “I double dog dare you to answer this question” challenge is to ignore it, because it betrays ill will on the part of the person asking the question, and I find it more productive to engage with people of good will.
Louie, if you want to ask me something in a good willed, sincere, and open-minded way, I’ll do my best to answer if I can–just as I’d do for everybody else.
As to this particular question–“Is Mortalium Animos the faith of the Church?”–it invites a simple “yes” or “no” answer and so commits the complex question fallacy.
Mortalium Animos is a papal encyclical and thus a papal document.
Documents are not the objects of faith. God and, by extension, those things that he has revealed and those things that the Church has infallibly defined are.
If something has been revealed by God then it is an object of divine faith.
If something has been infallibly defined by the Church then it is an object of ecclesiastical faith.
If something has been both revealed by God and infallibly defined by the Church then it is known as a dogma.
Mortalium Animos mentions a number of dogmas in passing (e.g., the Trinity, papal infallibility), but it is not itself one big definition of dogma. In fact, the document does not contain any new definitions at all.
The propositions contained in Mortalium Animos have varying levels of doctrinal authority that have to be assessed in terms of both prior and subsequent magisterial teaching.
Like other magisterial documents, it may also contain propositions that properly speaking are not doctrinal but prudential or that are contingent and involve the application of doctrinal principles to particular situations.
Also, any propositions that are not infallible definitions are also potentially subject to doctrinal development.
How particular propositions are to be interpreted and applied to the present situation must be assessed according to the hermeneutic of renewal in continuity articulated by Pope Benedict XVI.
I hope this answer to the question helps, and God bless you!”
“Fair enough, Jimmy Akin, I appreciate the reply. For the record, there is no ill will here, just genuine concern for the Church.
So, if I understand you correctly, certain parts of MA are in fact applicable to the present, while others may not be…
How about this: I’ll provide what I consider the most crucial relevant parts of the document; i.e., those that appear to condemn the modern ecumenical movement most directly, and you can let me know if I am misreading it. Does that work? If not, how would you prefer to proceed?
Thanks again for your response. I’m sincerely grateful.”
I apologize for the lack of spacing in between their comments. My first time posting here, and apparently it didn’t show up the way it was formulated when I copied it here to make my post.
We’re following discussion with interest, and wonder if you’d care to comment on what A Catholic Thinker put in -just above Comment #4 regarding the distinctions and definitions you just mentions. It seems very clear to us, especially with the example he gives.
We’re thankful to see it, with or without the intended setup. God Bless.
I believe there is a difference between development of doctrine and evolution of doctrine. Development is what grows out from the original, becoming more detailed yet still the same. Evolution denotes change of the original understanding, etc.
I believe there is a difference between development of doctrine and evolution of doctrine. Development is what grows out from the original, becoming more detailed yet still the same. Evolution denotes change of the original understanding, etc.
Sorry, didn’t mean to stutter…. I guess WordPress isn’t infallible.
Indignus famulus – Just thought I’d let you know that I’ve been reading the comments here for several months now, and I feel truly blessed to have discovered a treasure of such knowledgeable Catholics of whom I have learned so much from. I have a few of my “favorites”, and your comments are definitely one of them. 🙂 I appreciate everyone’s contributions here. God Bless you, too.
I agree, God knows what He’s doing, but He sure didn’t explain it to me. The pope did say He is a God of Surprises. BTW, When Pope John XXII continued teaching in his sermons that we do not see the Beatific Vision until the Last Judgment, do you believe it was wrong for any Catholic to oppose him? Pope John changed his mind before his death, and the next pope, Benedict XII, defined as doctrine that the saved see Heaven (& God), before the Final Judgment.
Thanks for that, Charmaine. “Hermeneutic of renewal in continuity” – doctrine per se is not renewable.
The Deposit of Faith does not change. Errors by popes have been corrected by later popes, but the errors would have departed from the Deposit of Faith and they would not have formed part of the infallible Magisterium.
Wicked sophistry. Who is the Father of Lies??
Regarding the “doctrine of marriage”:
Dear all, These facts about John(22nd) seem very pertinent to the ongoing discussion about criticizing a Pope’s errors.
–Prior to his election of 1316, he composed a work in which he erroneously stated “the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment.”
–After his election, he advanced the same false teaching in his sermons, and was met with strong opposition, -some theologians calling his view “heretical”.
–18 years later, during the final year of his Papacy, he reviewed the results of a commission he had appointed at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and discuss the long-disputed question, and on Jan 3, 1334, he explicity declared “he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith.”
–before his death, he officially withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.”
It seems the unrelenting 18 yr- perseverance of public criticism, led to his finally opening up to exploring the Truth, and submitting to it before his death.
So was it only the role of theologians to do that, and if so, is that still true?
According to Vatican II’s Document on the Laity:
–Since, in our own times, new problems are arising and very serious errors are circulating which tend to undermine the foundations of religion, the moral order, and human society itself, this sacred synod earnestly exhorts laymen-each according to his own gifts of intelligence and learning-to be more diligent in doing what they can to explain, defend, and properly apply Christian principles to the problems of our era..
— The laity build up the Church, sanctify the world, and give it life in Christ.– This type of apostolate is useful at all times and places.
— As sharers in the role of Christ as priest, prophet, and king, the laity have their work cut out for them in the life and activity of the Church.
–Catholics should feel themselves obliged to promote the true common good. –Regardless of status, all lay persons are called to this..and obliged to engage in it.
— Catholics should try to..promote whatever is true, just, holy, lovable (cf. Phil. 4:8).– “Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel” (1 Cor. 9:16)
–this should not exclude any spiritual or temporal benefit which they have the ability to confer.
–It is very important that they participate more widely..reach out to all wherever they may be encountered;
–a true apostle looks for opportunities to announce Christ by words–to instruct strengthen..encourage to a more fervent life.
-The whole Church must work vigorously in order that men may become capable of rectifying the distortion of the temporal order and directing it to God through Christ.
—Pastors must clearly state the principles– and must offer the moral and spiritual aids by which the temporal order may be renewed in Christ.
Onward Christian soldiers….. 🙂
Don’t forget it’s All Souls Day. God Bless
whole lay apostolate, even of the organized type, and it admits of no substitute.
oops extra last line -not intended . 🙂
Delighted to hear it. We feel the same way–always learning and thankful to have “met” so many sincere Catholics –when we all know how spread out we are in the world these days.
God Bless you.
p.s. We pray daily for all who post here and their loved ones. 🙂
pray for us too, please….
Is Aiken serious? He starts off by claiming that the question of whether Mortalium Animos is still the faith of the Church is a “scary” complex question.
That would be true if MA was lengthy and covered many diverse subjects. It isn’t lengthy and covers only a single subject. The wiki entry describes MA as follows: “Mortalium Animos (English: Mortal Souls) is a papal encyclical promulgated in 1928 by Pope Pius XI on the subject of religious unity, condemning certain presumptions of the early ecumenical movement and confirming that the unique Church founded by Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church.” How much more complicated need Mr. V’s question be? Are the condemnations and confirmation set forth in MA still binding on the faithful?
More on the “discredited papacy” from Spain.
Un lío sinodal – A Synodal Mess.
Comments by New Catholic
“Few columnists writing in Spanish today (or in any major language) are as gifted as Juan Manuel de Prada — and his holy wrath at what went on during the Synod, especially the Forte-Spadaro passage on homosexuality of the midterm Relatio (Report) is proof of it.
The partial Relatio, by the way, was not a partial report of anything, but a document written (and translated in several languages, as proved by the fact that the Final Relatio only now has become available in its first non-Italian version, in English) before the Synod Fathers even gathered, with the intent of causing “lío”, a mess, and worldwide media sensation, along with paralysis and a sense of fait accompli within the Synod hall. This partial Relatio is incredibly still fully available at the Vatican website, as if it were a collective Synodal document, when it was just a fantasy cooked by Abp. Bruno Forte and allies based on his preferences and orientations, and not a reflection of what had actually been said in the first week of the Synod.
If you want lío, Juan Manuel de Prada seems to say in his column in the large, traditional and influential Spanish daily ABC, then here’s even more lío, representative of the simmering indignation of so many Catholic faithful worldwide. This indignation will not go away.
de Prada concludes:
“Pasolini and Wilde: two homosexuals filled with the divine gift of saying undeniable truths. Some swindlers wearing skullcaps could learn from them.”
Folks, this issue perpetrated by “the swindlers wearing skullcaps” will not go away. 🙂
And cds Burke and Pell are shining the light on the “swindler in the white skullcap” for all to see. 😉
Of course Mortalium Animos is still the Faith of the Church. There is a difference between respecting the religious beliefs of others and sitting among others as one who is still looking for the Truth. We have the fullness of Truth in our Catholic Faith. The present pontiff has given no evidence that he believes the Faith that is revealed by God through Christ in Catholicism is the fullness of Truth. His underhandedness has now become exposed through the fiasco of the October ‘synod’. It is clearly seen that he cares not one whit for the immutable doctrine of Catholicism, and it follows naturally that he would sit as one who is searching for ‘truth’ among others who do not have it.
Doctrine does develop, but it does not change in its essence. Both Pope John Paul 11 and Pope Benedict upheld the full doctrine of Catholicism and they interpreted the Second Vatican Council according to the huermeneutic (spelling ??) of continuity. The present man in Rome does not. He belittles those who are grounded in doctrine, is incoherent in his thinking, and, from all appearances, intends to dismantle the Catholic Church and build a ‘new church’ with man at the center. As we know, he is not acting alone. He is the front man for masonic and modernist forces that have, over many years, invaded the Church He is bold in his stupidity and he is cunning. As Louie states, ‘We are not talkiing about style here. The man is a heretic
Pope Pius XII writes on the status of encyclicals in Humani Generis as follows (para. 20):
“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”
More post Secret Synod analysis… this time from the Kasper camp.
“Bishops’ Synod According to “Civiltá Cattolica” — Conclusions on the Mood of the Kasper Camp?
Link here: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/11/bishops-synod-according-to-civilta.html
“Since then, Father Spadaro (author of article and co-author of Relatio passage on aberro-sexuals) has belonged to familiar circle with the Pope and his magazine which also provides strategic planning, such as preparation for the Synod of Bishops on the family showed. On the eve of the Synod the magazine published an essay that supported the “opening” thesis of Cardinal Walter Kasper.
Note: This is horses mouth stuff, folks.
“The paragraph 52 of the Relatio Synodi put the standing of remarried divorcees in the center of attention, for whom Cardinal Kasper had formulated “new ways” and promoted it with thinly veiled support from Pope Francis. But paragraph 52 did not receive a qualified majority under the Synod Fathers. The vote was “un certo senso in anomala, perché è come se 74 padri su 183 avessero voluto negare persino la registrazione della discussione di fatto vissuta,” said Father Spadaro, that the same carries a need to assign blame. The vote was, as it were, was “abnormal”, just as 74 of 184 synod fathers even denied the actual discussion. Harsh words, which reveal that anger which must have been triggered by the missed two-thirds majority in the immediate presence of the pope.
Note: The revolutionaries couldn’t even get the Secret Synod to speak about the “new springtime (opening)”, let alone vote in favor. So much for collegiality and synodality.
“The “synodal way” has been trodden. This had been only “just the beginning”, continues the editor of the Jesuit magazine. The course of the Synod of Bishops gave the Kasper camp an unexpected damper. This can be read out in Father Spadaro. According to a positivist view of reason, which is usually inherent to believers in progress, it seems that the partial failure of the Synod of Bishops is considered as a workplace accident and started to factor him in the “synodal way.”
Note: In other words, the revolutionaries are not giving up.
It’s no wonder that cd. Burke is speaking clearly and regularly. This theme needs to be continuously repeated over the course of the next year so that the “swindlers in skullcaps” do not win this fight.
PS It’s a long, tough read but give good insights into mood of “swindlers in skullcaps” camp.
Mundabor weighs in on the latest cd. Burke broadside.
The Poet, The Cardinal, And The Rudderless Ship
Link here: http://mundabor.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/the-poet-the-cardinal-and-the-rudderless-ship/
“Mueller, Pell, and Burke have been firing every few days since the end of the synod. They insist in proposing the same criticism that had emerged during the synod. It seems very obvious to me that they are not isolated at all, and it is far more probable that the heretical side is. It seems also obvious to me that the refusal of the Cardinals to allow Francis to take a stance will soon, and certainly, next October, put him in an untenable, entirely discredited position.”
“He is not getting any discount. In a football (soccer) metaphor, he is the object of man marking, and a very strict marking at that. He will not be allowed to play freely. His marksmen will be on every ball. Francis may be a slippery offender, but I have the impression these defenders can be rather the bulldogs if they want to.”
Yes, the revolutionaries are isolated and the “king of the ‘swindlers in skullcaps'” is being backed into a corner.
And it’s not just by the bishops, but the clergy are starting to blast. 🙂
Link here: http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-bad-breath-of-corruption.html
Preparing the troops for battle: cd. Muller visits Poland.
“Müller praises Poland as a model for the Church”
“Various media worldwide have spoken of a coming revolution in the Church. But there’s no political democracy in the Church, as Benedict XVI has said – nor can there be any revolution in the popular understanding of the word,” Cardinal Müller added. “From the very beginning, a great revolution of Jesus was carried out in the Church, and this has its centre in God and never loses its significance.”
Getting the JPII crowd on side.
Nota bene: The Poles are mad as hell about the complete ignoring of the Familiaris Consortio at the Secret Synod by the revolutionaries. And if Francis starts to purge them from the Vatican, there will be hell to pay. Poles are the largest ethnic group inside the church (1 in 26 clerics is Polish). Without Polish priests, the German church would collapse. And as we know, no German church equals no Kirchensteuer. So it could be that Muller is trying to create a Mexican standoff between the German and Polish bishops. Hope it works.:)
Just posted on http://www.voiceofcatholicradio.com an interview with John Vennari (Catholic Family News) re “The Psychotic Synod”.
Thought all would be interested. God bless!
Thanks for posting Mr Akins reply.
I especially liked the following passage:
“How particular propositions are to be interpreted and applied to the present situation must be assessed according to the hermeneutic of renewal in continuity articulated by Pope Benedict XVI.”
But right before the above, Mr Akin writes this:
“Like other magisterial documents (MA), it may also contain propositions that properly speaking are not doctrinal but prudential or that are contingent and involve the application of doctrinal principles to particular situations.
Also, any propositions that are not infallible definitions are also potentially subject to doctrinal development.
Which would mean that the “hermeneutic of renewal in continuity”, being a magisterial document is not “doctrinal but prudential” and is “contingent and involve the application of doctrinal principles to particular situations.”
So we get the perfect “spirit of VII” dog chasing it’s tail.
While the Bologna school, who interprets the “pastoral documents” produced by VII as a “hermeneutic of rupture” is sight unseen.
Don’t want to complicate this complicated issue too much, I reckon. 😉
“Is Mortalium Animos still the faith of the Holy Catholic Church?” Yes, it is.
Another blog asks the question: “Is Francis ok”?
“At What Point Can Catholics Question the ‘Soundness of Mind’ of the Supreme Pontiff?”
Link here: http://thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/at-what-point-can-catholics-question.html
“Is Pope Francis okay? I mean, is he okay? I know that we can all quite happily overlook our own sins and bothersome personality traits. We can all be a bit hypocritical and recognise in others more quickly those faults that are our own, but I agree with Veneremur Cernui that there is something about Pope Francis’s homilies and speeches that almost demands some call for a papal ‘reality check’.”
The question needs to be asked!!!!!!
On an aside, this:
“Perhaps His Holiness is receiving some kind of ‘reality check’ from the crowds in Rome who, I am told by a priest who returned from Rome recently, received somewhat lukewarm applause from the Roman crowd, who saved their biggest cheer for the moment when the Pope Emeritus was brought out for the day.”
Did you catch that? “Lukewarm applause” for Francis.
Cardinals and bishops must be taking notice. 😉
Are you ready?
The battle ahead…
You can see how theologians (long before Vatican II) have gradually turned the Faith into an incomprehensible amalgam of geranchical degrees of truth varying in validity and immutability, itself wrapped around infinite degrees of opinability.
It is plain to see this can be used by both sides of any given argument to argue everything and nothing without seemingly ever reaching a conclusion.
Essentially truth, just like in illuministic comune sentire, becomes what the majority (heterodirected or not) happens to hold at any given moment in time.
If not methodology proper, at least outcome is similar to Critical Theory.
Interesting also how the very same people, or their colleagues, will sometimes “make up” absolutes “synecdochally”, from parts to the general that is. Using concepts such as “ordinary magisterium” to universalise particular views to the whole Church and therefore Truth, instrumentally.
Of course not only this modus operandi is completely inaccessible to laymen let alone ignorants (which always made up the overwhelming majority of Catholics, historically), but also sterile, as it cannot lead to any certainty whatsoever.
What a bunch of hogwash!
My comment or the methodology of modernists?
Lynda can you please tell us some of those errors by Popes?
I’ve only read of one, once, or alleged so, but I can’t remember what it was.
Yes, CatholicThinker says it clearly enough. So what we have today is an attempt to convince us that ‘change’ is really development. Wow! How stupid do the Kaspers of this world think we are?
What is so hard to fight is two-fold: one) lack of teaching for the past 40 years of the real Truth; and two) deliberate mis-use of language – we’re met with fuzziness of the highest sort, every bit of truth that is spoken now is buried in a deep layer of ‘nice.’
Yes, you’re right, Mike. We hear these words tossed about so much without any real agreement on definitions.
That’s what happens when you toss out Latin, Scholastic Philosophy, and a desire to really mean what you say.
This is so condescending!!! He’ll answer as well as he can to poor Louie who obviously needs Akins help here.
what I get out of this:
There is no real reason to change one single word of this ‘document.’ But hey, we’ve changed!! We can no longer view our evolved world in the same way. Man is not the same in this modern age. So we can tweak here and there to make this more livable!
That’s exactly what’s wrong with the present Church – total crap wrapped up in fake theological language. God help us.
Nice to see another Barbara here! I agree with what you say, Barbara, except your comments that the two former Popes were careful to preserve tradition through the documents of VII. In my opinion, Pope Francis has simply unleashed the torrent that was always building behind the dam. He is emboldened because of the past 40 years of softening up by John Paul II, and Pope Benedict.
Francis did not grow into the Pope he is today in a vacuum. He’s getting some pushback because he over estimated his flock – we weren’t all asleep after all.
I’m going on a tour of Italy (thank God with a Fraternity priest) and of course a visit to a Papal Audience on Wednesday is included. I remember seeing Pope Benedict the year he was elected which was pretty cool. But this time I dread being there to hear all the cheering. But I’m not going until April…heaven only knows what might happen by then (to me too, of course!).
At what point can Catholics question his soundness of mind?
His own mother appears to have had some serious reservations a long time ago. It is reported that when she found out he’d been studying for the priesthood se was furious, as she had told her he was studying medicine.
He claimed he hadn’t lied to her, as he was studying “medicine for the soul”. Reports say she refused to accompany him to his ordination, which makes her look bad at first glance. Maybe someone should find out if she was really just trying to spare the Church from a Bergoglian nightmare ?
As to the rest of us, we’d have to say this article is at least 20 months too late to prevent that.
Pack extra holy-water. 😉
It could be his family had marxist sympathies and that is why they were forced to leave Italy in 1929.
Not because of jewishness, as in ’29 there wasn’t hint of persecution in Italy, as far as I know.
And not for economic reasons, as I’ve read they have confirmed many times. Now his mother was born in Buenos Aires instead, but especially in those times, political convictions were shared among couples, so I don’t find it farfetched that if his father was a communist, her mother wouldn’t hold a similar position too.
This would be compatible with Francis’ interest in “the poor, the working class” since his youth.
Having said that, I think questioning the man’s soundness of mind and other allegations brought forth by many are of poor taste.
Yes, I realise accepting all the weird and scandalous things he’s saying can be hard in light of some people’s position regarding his validity as Pontiff and it’s much simpler to think him mad, but still..
You might find this of some initial help: http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/i009-PopeErrors-1.htm
I am not familiar with but do not see MV in the same vein as Mr. Akins or Mr. Keating who both firmly deny any problems within the institutional church. At least Mr. Voris speaks MOST of the truth. I think this all comes down to defining the different levels of magisterial teaching. I just finished watching a good video on this by the late Fr. Hesse. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HvmQvNVHg0#t=6960 Vatican II is not doctrinal at ALL. So the question is, does it trump a possible doctrinal encyclical? All of this needs to be fought between people who know i.e. theologians and clergy…but since they refuse to do their job, we laity must learn and defend the truth. God bless you Louie!
I am trying to understand your train of thinking and so far, from what I read from your comments on the forum you set up for NFP discussion, I believe you are confusing the teachings on what makes a marriage valid vs the theological teachings on marriage. I believe from everything I have read on the annulment crisis in Dr. Robert Vasoli’s excellent coverage of this in his book, “What God Has Joined Together The annulment Crisis in American Catholicism” the basic requirements for validity is, “In fact, C. 1096 (code of canon law) deals primarily with the cognitive capabilities of spouses. Do prospective spouses know marriage is a permanent relationship marked by fidelity and oriented toward procreation? In other words the statute is not concerned with wether a marriage is, experimentally, a union of souls or legally, the right to such union. What spouses-to-be must comprehend is simultaneous crucial and minimal. Their level of awareness, as the second part of the canon makes clear, requires no canonical or theological sophistication. It is assumed to be present in any reasonably normal post pubescent human being. The cognitive elements of matrimonial consent are well within the grasp of a very broad gamut of human types. They are accessible not only to graduates of Catholic institutions of higher learning, but also to Third World peasant teenagers, high school dropouts, and many whose IQ scores are well below Mensa level. Beyond question those components were known- often well known- to thousands of petitioners granted annulments on defective consent.”
The annulment fiasco is the result of the redefinition of marriage and the suppressing of the teachings of the hierarchy of marriage. Please do yourself a favor and read this book.
Thank you, Charmaine. I appreciate your response. I follow my family/friends on Facebook but I didn’t think about following my favorite bloggers there. I’ll have to look into it. 🙂
Dear’ Barbara J,
We have to agree with your namesake’s response. If you look back as some of Louie’s blog-posts regarding JPII and Benedict, you’ll find a lot of info on what concerns us all most. Things such as the twisted notions of ecumenism they developed which directly contradict 2000 years of Church teachings which explicitly condemned things like- partaking in religious services together with Moslems and Jews (in synagogues or Catholic Churches)–which intermingling, if you’ve read the Scriptures has always been a sin that brings down God greatest wrath–along with sodomy and infanticide.
Pope Benedict wrote a book which he said he wrote AS a theologian, not as Pope, WHILE he was Pope, which stated his reasons we should not be trying to convert the Jews–which was a post-conciliar development based on the Scriptural assurances of St. Paul that in the end times, they would convert. (The problem being that if we don’t try to convert them in our times, they will likely continue to reject Jesus, and we will be guilty of neglecting the mandate of Christ to go and teach and Baptize ALL nations)
JPII’s ecumenical scandals included Assisi, where he allowed a pagan statue to be placed on top of an emptied tabernacle in a Catholic Church, and others which were photographed of him Kissing a Koran (which is the Moslem holy book including instructions to kill infidels and which denies the Blessed Trinity explicitly) and being signed on the forehead with the pagan Shiva. Catholics after their pontificates, in general, believe the Church changed her teachings, and no longer believes we are the one true Faith, but one among equals–which is how Francis teaches.
At an Angelus teaching last year, he urged all children to thank their parents for whatever religion they were being raised in. He told the evangelicals he gathered at the Vatican, that he had no intention of converting any of them, and said it is a sin to focus on our differences–completely contrary to Jesus words: I came not to bring peace, but a sword which divides (followed by the list of family members) The bible footnotes remind us that this division is specifically the result of rejection of Church doctrine by some.)
These are only a few of the many examples of grave problems being discussed. We don’t know how informed you are about these things, but they are all serious because they lead people away from the One, True Faith, and encourage them to believe they are fine in whatever Faith they practice.
None of these errors has been promulgated by the Popes as dogma, but you can see from the discussions on Louie’s blogs regarding the “weight” to be given to less formal teachings, that the lack of clarity in the language used in these “teaching moments”, and the scandals caused by behaviors directly contrary to teachings of the past, have led to such great chaos and division that the Church has almost become a joke to many people around the globe, even though we know Jesus promised the gates of hell shall not prevail, and He will be with her till the end of time. He did ask if, when He comes again, will he find any faith on the earth—a sobering thought.
None of this shakes our Faith in Him or in the truths taught for 2000 years. We actually think is far simpler for less-educated folks like us, to cut through all the gobbeldy gook at least pertaining to right and wrong, because our thoughts are not as cluttered with a myriad of philosophical meanings of words we’d first have to define and then to sort out.
Also, in the past 55 years of our lives, we’ve seen so many people go along with these “new ways” of thinking and lose their Faith completely, that we see the whole post VII experiment as failed–whether people claim it is in continuity with the past or not, because it hasn’t brought about its stated aims, and the polls tell the story of the apostasy that’s taken place world wide. It especially hasn’t helped society realize that hell is real and they need to reject sin and ask God’s help to save their souls. No rocket science or high theology needed. Just keeping the commandments and condemning sin in yourself or others–using the very wise “plank-removal out of your own eye first-rule”
Hope this helps explain why you’ll hear so many objections to your endorsement of JPII and Benedict, despite how they suffered and the apparently good things they each tried to accomplish.
It shouldn’t be off limits if there are signs of it, because if true, it mitigates his culpability in all he’s already done that harms the Church. The only way it becomes an act of poor taste, is if it’s passed around as fact in a mocking way, which, if done often enough will persuade many that it’s true, even if it’s not.
We have some background experience in this area, and have been trying to assess his words and actions in that light since he was elected. But it’s almost impossible to diagnose correctly from this “armchair” viewpoint, and with only news reports to go on. Also, as we’ve mentioned before, where evil and insanity or mental illness overlap, is always very hard to delineate. When people adopt false ideologies, believing they are God’s will, anything can happen. It’s the reason you read of a mother drowning her 4 children in the bathtub, thinking God wanted her to do it to save them among many other things. What we’re saying is, we don’t think it’s at all wrong to consider it a possibility in our searches for truth, but we’re not likely to find any definite answers before it manifests in a way that leaves no one in doubt. So it’s rather useless to pursue it in the meantime.
We’ve were MV fans for years, and still pray for him daily. Like many others we were very perturbed to read his “manifesto” declaring he won’t ever criticize the Pope, because it took away our ability to trust his judgment and journalistic integrity. When you selectively report the truth, you distort it into a false image
We explained this to another poster this way:
What would your impression be of a man who worked very hard for years to pull himself out of poverty, got an education, and became such a good public speaker that he, eventually even helped turn the tide against Communism in Europe? He once said, .”As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice”
Sounds pretty admirable, right? This man was Adolf Hitler.
Without the negatives the press can make a saint out of the devil himself.
So is what MV’s doing as bad as endorsing VII? It’s hard to say. But it could lead to people following the Pope down the modernist path, unaware of what he does and says that are harmful to souls.
Were we to continue reporting only good things like this about him, it would sabotage any efforts to dissuade people from
(sorry that got cut off) meant to end it with
it would sabotage any efforts to dissuade people from thinking the Church has reversed many of its dogmas, since Vatican II, and for example no longer teaches we are the One true Faith, but are just one among many equals, and it’s God’s will that people living in sin, go to Communion without changing anything.
Fr. Z has a theory! 🙂
” The lesson of Thrasybulus”
Fr. Z writes:
“The story of Thrasybulus is in Book V of Herodotus’ Histories. A messenger from Periander, a 7th c. BC tyrant of Corinth, asks Thrasybulus, tyrant of Miletus, for advice on how to govern. Thrasybulus doesn’t immediately respond. Instead he leads the messenger into a field. Then, drawing his sword, he slashes the tallest ears of wheat off their stalks. The message: eliminate potential threats to your absolute rule by preemptively cutting down any men who are prominent enough to raise a challenge.
If anyone sticks his head up, chop it off.
Eliminate excellence by all necessary means and with extreme prejudice.
I think Fr Z has been looking for explanations in the wrong places.
I suspect that the interview of Francis applying to enter the Society of Jesus went something like his:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE
Francis: ” I hate the Catholics”
Jesuit: “Are you sure?”
Francis: ” I am dead sure…”
Jesuit: ” How much do you hate the Catholics?”
Francis: “A lot”
Jesuit: “OK, your in.”
Remember, the “church of Francis reality” subsists in parody. 😉
Great News. Holy Innocents will remain open.
Dolan couldn’t pull the trigger.
Link here: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/11/manhattan-nyc-holy-innocents-to-remain-open/
A letter from a reader:
Today Father George W. Rutler, announced some good news from the pulpits of his two Manhattan parishes. The historic Church of the Holy Innocents where Father Rutler is Administrator, will remain as it is. In the past year it has been increasingly active and free of debt. Recently there has been widespread interest in the fate of the historic parish. The even more historic Church of Saint Michael, once also considered for closing, has also experienced a growth in membership and in the past year contributions to its support have increased more than 500 %. Cardinal Dolan has decided to “hold in abeyance” a recommended merger of St. Michael’s with another parish and stated in his letter to the parishioners that he intends to monitor its situation “in the month and years ahead” in consideration that the church may eventually be moved to a more central location nearby in the heart of the Hudson Yards area which now is the largest real estate development in the history of the nation. [move the church? Or build a new church?] Father Rutler expressed thanks for the prayerful support of parishioners and visitors at a time when many parishes in the archdiocese are being reconfigured in response to a long period of study in the “Making All Things New” program. A year ago Father Rutler was transferred from the Church of Our Saviour where he had been pastor for twelve years. Originally, that church was once considered for closing but since then it has become internationally known and debt free, [I hear that the black ink line is plummeting like a paralyzed falcon…] with many priestly vocations., gaining Father Rutler the nickname “Father Fixer-Upper.” He asked parishioners to respect the many difficult decisions that the Cardinal has had to make and expressed his wish that the faithful will honor the confidence that archdiocesan officials have placed in them by working harder to spread the Gospel in the great city and archdiocese of New York.”
Looks like cd. Dolan has learned to read Francis through Milton Friedman. 🙂
PS Good for him!
And a Fr. Z threefor: Must see.
“Man with cancer rebuilds abandoned Minnesota chapel!”
Link here: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/11/video-must-watch-no-really/
It’s come down to this. 😉
“Pope Francis Aides Conspired to Snarl Communion Line Traffic in Basilica of Cardinal Who Did Not Cast Vote for Him”
Link here: http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2014/01/10/pope-francis-aides-conspired-to-snarl-communion-line-traffic-in-basilica-of-cardinal-who-did-not-cast-vote-for-him/
” In official emails and text messages shown to EOTT today, Papal aides discussed Castello’s non-support of Francis in bitter tones in the months following the election. In one email dated December 4, 2013, an aide to Pope Francis, Father Pietro Torelli mentions Castello’s vote and jokes with another aide, “Time for some communion traffic problems in Maria Maggiore!”
Just because the story appears on a parody site, does not mean it is not true. 😉
PS Francis is supposed to have commented: “I am not a bully,” the Pope sadly told reporters. “I don’t know how I got that reputation. Maybe because I was once a bouncer? I don’t know.”
PPS Or maybe because of the “mercy” that you have shown to the FFI…. 😉
Jimmy Akins, Catholic Answers present an irrational version of Catholic salvation
Jimmy Akins on Catholic Answers denies the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. Instead he suggests that those in invincible ignorance are the ordinary means of salvation and that all Jews(3:32) do not need to convert into the Church but only those who know about Jesus and the Church.Otherwise they just have to live good lives and they are saved.
He assumes that those who are saved through no fault of their own are people who are known precisely in the present times and so they are an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All Jews,Muslims and other non Catholics do not have faith and baptism and so they are oriented to Hell according to Ad Gentes 7.
(6:25) ‘In terms of the need to be Catholic,’ Jimmy Akins says, ‘the Catholic Church would say, if you have an awareness, if you have seen enough evidence that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ and that it’s his will for you and you need to embrace it and if you consciously say,”Hey I’m not going to even though I know Jesus wants me to” ,that’s to turn your back on Jesus and not accept salvation on his terms one can endanger one’s salvation in that way’.
Those who know or do not know are known only to God. So why does Jimmy Akins consider this an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There is no such known case in 2014. Is he assuming that these are known cases in the present times and so are physical exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Does it mean that LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) contradicts AG 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation) for him? Vatican Council II contradicts itself for Catholic Answers? This is irrational.LG 16 is not a known exception to the traditional interpretation on salvation. This is a false inference of Akins.
(7:00) ‘The majority of people who are outside the Catholic Church have not seen that evidence presumably ,’continues the Catholic Answers EWTN,National Catholic Register apologist,’so as long as they are working with God and following him the best that they are able then God still works with them and they still can be saved.’ This is false. The majority of people are oriented to Hell according to Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes 7, since they do not have ‘faith and baptism’.
He does not even tell the Lutheran who has asked the question, that he is on the way to Hell since he does not have Catholic Faith (AG 7) which includes the Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church.
Would Catholic Answers apologists Tim Staples and Jimmy Akin be approved by Bishop Robert H.Brom in the diocese of San Diego if they did not lie ?
Apologists currently working for Catholic Answers include Director of Apologetics Tim Staples; Senior Apologist Jimmy Akin according to Wikipedia. Catholic Answers Live radio host is Patrick Coffin; and staff apologists Michelle Arnold, Jim Blackburn, Matthew Fradd, Peggy Frye, and Fr. Vincent Serpa O.P.
It is listed in the current edition of The Official Catholic Directory, the authoritative listing of U.S. Catholic organizations, priests, and bishops.Catholic Answers operates with the permission of the Diocese of San Diego.
The Most Rev. Robert H. Brom is the bishop of San Diego.
Tim Staples and Jimmy Akin assume there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and to Vatican Council II. If they did say that they did not know any one in 2013 who is saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire, would they be approved by Bishop Robert H.Brom ?
Most likely not.
Tim Staples and Jimmy Akin know what I have been saying. So do the bishops in Los Angeles and the rest of California. This include their administration and Curia members. I have reached them over the years with e-mails.
If Tim Staples and Jimmy Akin speak the truth and say that we do not know any exceptions to the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney the bishop could disown them.
Similarly on the issue of morals Jimmy Akins assumes that mortal sin is not mortal sin with just the first of three conditions mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church – grave matter. He considers the folowing two conditions also important to recognize mortal sin.He knows that the following two conditions are not known to us and are known only to God.He also contradicts Veritatis Splendor.
So he is expected to accept this irrational position on morals (mortal sin) and faith (salvation) to continue to be approved by Bishop Robert Brom and the leftists.
This is politically correct Catholic apologists and is based on an irrationality and a lie.
Liberal catechesis on mortal sin by Jimmy Akins
Veritatis Splendor seems the least cited encyclical of Pope John Paul II which is quoted.Whenever the Catechism of the Catholic Church is cited on mortal sin Veritatis Splendor is excluded.So we have the liberal interpretation of mortal sin, which is that we can never know when someone is in mortal sin.
Jimmy Akins convert apologist in the National Catholic Register also excludes the teaching of Veritatis Splendor.The use of contraception is a mortal sin.Period. If someone 1) has full knowledge and 2) deliberate consent we cannot judge. These exceptions would be known only to God.
So if a Catholic has used contraception she should be genuinely sorry and go for Confession. Since if that women dies immediately, she is going to Hell.If she receives the Sacrament of Reconciliation, which is God’s Mercy,it still means spending time in Purgatory,after death, where there is a fire and the suffering is more intense than that of earth.
However we have an example of a bad catechises by Jimmy Akins who is projecting a liberal non traditional interpretation of mortal sin.
The encyclical on moral theology, Veritatis Splendor is never quoted by Akins. The encyclical says mortal sin is objective and does not depend on subjective conditions.
Here is Jimmy Akins:
Jimmy Akins :
What Mortal Sin Is
Although Catholics sometimes say things like “contraception is a mortal sin” or “sleeping together outside of marriage is a mortal sin,” this is a form of shorthand.
For a person to truly commit a mortal sin, more than a mere act of contraception or a mere act of fornication is needed.
False.A mortal sin is objective and obvious.There may be some sins which are not known to us .In general the use of contraception,abortion etc are always mortal sins.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”
Let’s look at those three conditions
If a married couple contracepts or if an unmarried couple has sexual relations, this fulfills the first of the three conditions: They have committed a “sin whose object is grave matter.”
It is grave matter and it is a mortal sin.
But the other two conditions must also be fulfilled for the sin to be a mortal one.
False. The other two conditions are known only to God.
In our shorthand way of speaking, we’re warning people against doing these things, because if the additional two conditions are fulfilled, it will be a mortal sin, but if they are not fulfilled then it won’t be.
If they are fulfilled or if they are not fulfilled it will never be known to us.
When will John Vennari comment on this?
The SSPX must respond to Bishop Semeraro by citing Catholic doctrine on Vatican Council II which supports their position
We mustn’t forget Angels, good and evil, can influence our bodies, and minds. They are allowed to know us through out lifetime actions, and habits, so they use this information to whisper in our ears: do this good! do this evil!
The Holy Father has both these Angels too, one on each shoulder, whispering in his ears. We must pray to his Guardian Angel to win this battle!
Right. And we’ve got three years before the huge media/Church of Bad start pushing for the ‘rehabilitation’ of Martin Luther.
Regarding Lionel’s points on Mortal sin in #26 above.. To Lionel and All:
You are, of course right that if one dies after having repented, but not having repaired his wrongs, he must be purified before entering heaven, and Purgatory is the place of this purgation.
BUT we see no mention of the fact that Indulgences lessen, and can even eliminate the temporal punishment for sin, and they can be attained for oneself or for souls in purgatory (just not for others on earth).
— In both cases, the seeker must be free from mortal sin at the completion of prescribed actions, and have the intention of gaining the indulgence.
-Partial indulgences remove some of the temporal consequences due for past sins.
-PLENARY indulgences remove ALL temporal punishment incurred by sins.
Generally, these can be acquired once in a single day. However, one can obtain a plenary indulgence for the moment of death, even if another plenary indulgence has already been acquired on the same day.
-Conditions for a PLENARY indulgence,
1) completion of the prescribed act itself; 2) be free from the attachment to any sin, even venial; 3) receive absolution through the Sacrament of Reconciliation; 4) receive the most Holy Eucharist;
5) pray for the intentions of the Holy Father.
-Even if a person is not conscious of grave sin, he must go to Confession. Though the last three conditions may be fulfilled within one week of performing the prescribed act, it is fitting to receive Communion and pray for the Pope’s intentions on the same day that the prescribed work is completed.
..They help the penitent to realize better: 1) his sinfulness and God’s great mercy regarding that sinfulness; 2) his God-ordained need to participate in his redemption, and the true nature of justification, which involves not simply being declared clean but actually being made clean..
For more info:
p.s. This is specifically in response to the statement :
“If she receives the Sacrament of Reconciliation, which is God’s Mercy,it still means spending time in Purgatory,after death, where there is a fire and the suffering is more intense than that of earth. “
hasn’t that already happened with the JOINT DECLARATION
ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION?
If not, what is the difference?
I suspect they need mortal sin to be misrepresented that way in order to be able to claim “invincibly ignorant” are saved in the millions.
Many people don’t know that “the Pope’s intentions” does NOT mean you pray for him personally, or for his health or, welfare, or safety, or that he will teach the Faith…all of which I hear at my parish after our public Rosary before on Sunday Mass. Drives me nuts.
The Vatican publishes, every month, several intentions the Pope wants us to focus on when we say these prayers (Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be). That’s what the intention is.
This post is for my name sake, Barbara and Indignus. First, it pierces me every time Louie in any way denigrates either JP11 or Benedict. I LOVE the wriitngs of both of these Christ-centered men, and I knew that I would be taking a chance in saying so on this blog. The insinuation of modernists and masons within the interior of the Church began long before these two popes reigned. It was going on DURING the Pontificate of Pope Pius X, which is why he wrote as he did. John Paul and Benedict did not CAUSE the state in which we are now suffering. I believe that the Second Vatican Council is a valid council, and it has been seriously misinterpreted. It did not teach heresy, but, because of its ambiguous and pastoral tone, it created an opportunity of misinterpretation by the evil infiltrators from which we are still suffering.
As I said in my last post, I do believe that doctrine develops. I also believe men of the intellectual and spiritual stature of JP11 and Benedict were well qualified to facilitate that doctrinal development. It was not ‘softening’ of doctrine, but development of doctrine.However, during the Pontificate of JP11 the enemies of Christ, now well established within the Church, maligned and badgered this great man, and it was Cardinal Ratzinger who held the line against the forces of evil attacking authentic doctrine. Under the guidance of JP11 we have the much-needed Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church which delineates all the doctrines of our beautiful Faith. He also has written prolifically about the truths and understanding of our Faith. This will stand us in good stead for what is unfolding now.
Indignus, you stated that if we do not convert the Jews now, they will most likely continue to reject Jesus in the end times. First of all, persons are converted by the grace of God, not by any one of us ramming truths down their throats that they will not be able to absorb. Secondly, St. Paul gave a prophecy under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Let us trust the Holy Spirit.
JP11 was respectful of other persons beliefs, but there was no evidence that he considered himself and the Church of Christ to be ‘one among equals’. Francis is the choice of the masons. He is night in all its darkness. The Second Vatican Council did not ‘fail’; it was co-opted by the masons and the modernists, neither of which JP11 and Benedict were. In fact, it was Cardinal Ratzinger who announced that one could not be a mason and be a Catholic in good standing during his time as Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith. It is Pope Benedict who recently publicly stated that dialogue is no substitute for preaching the Gospel. This is a direct slam at the efforts of Bergoglio to make a one world church, a church of man to replace the Catholic Church.
I know that my thoughts are not your thoughts, but useless debate will not bring either of us to change our positions. Let us be one in our allegiance to the living Christ during this time of deep purification of His Church.
There is such a reality as authentic ecumenism. Jesus asked His Father at the Last supper that ‘all may be one’. St. Paul, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, prophetically stated that at the end times the Jews will convert.
The last paragraph of my above comment belongs above where I talk about St. Paul’s prophecy.
thank you for your comment.
Just one quick comment: who here said either JP II or Ratzinger are masons?
Secondly, maybe you are not aware that the Catechism of John Paul II REMOVED any specific mention of Masonry, and THAT is why Ratzinger was forced to issue his (non binding) opinion on the matter.
Secondly, the idea that Paul VI was a bonafide “fool” who didn’t know what he was doing when he:
-brought VII to an end successfully
-reformed the Liturgy aided by Protestant counselors
-reformed Ordination, Baptism, Eucharist
-banned the Index Librorum Prohibitorum
etc. etc (there’s much more if you care to simply Google around)
is frankly both offensive to the memory of a Pontiff (for those so inclined) or a simple man and frankly to everyone’s intellect.
As far as Ratzinger and John Paul II, again, a quick Google search will maybe help you in discovering what they actually did that harmed the Faith, based simply on facts and their own writings, not Conspiracy theories about them being masons or whatever.
Since we are asking hard questions, and with all due respect, how do you explain Assisi I, Assisi II but above all Assisi III?
Back to the “brick by brick” thingy.
MADISON All Souls Evening – Pontifical Requiem at the Throne
Link here: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/11/madison-all-souls-evening-pontifical-requiem-at-the-throne/
Don’t you just love it when the Immemorial Mass of All Ages takes over a space ship church?
Sorry another little thing.
About the Jews (even debatable they can be considered as such), do you mean that the Jews that already passed away since the time of Christ and continue to leave this earth, are not damned but WILL BE SAVED in the future?
Eye candy: Photos from Feast of Christ the King starting to roll in.
Phillipines, US ( CO and MO), Chile and Canada.
We’ve come a long way, baby…. from the Indult Masses. 😉
Thanks for this important distinction.
Also, the question has been asked of the Holy See whether indulgences therefore cannot be gained when the Holy See is vacant (such as after the death of a Pope and before the next one is elected)
The Apostolic Penitentiary responded:
“Even though the Apostolic See is vacant, the conditions of praying for the intention of the Supreme Pontiff are fulfilled by reciting once the “Our Father” and the “Hail Mary” once; nevertheless, the opportunity is also given to the individual faithful to recite another prayer which pleases them according to the piety and devotion of each one , even if he has fulfilled the duty of his life, since the ends of the Pope’s intention, the ends for which one must pray–undoubtedly the spiritual good of the whole Church — persist.”
It occurrs to us that maybe to be on the safe side, it would be best these days, to pray– for all the intentions of the Pope which are for the spiritual good of the whole Church, as the Penitentiary has described them. 😉
*Codex Iuris Canonici (1983), not Catechism
Once again: HOLY INNOCENTS survives the “new springtime mercy axe”.
Rorate Caeli has the story with comments here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/11/holy-innocents-in-new-york-to-remain.html#more
New Catholic writes:
“Of course this news does not change the fact that Father Justin Wylie, who offered Mass frequently at Holy Innocents, is gone. And the news that Holy Innocents remains open and not merged does not result in a net gain of any sort, as our very public suggestion to make Holy Innocents a personal parish has not been publicly considered.”
Yea, and the FSSP still doesn’t have a bishop either.
But hey, it’s a baby step.
PS Next time one of you dear commentors is at one of those N.O. celebrations in a half empty church, why not pull the “minister” of to the side and suggest that he try Catholicism. And the last sentence before you wish him a good day is: “It worked wonders for Holy Innocents”. 😉
Funny you should suggest that Barbara J. should read up on the Ionnian/Pauline papal line.
The wife and I had a priest over (family friend), one that I am working on ever so subtly, and we got into one of those back and forths. After one of my reposte, he was at a loss for an argument, at time my wife intervened with the statement: “don’t mind him, he reads too much”.
For N.O. catholics, it’s obviously taboo. 😉
So now when the priest friend comes over, we talk about guns and tanks. 🙂
Oh my…. an “activist papacy”…. emeritus. 🙂
When Benedict XVI Breaks His Silence and Corrects His Successor
Link here: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/11/when-benedict-xvi-breaks-his-silence.html
“(Rome) Since the end of February 2013 Benedict XVI who is in the unprecedented situation of an emeritus pope, has engaged more and more often in recent times taken up his feather to send public messages. These messages appear as corrections to mistakes, without mentioning the originator by name. The corrections relate to the dialogue with atheists, criticism of Cardinal Kasper and praise for his opponent Cardinal Burke, publicly expressed joy over the traditional rite over which Pope Francis has kept silent till now, in clear criticism of his successor. Benedict XVI. sent four messages in the month of October alone. A brief synopsis.”
FOUR times in October! 🙂
Looks like the pope emeritus is gaining his “sea legs”. 🙂
October… that rings a bell. Wasn’t there a revolution in October? 😉
A question to A Catholic Thinker or Roman Watcher (or anyone else who wants to take a stab).
W/r/t the above link, this passage appears:
“I am very happy that the usus antiquus now lives in full peace in the Church, even among the young, with support and the celebration by great cardinals.” A single sentence with a huge message. Benedict XVI.’s observers especially noticed the choice of words. The emeritus pope has no longer speaks using his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum definition where the Old Rite is called the “extraordinary form” of the Roman Rite, but speaks of “usus antiquus”. He so used that definition, not as it is represented tradition and enhanced the traditional rite so well with Motu proprio, rather, he actually raised it to its rightful position. Benedict XVI. is too wise a man not to weigh the importance of words exactly.”
Your thoughts about the above passage would be greatly appreciated.
Dear’ Barbara J,
We agree that the ambiguities of the Council are only partially responsible for the current crises, have pointed that out a number of times int the Past, citing Pius X and others who warned of modernist ideas long before. (Although Pecendi does a great job explaining moderist thinking in detail) That doesn’t change the fact that both of the Popes you express such admiration for, have contributed so greatly to the current states of confusion in the ways we cited and ignoring those facts speaking only of their good intentions and actions and sufferings, paints a false picture of their overall affect on the Church and the Faith.
–The average (we might even dare say majority of ) person/s who claims to be Catholic today, thinks the Church has reversed it’s dogma on no salvation outside the Church and it’s teachings that ecumenism is an evil and a grave danger to the Faithful based largely on the Pontificate of JPII and what took place at Assisi. This is not “developement” or fleshing out the details, but reversal.
-A pastor we know preaches that when Jesus spoke of correcting a fellow Christian, and got to the part where the brother rejects the Truth, He meant by “treat him as you would a tax collector or gentile” to treat them just as we should treat an IRS agent” against whom we should not discrimminate. These types of distortions of the meaning of Scripture concern us greatly, as they lead to toleration of grave sin, corruption of the innocent and ignorant, and ultimately of all society.
— This vast experiment in false charity has led to the greatest Apostasy in the history of the Church. It’s been pushed on us all in the last 55 years, and has failed. Our current Pope relishes being a product of this era while berating and punishing those who disagree with him, and claiming focussing on divisions is sinful. Yet Jesus said, I came to bring a sword –that divides father and son, etc.
The Church Fathers taught this division is the natural outcome of the rejection of doctrine, and Jesus used it as a litmus test of loyalty to God and worthiness for His Kingdom.
This tolerance of evil is not in any way a growth or development from dogma, but a tragedy if errors that leads to the loss of souls, announced and warned of by Our Lady at both Fatima and Akita, and condemned by Jesus in Revelations as what he hold against those in his Church… “you tolerate this Jezebel in your midst”.
2. You apparently misunderstood our meaning regading what wrote in his book Benedict’s book about not trying to Convert the Jews, but focussing instead on the Gentiles. We apologize if that was due to our lack of clarity. Our concern is not at all based on a false presumption that they will not convert in the End Times, as Scripture assures us is part of God’s plan for the Gentiles; but rather on the fact that between now and whenever “The end” comes (which only God knows) there are many Jews living and dying generation
after generation, without converting, and now, without it being a priority in the Church. And while obviously conversion must be an individual’s free choice, negligence in carrying out the mandate of Christ is a grave evil -also a free choice– on the part of His followers. He wouldn’t have commanded it to be done if it were not important, and He would have made it clear if He wanted the Jews exempted from the effort.
-Jesus wept over Jerusalem, lamenting their rejection of Him, and its eternal consequences. He told those who didn’t believe in Him -to their faces, “You will die in your sins because you do not believe that I AM” He sent his Apostles out to preach saying, “go first to the house of Israel”. And just before his Ascension, He sent them to teach ALL nations, all that He had taught , Baptizing them in the name of the Blessed Trinity. Do you really think He was excluding the Jews from that mandate? If so, why did Jesus bother sending His disciples to them, and why did Paul and the Apostles go to them many times as well?
3.Your very negative description of proselytizing is sadly insulting, yet very common today and typical of those who, like the current Pope, wish to characterize those who follow Jesus’ commands as “beating the Faith into others” implying thereby that their hearts are not full of love for those they wish to convert, and that gentleness and tenderness are virtues unknown to them. . The vast majority of Faithful Catholics we have met, who take the mandate seriously, are being made victims of this false image.
4. Your response completely ignores the scandals we mentioned. A pagan statue on top of a tablernacle, the sign of a false god on the forehead of a Pope, the Kissing of a book full of heresy. Do you really consider these things to be part of a “developement of doctrine?” The sodomites we’ve spoken with claimed the same thing about their new understanding of Scripture’s condemnations of Sodom. They explained to us that they now believe the sin of Sodom was “lack of hospitality”.
5. We could compose our own list of things to admire about these Popes. But it amounts to the mother of a serial killer attending his sentencing, and pleading with the Judge that “he was such a good boy until his first murder” . We all feel great sympaty for her and for her killer-son as well. But we need there to be a public record of the murders, and for him to be prevented from committing more of them. Not as vengeance, but for the common good.
It’s neither so simple and clear-cut as that, when it comes to spiritual killers– like false ideology.
But when a person adopts one, and is given the freedom and power to carry out it’s tenets as a social experiment; it would be criminal to look back at the results 50 years later, and declare their purveyors heroes, while pushing for further implementation of their experiment, claiming it is God’s will, and we just can’t see it yet.
Barbara, we’ve lost many loved ones to this failed experiment. These are not just theories on paper we’re talking about . We need the Church to declare it failed, for the sake of those who have not yet passed on who may yet turn their lives back to God.
6. Yes, Jesus prayed that all may be one. And the missionaries-many of whom died as martyrs- gave their lives to reach out to all the nations without exception. We’re not condemning the idea of our officials having talks with officials of other religions in order to discuss the differences. We’re against the nonsene and evil we’ve witness for over 50 years now, which ended up watering down or ignoring the Faith, for the sake of friendships; sending Catholics who don’t know their own Faith, into partnerships with people who know their own very well and and trained to denounce ours. Not even sheep yet, newborn lambs led to the slaughter. Look at the numbers, Barbara. Since we openend the doors, more Catholics have left than converts have come in. It’s time to re-evaluate the whole thing, in the light of constant teaching and original meaning and intent.
Please don’t feel attacked by the intensity of our statements. Like you, we are passionate about all this, and we respect you for being willing to state your views and take what comes in return, especially in a conservative forum. But please give these issues some more thought, too. God bless you.
p.s. please forgive the slaughtering of the spelling and typing –first paragraph we meant to refer to “Pascendi dominici gregis” of course. 🙂
Contrast Matthew 15: 10 -14:
“And having called together the multitudes unto him, he said to them: Hear ye and understand. Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Then came his disciples, and said to him: Dost thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized?
But he answering them, said: Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit.”
with Acts 5: 27 – 42:
“And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us.
But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men.
The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree.
Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins.
And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him.
When they had heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they thought to put them to death.
But one in the council rising up, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, respected by all the people, commanded the men to be put forth a little while.
And he said to them: Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do, as touching these men.
For before these days rose up Theodas, affirming himself to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all that believed him were scattered, and brought to nothing.
After this man, rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the enrolling, and drew away the people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as consented to him, were dispersed.
And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought;
But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. And they consented to him.
And calling in the apostles, after they had scourged them, they charged them that they should not speak at all in the name of Jesus; and they dismissed them.
And they indeed went from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of Jesus.
And every day they ceased not in the temple, and from house to house, to teach and preach Christ Jesus.”
I agree that most N.O. enthusiasts are simply ignorant about the reality of things, and a bit of intellectual honesty on their part would do them wonders.
Others, and probably the more vocal ones, are well aware of it all, but are actually consciously in agreement with the devilish contraption.
They are they same ones who describe the SSPX and Traditionalism in general as “whacko fundamentalist nutjobs conspiracy theorists” and actually despise Catholic faith.
I obviously opened up a very sensitive area, and I do believe that your Faith means so much to you and that is why you wrote so intensely. Let me just say that I did not mean to imply that anyone said that JP11 and Benedict were masons. While JP11 did not have reference to masons in the CCC, Cardinal Ratzinger spoke in his capacity as Prefect of The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith when he reminded Catholics that it is forbidden to be a mason and a Catholic in good standing at the same time.
Regarding the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul V1 was misled for sure and realized too late that he had given over the Church to Her enemies. He was naïve and intoxicated with modernism. I do not believe that JP11 nor Benedict ‘harmed the Faith’ and I do not need to ‘google around’ to find out in what way they did. I am familiar with the writings of both of them.
The Church has never made any statement about who in particular is saved and who is not. God judges each soul according to his or her lights, and we are not privy to the workings in any person’s mind and heart. This is why Jesus told us not to judge anyone. We can judge actions but not hearts. Judging hearts and motives is the prerogative and realm of God
Jesus knew that the Jewish religion was the true religion, but, while owning that ‘salvation is from the Jews’, He made the point when he spoke to the woman at the well that ‘true worshipers worship in spirit and in truth. It is just
such worshippers the Father desires.’
I do understand your points about the false ecumenism, and we are surely seeing it in full bloom now. I just do not agree that JP11 and Benedict were in error in their ecumenical efforts to bring about unity. I say this because these men were very clear about the doctrines of our Faith. They knew the difference between respecting the religious beliefs of others and being ‘one among equals searching for truth’. Each of them knew that our Faith is the fullness of Truth in Jesus.
By the way, it is no ‘conspiracy theory’ to state that masons have infiltrated–and at this point taken over–the institutional apparatus of Catholicism. Michael Voris has a well-researched, fact-based documentary about the historical infiltration of the masons in the Church. It is simple fact. Also, development of doctrine as opposed to reversal of doctrine is what we are seeing now in this present pontificate. Nowhere in the official writings of either JP11 or Benedict do we see any reversal of doctrine. These men were true popes. Bergoglio is not.
I think the “catholic” Zionists truly did a number on you Barbara
Barbara J thanks for your thoughtful comments. I too resisted for a long time all the criticism of Popes. But then I started simply comparing recent writings, let’s say in the past 40 years, with writings before that period.
It’s like night and day. Hard as it was to see, it’s all there. Religious Liberty has completely changed in meaning. The dignity of the human person has become a mantra – this too has changed it’s traditional meaning. Evolutionary thought permeates everything that has come out of the Vatican for 50 years.
Doctrine is not supposed to ‘develop’ in the way we see today. To examine a doctrine and to deepen its meaning can be helpful, but it can ever mean something opposed to what it has always meant. Someone reading an encyclical written by Pope Leo XIII and comparing it to what Pope Francis now writes would never recognize they were in the same Faith.
As I said before, Pope Francis is a son of Benedict and John Paul. He did not just arrive from outer space. You say you love the documents of Vatican II, well please go back a bit and read Leo XIII, Pius IX, and Pius X and Pius XI. I think you will be amazed at the difference. And not just in tone – actual differences in teaching/faith/traditional beliefs, and much, much more.
But I guess as you said we can never by argument change minds or hearts. I do urge you to read though. It would not even be fair to Pope Francis to lay all this at his door without learning what material heresy he comes from.
Barbara I suggest you read Mortalium Animos – which started this conversation. In it Pope Pius XI states once and for all when talking about participating in ‘assemblies’ of heretics etc.:
“This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See can by no means take part in these assemblies, nor is it in any way lawful for Catholics to give to such enterprises their encouragement or support. If they did so, they would be giving countenance to a false Christianity quite alien to the one Church of Christ….”
Every time Paul VI, John Paul II, or Benedict XVI participated in services, meetings, assemblies, Assisi I, II, III or however many and kind they did: they were all going against what Pope Pius XI wrote.
Absolutely nothing has changed from his time to theirs, or ours. Men are the same, the heresies and pagan beliefs are the same, weak minded men are still the same.
We’re told now that things have ‘developed’ but what this really means is that white is now black.
How refreshing to read words that make sense!! Every time Cardinal Ratzinger writes or speaks we get precision. So clear, so traditional…
But this is just in contrast with what Pope Francis writes and speaks.
From what we know of Cardinal Ratzinger when he was Pope Benedict he’s just as much a modernist as Francis. He just knows the language and uses it properly.
By the way his proper name now is Cardinal Ratzinger not Pope Emeritus or any such nonsense. The election of a Pope is administrative so when you resign you go back to what you were before. Dragging him out once in awhile is a terrible idea, so typical of Pope Francis.
In Par. 70 of Veritatis. S..JPII writes:
“The statement of the Council of Trent does not only consider the “grave matter” of mortal sin; it also recalls that its necessary condition is “full awareness and deliberate consent”. In any event, both in moral theology and in pastoral practice one is familiar with cases in which an act which is grave by reason of its matter does not constitute a mortal sin because of a lack of full awareness or deliberate consent on the part of the person performing it.
Even so, “care will have to be taken not to reduce mortal sin to an act of ‘fundamental option’ — as is commonly said today — against God”, seen either as an explicit and formal rejection of God and neighbor or as an implicit and unconscious rejection of love. “For mortal sin exists also when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered. In fact, such a choice already includes contempt for the divine law, a rejection of God’s love.”
Isn’t JPII saying the same thing here as Jimmy Akins? as far as the two conditions are concerned–which he says is confirmed by Trent?
Isn’t he warning against trying to make more than the simple two conditions -a necessity for the commission of mortal sin?
(You might consider me OCD, but when I see JP11, I think eleven. And when Paul V1 shows up, my brain twists at the mix. Convention for Roman Numerals is to use letters. I read slowly enough as it is. If you could take pity on me and use the capital I, I’d greatly appreciate it.)
God Bless, 😉
Dear Barbara J.
You seem to want to ignore the prior Popes’ scandalous Actions, as if they mean nothing. At least you have twice refused to comment on the effects.
But the first Commandment says, “Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me”. And the Old testament is full of chastisements from God resulting from carved images being set up in Holy places. Daniel calls one “the abomination of desolation” For the leader of the Catholic Church to go directly against 2000 years of specific teachings on such a matter, by permitting such things, resulting in countless numbers of people leaving losing their Faith and leaving the Church, is inexcusable as friendly ecumenical gestures.
There’s an old saying, “Actions speak louder than words.”
One account reads: On October 27, 1986, with due permission of John Paul II, the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhist monks of his sect placed a statue of Buddha over the tabernacle in St. Peter Church, in Assisi. The statue was encased in a glass cylinder. In front of the tabernacle, was a censer in the shape of a lotus flower and to its left, a small banner with Buddhist inscriptions. Two pagan religious books were placed on either side of the tabernacle along with candles that burned in honor of the idol. On the second row below, Buddhist monks prostrated themselves and adored the idol, and prayed that all “may soon attain the state of Buddha.”
Robert Sugenis wrote: “, It suggests that God is not the least bit disturbed by the pagan’s worship of false gods and sinful lifestyle, nor the least bit disturbed that the Catholic is not discouraging the pagan from his false worship and lifestyle”, –“We are addressing the Church’s promotion of the idea that the pagan penitent is already understood as being in intimate communion with God such that he can ask for spiritual and physical well-being in his life, and would expect to be answered in the affirmative. In the tradition of the Church, that is a privilege reserved only to those who are already in covenant with God, a covenant based on the faith and morals taught and practiced in the Catholic Church. …”it makes one wonder what precisely John Paul meant in Redemptoris MissioUniversity in Ponce Puerto Rico, Fr. Brian Harrison, who wrote the following to the popular magazine “Inside the Vatican” in the May 2002 issue. He writes:
Fr. Brian W Harrison, O.S., S.T.D. Ponce, Puerto Rico wrote:
Can a loyal Catholic ever criticize the Pope? Can it ever be his duty to voice such criticism publicly? These agonizing questions have been presenting themselves increasingly in recent years to a good number of Catholics who, like myself, do not consider themselves in any way dissenters. We accept all the authentic teachings of the Magisterium, including those since Vatican Council II, but feel deeply troubled by the policy and practice of the present pontiff in regard to non-Christian religions.
As a priest who teaches theology at a pontifical university, I am dismayed at the inter-religious peace gathering in Assisi. It is well-known that before the first such gathering in 1986 (which played no small part in provoking the rupture between Archbishop Lefebvre and the Holy See in 1988), a number of cardinals privately warned John Paul II of the imprudence of such an innovation – utterly unheard of in 2,000 years of Church history. Their concern was shared by thousands of faithful priests, religious and Catholic laity. Perhaps if we had publicly voiced that concern, instead of remaining silent out of fear and human respect, His Holiness might have felt the need for greater restraint in the next millennium.
…, the practical effect in the minds of millions of observers worldwide can only have been to create or reinforce the impression that the Roman Catholic Church now endorses what Pope Pius XI described as “the view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy.” But while vast numbers of Catholics now see nothing much wrong with that view, Pius XI declared that those who support and promote it are “lapsing gradually into naturalism and atheism” and therefore are “totally falling away from the religion revealed by God” (cf. Mortalium Animos, 1928).
.. when the Roman pontiff invites Jewish, Islamic, pantheistic and polytheistic religious leaders to come and practice their respective forms of worship inside Catholic churches and religious houses, offering to each group space and facilities for that purpose.. How does such an invitation escape the charge of formal cooperation in the objectively sinful practice of pagan worship? How will it in any way help to persuade those invited non-Christians, and their millions of followers, that Jesus Christ is the only Saviour?
Is Assisi really justified by Vatican II’s cautious recognition in Nostra Aetate that non-Christian religions “often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men” or by its call for “prudent…discussion and collaboration with members of other religions”? Are such gatherings (not to mention such unheard-of gestures as the Pope’s public kissing of the Koran on May 14, 1999) apt to give any practical reflection to the Catholic truth that the “belief” of non-Christians is not the theological virtue of faith – recently confirmed as definitive by John Paul II in Dominus Jesus?
I offer these comments, not in a spirit of defiance, but as a loyal son of the Holy Father who prays for him daily, who assents to all his formal teachings as Vicar of Christ, but who also grieves for the scandal and confusion caused by radically innovative practices which do not seem to reflect those teachings.
It’s much more than a step, considering Cardinal Dolan just announced over 112 of the 368 parishes in his Diocese are slated to merge, and this isn’t one of them. This is indeed good news.
I will try to address all the concerns mentioned in response to my last comment. I took Barbara’s advice and printed off a copy of Mortalium Animos and I read it carefully. I then printed off JPII’s encyclical Ut Unum Sint (That All May Be One) and read through that also. I do not find the two encyclicals in contradiction at all. I find them complementary and a good example of the development of doctrine.
Pope Pius XI is speaking of the syncretism (false ecumenism) of assemblies which attempt to compromise doctrine. In this encyclical he explains that they (those who through human effort want to compromise doctrine to attain ‘unity’) state that the Church itself is made up of sections, that is to say made up of different churches. (This is an error, by the way, that Cardinal Ratzinger addressed in the Ratzinger Report which he gave in an interview while Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith. He also spearheaded the writing of the Apostolic letter Dominus Jesus in which he corrected the same error.)
In Ut Unum Sint, PJII upholds this truth when he states, ‘Here it is not a question of altering the deposit of Faith, changing the meaning of dogmas, eliminating essential words from them, accommodating the truth to a particular age, or suppressing certain articles of the Creed under the false pretext that they are no longer understood today. The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of Faith compromise is in contradiction with God Who is Truth. In the Body of Christ , the way, the truth and the life (Jn 14:6) who could consider legitimate reconciliation brought about at the expense of truth?’……..’A ‘being together’ which betrayed the truth would thus be opposed both to the nature of God Who offers His communion and to the need for truth found in the depths of every human heart. Ut Unum Sint flows out of Mortalium Animos. Mortalium Animos grounds Ut Unum Sint in its Holy Spirit-inspired quest for Christian unity. I suggest to you, Barbara, my namesake, that you read Ut Unum Sint.
Indignus, JPII stressed in Ut Unum Sint that the heart of genuine ecumenism is prayer. The ‘scandals’ that you mention at Assisi flow out of his desire to communicate respect for the beliefs of others. zLike all popes, he is human and perhaps he was imprudent in his zeal to be accepting. I know that you will object to this, but let’s agree to disagree. Can you do this?
You give, Indignus, great weight to Pope Pius XI’s encyclical. Do you not give the same weight to JPII’s encyclical? If I am dealing with someone who
does not think that JPII was a valid pope, I guess the conversation is over. JPII has a great LOVE for the Second Vatican Council. He understood it in its proper interpretation. If we believe that he was a valid pope, are we not bound to be open to what the Holy Spirit inspires him to say and do? Christ died for each human being . He does want unity among us. Or are you of the mindset that Vatican II was a false council and that the last true pope was Pope Pius XII? Perhaps if Pope Pius XII had consecrated RUSSIA to Our Lady, as he was asked to do in the Fatima apparitions, the grace would have been given to preserve the Holy roman Catholic Church from this terrible suffering now.
An now a bit of election day humor: “Nuns in Glass Buses”
Link here: http://juicyecumenism.com/2014/11/03/nuns-glass-buses/
“The Nuns on a Bus serve as their own best example of how elections can become “awash with big money.” Though Gibson’s profile of the bus tour is quick to proffer libertarian billionaires Charles and David Koch as the reason for the nuns’ concerns over “dark money” from wealthy donors, he conveniently leaves out any connection NETWORK has to Soros.”
“Sr. Campbell’s claim that her efforts are “all about ‘we the people’ standing up against big money” just sounds odd when we she tells us that Nuns on a Bus was launched by “all the big players” in DC. Sooner or later, she’ll find that throwing stones from glass buses can be a dangerous game.”
Dangerous game indeed.
PS Like the famous saying dating back to Richard J. Daley’s day, it’s election day, so voter “early and often”. 😉
And while we are on the subject of humor, more recruits to Jorge’s Peoples Front of Judea arise.
“Another Bishop “excommunicates” faithful who go to SSPX Masses – now in Argentina!”
And a supposed conservative bishop at that.
New Catholic writes:
“In all honesty, Bishop Sarlinga is considered a “conservative”*, closely linked to Opus Dei (though not a member), and for that reason was widely regarded in the Argentinian Church as someone deeply despised by the former Archbishop of Buenos Aires, of whom he was considered an “ideological” adversary.”
Adversary of Francischurch or not, if the SSPX is pulling your pew sitters, then I guess “all’s fair in love and war…. and religion”. 😉
Wonder what cd. Muller is thinking right about now? 😉
And since we are on a “church of luv and joy” theme this morning, I bring to your attention this:
“Man Drops $10 In Donation Basket Like He’s Some Kind Of Beverly Hills Millionaire”
Link here: http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2013/12/27/man-drops-10-in-donation-basket-like-hes-some-kind-of-beverly-hills-millionaire/
” Atherton, CA––In what many witnesses are calling “a stunning act of generosity,” a mysterious parishioner was spotted placing a $10 bill into the donation basket at the St. Mark’s Catholic Church 9:00 am Mass as though he were some sort of Beverly Hills millionaire. “He pulled out a crisp $10 bill from his billfold, snapped it a couple times, folded in half, and flicked it with his finger as if he hadn’t a financial care in the world,” witness Randy McGrath told EOTT before going on to say that the mysterious millionaire acted so nonchalant that one could easily have deduced that this was not the first time he had donated such a substantial sum of money. “I mean, his hands weren’t even trembling by time the basket got to him. He just kinda leaned back in his pew and tossed the bill in the basket from about a half-foot out with the calm and poise of a man who’s used to handling large bills. After the basket passed, you could see everyone just kinda looking at the bill and pointing at it. Some people even turned around to see who may’ve dropped it in.” Observers witnessed the mysterious Beverly Hills Millionaire drive off after Mass in what many described as a lavish 2007 Chevy Malibu. At press time, the usher in charge of the basket was carefully taking the bill out of the basket and placing it in her bra for safe keeping.”
If the good Argentine bishop (from the previous post) had more “players”, he wouldn’t need to excommunicate Faithful take their “business somewhere else”.
Which gives me a great idea: Has anyone over in N.O. land thought of “casino masses”? 😉
the more I read you the more I’m puzzled as to why you would think Francis is ” the choice of the masons. He is night in all its darkness.”
What has the poor man done?
What do you disagree about specifically?
Is it about TLM repression or his eccentric behaviour or?
And one for the “ain’t goin down without a fight” category.
“Windsor mayor pleads with Catholics to save Assumption Church”
Link here: http://www.pblosser.blogspot.com/2014/11/windsor-mayor-pleads-with-catholics-to.html
“We encourage you to review the decision to close this vital and vibrant Church; a Parish Church that has enriched and nourished the lives or parishioners for generations,” Francis writes.”
No, no, no. “Francis” in this case is Mayor Eddie Francis. 🙂
OK. I know none of you thought that the article was quoting the bishop of Rome Francis.
But the good news… sort of…. is that not one, but two new homes were found for the Catholic Faithful post closure. 🙂
Link here: http://www.pblosser.blogspot.com/2014/11/extraordinary-community-news-new-homes.html
On the plus side, the two churches could use the extra collection plate take. On the minus side, the “usus antiquus” (That term is beginning to grow on me) could be contagious.
And we know how that story ends.. don’t we.
For anyone who doesn’t know, or hates suspense, the ending goes something like this: Calling Fr. Volpi. Please pick up the courtesy phone at the reception desk. Call from Rome. Fr. V O L P I. Please pick up the courtesy phone at the reception desk. 🙂
Berto have you any plans for a blog you are a very gifted writer and would be sad if you are only here for a cameo.
Barbara Jensen I recommend you read Fr Patrick De La Rocque’s “John Paul II Doubts about a Beatification” it highlights the massive rupture between John Paul II’s theology and what the Church has always taught. But given your comments thus far I am not entirely sure you will read it with an open mind.
It is similar to the misunderstanding on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They imply that that we can know who is an exception to mortal sin and so mortal sin is not always or ever mortal sin.
They imply that we can know who is in invincible ignorance and so there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So not every one needs to enter the Chruch formally.
Now Bishop Marcello Semeraro and Bishop Óscar Domingo Sarlinga, in Italy and Argentina respectively, want the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II with this irrationality of the exceptions making the rule and the exceptions being visible and known to us in real life.
In Par. 70 of Veritatis. S..JPII writes:
“The statement of the Council of Trent does not only consider the “grave matter” of mortal sin; it also recalls that its necessary condition is “full awareness and deliberate consent”.
Cardinal Ratzinger should have clarified that he was referring to conditions known only to God.
Similarly he has not clarified that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known only to God and so are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
In any event, both in moral theology and in pastoral practice one is familiar with cases in which an act which is grave by reason of its matter does not constitute a mortal sin because of a lack of full awareness or deliberate consent on the part of the person performing it.
The exception has nothing to do with the rule.
Even so, “care will have to be taken not to reduce mortal sin to an act of ‘fundamental option’ — as is commonly said today — against God”, seen either as an explicit and formal rejection of God and neighbor or as an implicit and unconscious rejection of love. “For mortal sin exists also when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered. In fact, such a choice already includes contempt for the divine law, a rejection of God’s love.”
Isn’t JPII saying the same thing here as Jimmy Akins? as far as the two conditions are concerned–which he says is confirmed by Trent?
I don’t know about JP II. He was not well and Cardinal Ratzinger overlooked the writing of Veritatis Splendor.
However Akins makes the same error in morals and in faith.
In faith he assumes there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In morals he assumes there are known exceptions to mortal sins.
In both cases what is invisible for us he assumes is visible and so is a factor in rejecting the Traditional teaching.
Isn’t he warning against trying to make more than the simple two conditions -a necessity for the commission of mortal sin?
It works that way among the liberals. Veritatis Splendor did a good job in criticizing the Fundamental Option Theory.
I bring you more good news!
In 2014, number of Jesuit male religious down 52% from peak in 1966 (36,038 v 17,287).
Of the above, only 12,298 priests. 😉
If only we could know their average age. 😉 (I’m betting 70+)
Link here: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dqsj0.html
PS Great information site for Catholic stats.
But I’m just trying to lower expectations….lest someone accuses me of being triumphalistic 😉
Dear Barbara J,
Yes, Jesus prayed for unity, but not at the expense of truth. That’s why He stated He hadn’t come to bring Peace, but a sword that divides-even families, i.e. those that reject His teachings – from those who accept them.
(Somebody should tell Pope Francis, as last we heard he was teaching that focusing on what divides us is a sin)
–You asked, (since we believe he was Pope) “are we not to be open to what the Holy Spirit inspires him [the Pope] to say and do? ”
Sure, and the Bible reminds us to test every Spirit. So anything not promulgated as dogma, especially novelties, get compared to revealed truth and consistent past teachings. Opposites don’t pass. [ is that not your own method and justification for criticizing Francis?]
–You claim JP’s writing and MA are a match, but the actions he took based on it over many years, –Assisi and the other ecu-meetings have all been direct opposites of all the warnings. So if his writings matched the past, then he really had even less of an excuse for going against them.
–But The Assisi scandal was only likely based “Imprudent zeal” you said. Is that not more like criminal negligence then, considering it damaged or destroyed the faith of countless people the world over, and left most of the rest thinking the Church had reversed its dogma? If this really is something you are willing to completely dismiss and/overlook, considering the damage done, to all those Fr. Harrison listed, then you’re right, this is something on which we simply will not agree, as we know too many people who were harmed by it..
We hope your view of that changes some day then. . God bless 🙂
Historic: First Pontifical High Mass at the Throne (Usus Antiquus) in England since the advent of the new rite.
Rorate Caeli has the link here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/11/historic-first-pontifical-high-mass-at.html#more
So here is the score card as per New Catholic:
1) Bishop Alan Hopes of the Diocese of East Anglia became the first bishop in England to celebrate a Pontifical High Mass at the throne in the extraordinary form in modern times on Saturday for the feast of All Saints.
2) This was also the first time a pontifical high mass has been celebrated in Norwich Cathedral as the church only became such in the 1970s when the Diocese of East Anglia was established.
3) This was as well the first time that a Pontifical High Mass was celebrated by a bishop in his own cathedral in the ancient see of East Anglia since the death of Bishop John Hopton OP in 1558.
4) Truly a historic day liturgically for the Catholic Church in England.
Let me quote the greatest saying attributed to Mahatma Gandhi that he never said: ” “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
And yes! Truly a historic day for Catholicism. 🙂
Barbara J, I appreciate your comments, however, where the rubber hits the road John Paul’s words and actions have actually changed what Catholics believe.
Surely, this is important? Imprudent doesn’t even begin to describe the words and actions of a Pope who seemed to bring a ‘new perspective’ to perennial teaching. What I want to know, and have never found in any posts or comments is this:
Why the change? That is the most important question of all. What about previous statements, for example in Mortalium, was so wrong, difficult to understand, or ‘old-fashioned’ that it had to be re-interpreted?
The answer is: modern man no longer wants to do the hard thing. Modern man wants to be seen as merciful, accepting, tolerant, loving, non-judgmental etc. So the old-fashioned, clear teachings were softened.
But look at the mess this approach has produced! That’s the proof that all the loving, merciful words in the documents of VII, and ALL the writings of John Paul, and Benedict CAN, and HAVE obscured TRUTH. Those in false ‘religions’ cannot be saved from Hell unless God directly intervenes by sending an Angel, or puts into their hearts what they must believe to be saved, or sends them a missionary. That is what the Church has always taught. You say it still teaches this, and you can see it in the words of John Paul and Benedict.
It doesn’t in the long run help to compare documents, I guess. Especially since your heart is with John Paul and Benedict. But really, Barbara J, can you not compare RESULTS?
Have we forgotten that the Church (oh so long ago!) remains neutral as to what system of government the people choose? The Church informs government as to the real common good, and the State acts. That’s it.
It’s not the system, but the hearts, minds, and souls of the people that the Church deals with. Our Bishops focus on politics to the exclusion of saving the souls of their sheep.
And it all sounds so good, eh? Social Justice, fight Capitalism, change political systems to abolish poverty, no child left behind, it takes a village, go out into the peripheries, ALL TOTAL CRAP.
Save souls. Convert sinners. And guess what? No matter what legitimate system ‘the people’ decide they want, God will come first, and everything else will fall into place.
Good luck finding the above in any Bishop’s statement for the past 60 years.
The traditional perspective will not win the day if it resorts to mockery of those with whom they strongly disagree. Rather than put their faith in God, those who mock put their faith in their own wittiness and supposed ability to see the situation as it really is, and they seem to want others to notice and applaud them for this. Who put them in charge, anyway?
Thank you for posting this reference to Father’s book. We found many quotes in the reviews of it, which accurately describe our life-experience under his Pontificate, -especially the idea of a human utopia- which drew many people we know into the heresy of indifferentism, and the toleration of unrepented sin which accompanies it and attacks Christian society: Here are a few:
–“John Paul II took as the fundamental axis of his pontificate ANOTHER HOPE” “.. The Unity of the Human Family HERE ON EARTH, was the driving force of his major pontifical decisions.”
–” Believing he was relying on a theocentric anthropology, John Paul II, on the contrary, took as his foundation the vital immanence that had been condemned by Pope Saint Pius X. ” this hope, far from being theological in its object or in its means, it is even less so in its motive or formal cause.”
–“Centered on what he termed the human dimension of the Redemption, this hope has as its object the building of the civilization of love ”
–“..its means, prayer (considered as a religious sentiment)—and consequently world religions (considered in their plurality) and religious freedom.
–“..he then developed insistently, and often against the advice of the Curia, what he called the “spirit of Assisi.”
–“..particularly through the constant support he gave to the association “Peoples and Religions” of the Sant’ Egidio community.”
–“In this same spirit, John Paul II did not hesitate to call a “pilgrimage”—in other words to make sacred—certain steps which were centered only on man; .in the spirit of Assisi. He also went on “pilgrimage” tracing the spiritual heritage of Luther or in the footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi…or Martin Luther King..”
–“HE ALSO PROFOUNDLY REDEFINED the very notion of MARTYR so as to extend it to ANY person WHO DIED, (NO LONGER BECAUSE OF HATRED FOR CHRIST), BECAUSE OF HATRED FOR MAN OR FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
— Thus he considered as martyrs the millions of human beings who died in the concentration camps, as victims of the Holocaust or even of Hiroshima, and so he established an ecumenical martyrology on the occasion of the Jubilee Year 2000.”
–” Among the works of spiritual mercy we note the following: correcting those who are in error and bringing them back to the path of salvation; caring for the salvation of souls and desiring for those souls the means of salvation that we desire first for ourselves. Heroic charity consists of performing these works promptly, easily and without resistance, with joy; not now and then but often, even if circumstances make performing these works difficult.”
–“Although He was kind to the wayward and the sinners, OUR LORD DID NOT RESPECT THEIR ERRONEOUS CONVICTIONS, HOWEVER SINCERE THEY APPEARED.”
–“John Paul II very often demonstrated his respect for the doctrinal points on which his ecumenical partners were opposed to the Catholic faith.”
— “Moreover, far from reminding them..about the necessity of holding the Catholic faith in order to be saved, he often put the Church’s message under a bushel basket, or else distorted it.”
–“His “charity” was therefore not that of the truth.” — the example of relations with Judaism– was one of the dialogues most highly developed by him..”
The Faith is Tradition. That is how Our Lord’s teaching was passed down, how the Scriptures settled. Anything that departs from Tradition is not of the Faith.
This may be stating the obvious to many who post here, but one theme keeps recurring when we talk about the problems in our world today.-.
-The confusing dichotomy between what leaders (whether deceased or inaccessible to common folks ) have written and said, and what various people have come to believe they meant.
–One cause we note is alterations of the meanings of words which were thought to be well-understood in common language, and not normally used as philosophical terms. It accounts for much of the confusion in rending proper interpretations of their works, as well as in trying to end divisions of thought -even among their admirers.
-The forked tongue is a trademark tool of the devil, and diabolical disorientation may well be the reason we see it so much in use today in places that shock us. So while we refrain from judging hearts, we may be better able to understand how someone could even be canonized today, despite the fact that his actions led huge numbers of people away from the Faith- as people whose job it is to pass formal judgment, continue to disagree about his intentions, cite his own confusing words to try to prove that what their eyes have witnessed could not really have been his intention.
-In essence then, we find ourselves reduced to the situation which existed at the time of the Tower of Babel, even though we might all be using the same language to try to communicate.
Grandma often said, “Actions speak louder than words”. But she never would have dreamed it would be necessary to apply that measuring stick to what a Pope had said or done. Computers have really changed our access to the world around us..
It’s definitely a tactic used on both sides in the war of words.
But it also may have it’s “moments” of legitimate use.
Jesus once said to the scribes and Pharisees, “hypocrites! you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves ”
He’s definitely got traditional perspectives, and he resorted to more than occasional mockery of those who disagreed with Him.
Like anything else, it can be abused.
I wonder if there is anyone commenting regularly on this Forum who is being paid $25 dollars an hour to do so, by such organizations such as MoveOn or other govt affiliated consensus building organizations?
You are quite right, Denise, that mockery has no place in any discussion. From my perspective as a Catholic who wants everyone to save their souls, I get a little hot under the collar, and may not always choose soft words when I see the blind leading the blind.
Those who hear only love, and mercy, and never the harsh words of possible damnation are not doing themselves any favours. And I feel here, and on some other blogs com boxes that I have a fairly safe place to say what I desperately need to say: you are on the edge of the cliff – listen, look, hear, see!!!!!
But I need people like you, once in a while, to say: hey, let’s not get carried away especially with personal invective!
Thanks for the kind words Johnatan (assuming that isn’t sarcasm or a joke about my ever so abundant spelling and syntax errors, which would be fine too).
While at first glance I may seem to be knowledgeable on matters of Doctrine, History of the Church and perhaps other fields of study(or not), actually my understanding is very limited, and confined to a relatively small area of topics.
As I said when I first joined the site, my catechesis was embarassingly poor, and the little I know is due to personal study.
I’m learning new things everyday by interacting with fellow readers on this site and others, and sometimes amazed at the sheer volume of topics I encounter I virtually know nothing about.
For now, and probably for many years ahead of me, my highest expectation is simply being able to offer maybe a fresh look at things to others, or add to conversations in some meaningful way, possibly correct some technical mistake.
That might seem like a trivial matter, but I am quite proud of it.
On the subject of John Paul II’s “beatification” (but also interesting analysis about other V:II Church heads) I recommend Father Villa’s works.
It may get a bit explicit and conspiracy-ist at times, but it shows passion and attention to detail.
Hell yeah Denise!
Who is doing that?
There are times when denigration of the opponent is useful and necessary in the face of stubborn persistence or when the opponent himself is rude and needs to be put in his/her place.
Sarcasm, humour and general wittiness are also useful for highlighting intellectual errors, contradictions, and turning an opponents slanders & attitude against them.
There is a time and a place for everything, and one should pray to God to give them the gift of discernment in all matters. Our Lord knew when to use it. As did Elijah when he mocked the prophets of Baal for their stupidity. And so did St. Augustine on a good many occasions against his opponents and the stupidity of the astrologers.
I am responding to Indignus and Barbara. Both of you use the term of two encyclicals Moralium Animos and Ut Unum Sint as not really ‘matching’. The use of the term ‘matching’ tells me that we are not talking about the same thing. I said that the two encyclicals are complementary. I explained that Ut Unum Sint FLOWS OUT OF Mortalium Animos, and that Mortalium Animos GROUNDS Ut Unum Sint in the primacy of orthodoxy. This is what is meant by development of doctrine and the hermeneutic of continuity. Also, Mortaliuim Animos was condemning assemblies which come together to compromise and syncretize doctrine. Pope JPII participated in prayer with persons of other religions, he was not engaging in compromising doctrines.
The commentary on JPII’s Christian humanism is unfair because these are theological aspects that need to be explored much more fully than through a blog comment. Many persons have come into the Faith because of JPII. The Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist, for example, define themselves as the John Paul II generation. They are flourishing.
If you really believe that anyone who is not a formalized Catholic cannot go to Heaven, you are teaching what is not Catholic doctrine. The Church has always refrained from saying that any person is in hell. Each person who is redeemed is redeemed by Christ whether he or she knows it or not. Only God can judge a soul, and He judges each person according to that person’s lights. And Barbara, religions don’t go to hell. Persons may though.
The results are not in yet as far as JPII and Benedict. The Church is going through a vicious purification, and, as things break down each one will have to decide whether or not he or she is for Christ or for the evil one. Read Revelation. We are in it.
The Latin Mass Society of England and Wales takes on the “Liberation Front of Judea”.
Latin Mass Society of England and Wales: Canon Law Briefing on Status of Faithful who receive Sacraments from SSPX Priests
Link here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/11/latin-mass-society-of-england-and-wales.html#more
“Letters from the Bishop Semeraro of Albano, Italy, and then from Bishop Sarlinga of Zárate-Campana in Argentina, have declared that the lay faithful who receive the sacraments from priests and bishops of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) are automatically excommunicated, and would need to go through a process authorised by the bishop to be readmitted to communion with the Church (i.e., not simply confession). The Latin Mass Society holds no brief to defend the position of the SSPX, which is canonically irregular, but feels it necessary to point out that these letters are not just ill-considered but have potentially very serious pastoral consequences. They imply that anyone who has ever been to Mass said by a priest of the SSPX is not welcome in the churches of these dioceses. This conflicts not only with the ‘opening of hearts’ requested by Pope Benedict XVI as a prelude to a healing of these divisions ‘in the heart of the Church’, but equally with the emphasis on mercy of Pope Francis.”
Extra Tango Misse Nulla Salus. 😉
Wickipedia says–On 1 January 2007, their average age was 57.3 years: 63.4 years for priests, 29.9 years for scholastics, and 65.5 years for brothers.
Add 7 years and looks like you’re spot on again. 🙂
Dear Barbara J,
We were talking mainly about the Pope’s actions, and you can refer to the written similarities as complimentary -that’s fine, we weren’t implying they had to be identical in wording, but in meaning, wherever they refer to the same topic. . The problem is, his actions were not following through with that continuity, and you want to write off the losses as “uncountable” while citing conversions due to His personal attraction. Let’s look at the numbers of Catholics who left the Church after VII and since, and the number of Church closings and scandals and so-called Catholics who ignore Church teachings, to see the results of his pontificate and love for VII, more plainly. His tolerance of dissenters is another matter that greatly affected our lives. He left Curran at Catholic U. and McBrien at Notre Dame-in charge of Theology departments for over 20 years, wrecking the Church, syndicated in Diocesan newspapers preaching contraception and women priests–you name it. We had Bishops going crazy that were never removed till they died or retired, publicly trashing our Faith, and celebrating their homosexuality while desecrating the Eucharist. Bernardin in Chicago held a Mass with huge bows of wine on tables set up like a restaurant with linen napkins and they sat around drinking the leftover consecrated blood, for dessert, while chatting. Newspapers ran it with the pictures, and JPII did nothing to remove him. We could go on and on, but you get the picture. We lived through that, trying to raise a Catholic Family.
Loss of Faith s not a judgment of souls being in Hell. Although Our Lady declared that many souls were going to Hell, and her messages at Fatima were approved by the Church. But all you have to do is ask people living today, and they readily tell you they lost their Faith and why. Many are indifferentists.
You wrote ” Also, Mortaliuim Animos was condemning assemblies which come together to compromise and syncretize doctrine.” While this is true also, it is definitely NOT the only thing condemned.
It warns again and again of what comes too easily from assembling together without the intention of calling for a return to the One True Church: Covering every topic from getting together with NO intention of merging ideas or beliefs, just for Charity, to make a show of unity…etc Whatsoever the manner….
p.6 “Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those undertakings which have for their end the union in one body, WHATSOEVER BE THE MANNER, of all who call themselves Christians.
And there is no thought of union here with non-Christians.
p.7 Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they
might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.
8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See CANNOT ON ANY TERMS TAKE PART IN THEIR ASSEMBLIES, NOR IS IT IN ANY WAY LAWFUL FOR CATHOLICS TO EITHER SUPPORT OR WORK FOR SUCH ENTERPRISES for if they do so they will be GIVING COUNTENANCE TO A FALSE CHRISTIANITY quite alien to the one Church of Christ.
9.”These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in PROMOTING CHARITY AMONG ALL CHRISTIANS nevertheless how does it happen that THIS CHARITY TENDS TO INJURE THE FAITH?”
Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful? WE DO KNOW THAT FROM THIS IT IS AN EASY STEP TO THE NEGLECT OF RELIGION OR INDIFFERENTISM AND TO MODERNISM.”
10.So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has NEVER ALLOWED ITS SUBJECTS TO TAKE PART IN THE ASSEMBLIES OF NON-CATHOLICS: for THE UNION OF CHRISTIANS CAN ONLY BE PROMOTED BY PROMOTING THE RETURN TO THE ONE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST.
You may be right that blog comments are too limited to explore it all.
But, the fact that people were drawn to the Church through him does not prove that many more didn’t fall away because of his actions which contradicted Church teachings. There is plenty of evidence of the same thing happening due to condemned apparitions–converts and re-conversions, that is. God is at work everywhere. It’s the scandals that damage the Faith that need to be noted in order to stop them. .
“You wrote: . If you really believe that anyone who is not a formalized Catholic cannot go to Heaven, you are teaching what is not Catholic doctrine”
Who said anything like that? We’d have to reject Baptism of desire,- but the Church has never operated on the presumption of that for people in large numbers, as we have no way of knowing when it happens. (See Lionel’s many notes on that topic) or his blog.
Our mandate is to go teach and Baptize, not to pray together as if God will do the rest, and ignore the proscriptions against doing that because it leads to indifferentism.
Please try to be less judgmental about us. The fact that we oppose the errors of a Pope in no way means we don’t love and pray for his soul, or believe that he could be in heaven, if God so judges and he repented of any mortal sins before death. . You seem to be making a lot of negative assumptions regarding others. We don’t judge them, but our duty in not to contribute to their being lost, by dis-obeying the teachings of the Church, when a Pope does.
You want continuity, you say, but you buy into the whole ecumenical program which was always forbidden before Vatican II, making it a novelty, not a fleshing out of doctrine..
Canon law in 1917
1.It is illicit for the faithful to assist at or participate in any way in non-Catholic religious functions. (Obviously vice-versa would have applied, but Catholics wouldn’t have planned any back then, as they knew it was forbidden)
Hope this helps you see the whole picture. God Bless.
We never used to think like this, but you’ve got us habitually now asking, where do the bucks stop $$$. if Albano manages to detach a large number of faithful Catholics from regular attendance at SSPX Churches, they’d most likely end up supporting the large Cathedrals there–which always need repairs, as we know.
Are we being too cynical? ;- 0
To be perfectly honest, before the Francis papacy, I never thought about the “economics of the church” for the lack of a better term. Yea, I knew that the Kirchensteuer was there, and that it is evil, but I always thought that questions like this did not enter into the “church calculus” at the Vatican level. But looking at the lay of the land over the last 20 months, the only rational explanation that I can find to explain what we have been witnessing is the “economic considerations”.
I pray daily, that in the near futures, we can go back to thinking about the state of the church in a “theological and spiritual” context. But for that to happen, these “economic forces” that are destroying our only means of salvation need to be defeated. And the only way to defeat them, is to recognize them and act accordingly.
Indignus, where have I been judgmental toward you? I appreciate your deep LOVE of the Faith, and I also appreciate that you do not retaliate emotionally against me when I disagree with you. However, your dislike of JPII seems to put the whole mess the Church is in on his shoulders. He was elected to the Holy See in 1978, well after the misinterpretations of Vatican II were in full swing. It seems too that you consider the reality of ecumenism to be totally false, and on that we differ.
We have discussed this enough now, and I ask you to pray for me as I will for you too. Let us unite our prayers for Holy Mother Church. On that we surely agree. I ask God to bless you and your efforts to stay loyal to the Faith.
A couple of things. First please do not confuse the term “mockery” with “satire”.
I have not observed anyone on this site “mocking” (behavior or speech that makes fun of someone or something in a hurtful way). Yes?
What I have observed is the use of satire to answer hypocritical statements by people who should know better. And among these people who should know better are churchmen, church hierarchy, and unfortunately even the bishop or Rome.
But just so as to understand what satire entails, here is the wikipedia definition ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire):
“Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon and as a tool to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society.
A feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm—”in satire, irony is militant”—but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This “militant” irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack.”
And from what I have observed, the satire on this site is employed as “spiritual acts of mercy”. Just for the record: the spiritual acts of mercy are:
To instruct the ignorant.
To counsel the doubtful.
To admonish sinners.
To bear wrongs patiently.
To forgive offenses willingly.
To comfort the afflicted.
To pray for the living and the dead.
And finally, if there is an element of mockery on this site, then from what I have observed, it is not the sinner that is being mocked, but rather the sin.
Thks for the info.
Obviously a “religious order whose mission is coming to an end”, to quote our present bishop of Rome. 🙂
Vatican II and specifically Dignitatis Humanae (Religious Liberty) has replace the rule of Christ the King with the rule of our worldly Renaissance Princes! 😉
Dear Barbara J.,
Thanks for the kind response to our apparently mistaken impression. Sometimes it’s too easy to take questions as attacks, and we likely mistook your tone. Truly sorry for that.
–Trust us, we do not put the whole mess on JPII’s shoulders. We just raised our family during his Pontificate, so the bad affects were very painful to us and many of our relatives. What we dislike are the effects on souls. We watched him suffer and prayed for him daily and very sincerely. When someone is praising a person who’s actions you know were harmful, it comes across like personal dislike to refute them soundly. That’s all we were trying do, though.
—The Church saw ecumenism as wrong and harmful. We’ve done our share of dialoging with Protestants, Muslims, fallen away Catholics, sodomites, pro-abortions fanatics, you name it. But we knew our Faith more than most, and approached it from the point of view that we had a treasure to share, never in a scandalous way, or misleading them to believe we saw their faith as equal. JPII didn’t WANT what people were doing, necessarily, but his actions led them to do it that way. That’s our point, and you’re right we’ve dished this back and forth enough already–everybody else is probably tired of it, too.
–You definitely have our prayers, and thank you sincerely for yours, and for your patience. God will settle all this eventually, and so there is no more confusion or doubt. Truth is what matters, and Love. God Bless you and yours.
Good thing Jesus said, “But for the sake of the elect, the time will be shortened”
Don’t know how much more of this we have to go through, but it is good to know there are other families like ours, still struggling to help anyone out there who may still be open to the Truth, despite the huge handicap of having a Pope who is contradicting just about everything we tell them.
Hi, come join us but don’t listen to our Pope every other day or so, just doesn’t cut it. It’ even hard to pray “Come Lord Jesus” when you know if He does, it’s judgment time and so many people haven’t got a clue yet.
That’s why He’s taught us to suffer. We gotta remember to focus on daily sacrifices more.
God Bless. 🙂
I’m curious.. how would you react if Francis or the “Church” officially started issueing excommunications to SSPX attenders?
Since we’re about the business of waiting for God to rescue His Church and renew the Faith, maybe we can tag on a hope that He’ll do the same for Jesuits, for the sake of it’s Faithful founder. When we get a good Pope he’s going to need good defenders to help him re-educated the world.
And we shouldn’t forget how it all started:
Before his conversion St. Ignatius was recovering from surgery, and out of boredom, read the lives of Christ and the saints”. He would then wander off into thoughts of chivalry, and service to fair ladies. Suddenly, he became conscious that the after-effect of these dreams was to make him dry and dissatisfied, while the ideas of falling into rank among the saints braced and strengthened him, leaving him full of joy and peace. It dawned on him that the former ideas were of the world, the latter God-sent. Finally, worldly thoughts began to lose their hold, and heavenly ones grew clearer and dearer.
One night as he lay awake, pondering these new lights, “he saw clearly”, says his autobiography, “the image of Our Lady with the Holy Child Jesus”, at whose sight for a notable time he felt a reassuring sweetness, which eventually left him with such a loathing of his past sins, and especially for those of the flesh, that every unclean imagination seemed blotted out from his soul, and never again was there the least consent to any carnal thought.
His conversion was now complete. Everyone noticed that he would speak of nothing but spiritual things, and his elder brother begged him not to take any rash or extreme resolution, which might compromise the honour of their family.
Perhaps God will allow Ignatius to Appear to Pope Francis, and as his elder brother, beg HIM also not to ” take rash and extreme resolutions, which compromise the honour of their family”.
It doesn’t hurt to ask. 🙂
“You have people like me who believe doctrine has developed and therefore can develop.”
## Agreed: it can, because it has, and this in no way means it is not the same in identity.
The difficulty comes – as Newman saw – when what might be a development, is in fact no such thing, but is instead a corruption.
“”Mortalium Animos” has not been built on; the doctrine in it has not, while retaining its identity (which is, its identity with what went before V2) developed organically from Mortalium Animos to the doctrine in Dignitatis Humanae; instead, the teaching of Mortalium Animos has been unsaid, and that in Dignitatis Humanae has taken its place.
That doctrine can develop, is not the issue – whether the teaching in Dignitatis Humanae is a legitimate,organic development of the teaching in Mortalium Animos, is very much the question. All the more clearly so, since both by documents and actions the Papacy – to say nothing of the Faithful – since V2 has behaved in ways that contradict & deny & reject the teaching in Mortalium Animos. The indifferentist shenanigans of JP2 show what he thought of Mortalium Animos, if ever he did think of it. But contradiction is not development – it is denial of development, because it proceeds from a wholly different principle.
“Pope Benedict wrote a book which he said he wrote AS a theologian, not as Pope, WHILE he was Pope, which stated his reasons we should not be trying to convert the Jews–which was a post-conciliar development based on the Scriptural assurances of St. Paul that in the end times, they would convert. (The problem being that if we don’t try to convert them in our times, they will likely continue to reject Jesus, and we will be guilty of neglecting the mandate of Christ to go and teach and Baptize ALL nations)”
## So why should Anglicans convert to the CC ? Such as J. H. Newman, whom he claims to admire ? That same lazy “thinking” of his – I know, calling it “thinking” is a ridiculous stretch – is an excuse for the Church to sit on its fat backside and forget about missionary work. That requires zeal, self-sacrifice, conviction, love of truth – four great evils that the UnPentecost sicced up on the Church by John XXIII has helped to exorcise. God forbid the Church should continue to spread the Faith ! That would be most “unecumenical”.