As most readers know by now, Pope Francis witnessed the marriage of some twenty couples in St. Peter’s Basilica on Sunday, September 14th.
As Cardinal Dolan might say, Good for them! Bravo! (No, wait… these were heterosexual couples. Never mind.)
In any case, like so many other things involving His Humbleness, there’s more to the story.
According to a statement issued by the Diocese of Rome in the days leading up to the event, among those getting married that day were couples “who are already cohabitating; who already have children…”
(NOTE: These people didn’t just happen to fall into a bit of good fortune. In fact, they didn’t even apply for the privilege of having the pope witness their marriages; they were handpicked.)
Needless to say, with the air of anticipation surrounding the upcoming Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on Marriage and Family running as high as it is, many in the media and elsewhere are attempting to read the tea leaves to figure out what this might mean:
– Liberals are applauding what they see as an unmistakable sign of big changes to come wherein the Church will take a less “rigid” approach to marriage.
– Traditionalists (aka Catholics) tend to see much the same thing as the liberals, albeit with an appropriate sense of alarm.
– Conservatives, ever the consistent ones, are once again working overtime to make the case that absolutely nothing out of the ordinary is underway whatsoever.
The dirty little secret that few seem to recognize, however, is that all concerned, including the couples, are once again being exploited as useful idiots by the neo-modernists who are currently running the show in Rome.
You see, the papal marriage ceremony on Sunday was simply the latest in a series of initiatives that are part of a Pre-Synodal Reconnaissance Mission wherein the Captains of Newchurch, through various means, attempt to assess the collective temperature of the Body of Christ in order to determine just how much more of their humanist virus it can withstand before full scale rejection sets in.
– Phase One involved the worldwide Survey on Marriage and Family.
– Phase Two was the infamous telephone call wherein Pope Francis allegedly told an Argentinian adulteress to feel free to take Holy Communion.
– Phase Three was Cardinal Kasper’s presentation to the Consistory of Cardinals and the pope’s fawning appraisal of the same.
– Phase Four took place on Sunday.
The Survey gauged the mindset of the people in a rather direct way; the results apparently signaling that the time was opportune to go public with Cardinal Kasper’s rantings, as well as the pope’s subsequent approval of his “profound and serene theology.”
The telephone call and the marriage ceremony were a bit more devious, with the utter silence on the part of the Holy See concerning certain crucial details being a deliberate (and rather transparent) attempt to stoke the worldwide reaction necessary to help the current regime calculate its final strategy for the Synod.
While some are quick to point to what they perceive as Pope Francis’ ineptitude given the degree to which he has allowed confusion to reign in such situations, it would seem to me that they have grossly underestimated the man.
Francis knows what he’s doing. The former Jorge Bergoglio didn’t navigate a decades’ long episcopal career that landed him in the College of Cardinals, and then the Chair of St. Peter, for lack of cunning. (Seriously, does anyone really believe that he got where is today by virtue of his commitment to the Holy Catholic Faith?)
Pope Francis is well aware that the flock is bewildered. I suspect that he sees the perplexity of the faithful as an acceptable (and ultimately temporary) form of collateral damage, for their own good, as he humbly goes about liberating them from the stifling demands of those “self-absorbed Promethean Neo-Pelagians who favor soundness of doctrine and discipline; while remaining intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past” (cf Evangelii Gaudium – 94)
Look, any Roman Pontiff who is serious about upholding the demands of his exalted office would never allow the faithful to wallow in the kind of uncertainty that permeates the present pontificate. Never. In the present case, we’re not talking about questions that are difficult to answer:
Did the pope really tell that lady in Argentina to take Communion?
Did the cohabitating brides and grooms take the kinds of steps one should expect (a period of separation and continence, Confession) prior to the marriage?
There is but one reason that answers to these simple questions haven’t been forthcoming from Rome; we live under a pontificate that is determined to “make a mess,” and it’s succeeding wildly.
Let’s not be naïve; Pope Francis and the men who elected him have long since had an outcome in mind for the Synod; one that I suspect lies somewhere between the status quo and the Kasperian solution.
(I have already gone on record as predicting that it will involve affording national bishops’ conferences unprecedented autonomy in regulating Holy Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried, among other things, such that they will be free to implement a “discipline” modeled after the schismatic Orthodox approach.)
One might see in all of this the Hegelian Dialectic in action: Kasper has provided the thesis, the outrage that followed serves as the antithesis; now all that remains is for the Synod to deliver the synthesis.
The only lingering question, at least insofar as the masterminds in Rome are concerned, is just how aggressively to pursue their agenda once the Synod finally commences, and all of the handwringing over the events of last Sunday is just what they had hoped we might provide to help them arrive at an answer.
This is a very good analysis, but Bergoglio has been testing the water much more fundamentally than this. Christopher Ferrara has
enumerated some of the most important of these tests on The Remnant Web site as follows:
“Thus, when Francis…says that Mary might have felt deceived by God, that Christ only pretended to be angry with His disciples, that Our Lord rebuked the Pharisees for their rigorist view of the marriage bond rather than their lax view of it, that Matthew clung to his money instead of following Our Lord’s call immediately, and that Jesus ‘had’ a ‘Christian identity’ when He was Christ Himself and the Word Incarnate, we cannot be silent lest our silence be viewed as consent.”
Sadly, it appears that only a statistically insignificant number have broken their silence on what must be the most important elements of our religion: the Divine Person of Jesus Christ, the Mother of God, the moral law, the Apostles, the Gospels, the truth. All of these things are whatever Bergoglio says they are, and the “chumps” are buying it. The extraordinary synod will be a walkover.
Very well summarized. Many of us thought Pope Francis looked a little dazed when he came out on the balcony after his election. I felt sorry for him as he tried to get his bearings.
I actually worried that some nasty Cardinals might take advantage of his naivety!! It has become obvious that this ‘Bishop’ began long ago to develop his ideology and this Open Letter shows some of what was going on way back in Argentina:
Just as an example, The Bishop of Rome does not kneel at the Consecration. Well, he didn’t in Argentina either! We should be very grateful that there is no place to hide these days – it’s all on record – so we are blessed with TRUTH, and good Catholic comment.
Lou, I am as sceptical as you about Bergoglio’s intentions.
I believe his election was the culmination of the Pink Mafia take over. That others and perhaps himself were named in the Brief that B16 handed over to the Cardinals before the conclave. And that the objectives are
1. Communion for anyone regardless of sexual relationship
2. Multiple marriages without anulments, civil divorce being sufficient
3. Homo marriages
4. Marriage for clergy
5. Homo marriage for clergy.
The result will be the progressivist Church of the Nasty and Merciful.
Yet, those who know not to fear God, have much to fear, for He will not be silent. You cannot mock God for long.
To understand Bergoglio, you have to read Francis through Marx.
But at the end of the day, it’s only a “pastoral” exercise.
You make a compelling argument but there’s one thing I don’t get. Why divorce and remarriage? I don’t remember it being a big issue before the election of Pope Francis. Contraception seems like a much bigger fish to fry.
Time for a round up.
The good guys lost one in Blackfen.
Link at RC here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/09/anything-that-divides-must-be-cut-away.html
No mercy for you “Catholic” peasant.
But just look at what is happeing in the Phillipines.
Lint from NLM: http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/09/photopost-nativity-of-mary-2014.html#.VBiQpBbitKo
Who would have thunk?
We are still rolling in the ground game. 😉
Off topic but…. one for the “follow the money” bin: NON-CATHOLIC donors pressure Catholic Archbishop:
Via PewSitter: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=22604
Think twice before you through anything into the collection plate at your parish N.O. church.
Humanly speaking, I’m afraid to say we are DOOMED. There is NO ONE in the conciliar structures that is willing (or able) to see the current situation exactly as it is (in all its gory details) in the HIGHEST office in the church ie the papacy. Even Bishop Athanasius Schneider somehow is utterly blind to the impieties spouted by Francis on an almost daily basis. From an interview conducted recently in the UK:
“Thanks be to God, Pope Francis has not expressed himself in these ways that the mass media expect from him [?!]. He has spoken until now, in his official homilies, very beautiful Catholic doctrine [?!]. I hope he will continue to teach in very clear manner the Catholic doctrine.”
Am I the only one here just apoplectic at the sheer absurdity (with all due respect to Bishop Schneider) of this statement?? If what we have seen thus far is “beautiful doctrine” then I don’t want to know what heresy looks like.
The following blasphemous rambling by Francis is “beautiful Catholic doctrine” according to Bishop Schneider? He would like this “catholic doctrine” to be taught from the pulpit throughout Christendom??
From Francis’ 20 December sermon at Santa Marta:
” ‘You [God] told me [Our Lady] then that He will be great. You told me that You would give him the throne of his father David, that he will reign over the house of Jacob forever. And now I see Him there!’ The Blessed Mother was human! And perhaps she would have wanted to say, ‘LIES! I HAVE BEEN CHEATED!’. John Paul II said this when he spoke of the Mother of God at one point [actually not true at all].”
Will no one in the hierarchy stand up for the truth? NO ONE???
I was wondering about that too. From only my personal experience, those married/divorced/re-married outside the Church either don’t go to Church at all, or receive Holy Communion like there is nothing wrong about their lives. Where comes this groundswell of people in ‘pain?’
That’s what we hear, no? Somehow the marriage ‘failed’ and now they are ‘in pain’ – like it just ‘happened.’ This is another Alinsky ploy: create a problem and then bring forth solutions. While we are all discussing the solutions no one bothers to look at the real problem: sinful people wanting it all.
How “serene & profound” will Cardinal Kasper appear after the Judgement, one may wonder, even if we cannot judge internals? Aquinas and Our Lady of Fatima both tell us that sins of the flesh result in the damnation of more souls than *any other category of sin* – what of the prelate, *guardian* of souls, that encourages them? What have the saints have to say about such things?
Some still remember.
In “End of the Present World” (a work given the highest praise by that loyal daughter of the Church St. Therese), Fr. Arminjon tells us that the bodies of the reprobate, on Judgement Day will be transformed into hideous creatures, thus to remain eternally, the blackness of their unrepentant sins made external for all to behold. “Serene and beautiful” – no.
We are not doomed. Christ is still head of the Church. When He has had enough of these shenanigans, He’ll put an end to it. Maybe we deserve the Pope we have, because we have been so lax and unfaithful.
The more I see, the more I think that. Benedict was either poisoned/ drugged slowly (not to kill, but to debilitate), to make him think he could not longer serve his high office. They got him to resign, it was not of free will. We now have a false pope who sits on the throne and the true pope is a prisoner in the Vatican gardens. Just a few years ago, I would have thought this the delusions of a nut. The visions of some are looking more realistic.
Thank you for speaking the truth and condemning the continuing outrages from the Holy See. If there is no explicit objection to and correction of continual falsehood on the part of our leaders, the falsehood becomes accepted as truth. We have a positive duty not to allow grave falsehood to stand, endangering many souls, particularly the young, the ignorant, the naive. The longer it is allowed to go on, unconfronted, the more souls that become susceptible to accepting the false as true – that evil is good and good evil.
The Pope continually opposes the doctrine of the Faith and the Divine Law in what he says and does. This is clear to anyone who will acknowledge the truth. We must protect ourselves, our children, our vulnerable, and all we can from accepting these lies out of ignorance, fear, or simply because it allows them to live sinfully while maintaining they have the support of the Pope (bishops, priests, etc.) in doing so.
People contracept (and commit other mortal sins) and are not in practice prevented from receiving the Blessed Sacrament. We know this happens as a great proportion of Catholics who attend Mass engage in this practice on an ongoing basis and the vast majority of Mass attendees receive while the vast majority do not go to Confession. However, one cannot state categorically that a particular couple engages in the sin of contraception, with certainty, unless the couple publicly announce that this is the case. So, generally, there is nothing external to stop such couples receiving.
With civil divorce, and subsequent cohabitation with someone other than one’s spouse, the matter is by necessity, known with certitude to subsist. Therefore, it is easier for those clerics who uphold the Faith, to prevent (or object to) the reception of the Blessed Sacrament by such persons who are in manifest and obstinate state of mortal sin. The bad bishops and priests cannot get away with committing such sacrilege as it cannot be denied.
As for Satan, he wishes to destroy the Church. The proposal is a direct attack on Our Lord in the Eucharist (the source and summit of the Faith) to be sanctioned explicitly or implicitly by Peter and the other successors to the apostles.
Furthermore, the evil proposal strikes at the core of marriage – the essential element of indissolubility, and the attendant essential intention of the parties that they are intending and promising to faithfully remain in the marriage till death ends it. This affects all marriages as it taints the upholding of the law of marriage by the Church authorities.
Lord have mercy!
Dear Roman watcher,
So right….”The result will be the progressivist Church of the Nasty and Merciful.
We’re already seeing it again and again. Pope Francis baptized the baby of an unmarried couple in the Sistine Chapel last January, telling them it’s up to them to pass on the Faith to their child.” How can they do that without the Graces of the Sacrament of Matrimony, and without first rectifying their own sinful lifestyle?
Infant Baptism has always been justified by the Church because the home conditions would provide for the Catholic upbringing of the child too young to make that choice. Throw away all the rules, and you turn Mercy into a tool for creating sham Catholic families and boost Catholic statistics, while leaving more souls on the path to hell, in a condition even more deluded than they were previously.
Dear Lynda and Barbara,
It also goes beyond attacking marriage and the Eucharist, to creating the impression that the Sacrament of Confession is obsolete. What person in mortal sin of any kind, will think a “just God” would require them to confess, while these others are given a “free-pass” to continue living in sin? As you point out, many have likely been doing that for years, already. But when it becomes official “pastoral” policy, they will have the additional problem of having their consciences officially misinformed by the highest authorities in the Catholic Church. This is the worst that could happen, as the only remedy for mortal sin after Baptism is Sacramental Confession -and in an emergency, perfect contrition. Both will be thought to be unnecessary. And those of us who know better, will continue to be scorned as “thinking we know better than the Pope”. God help us. Soon.
Dear In hoc,
It’s almost unbelievable how realistic the Bishop was about the state of things –until he answered that one question about Pope Francis! Can he be uninformed or just grossly misled by the neo-spin?
Bishop Schneider is very aware of the evil going on at the Holy See. He is being very careful in his wording here. He mentions only “official” homilies. Obviously, he doesn’t deem it prudent to speak out at this time.
One for the “brick by brick” category: Pontifical High Mass in San Francisco.
Link here via Fr. Z.: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/09/san-francisco-pontifical-mass/
” We are surrounded, therefore the enemy has nowhere to run”.
… and one from the “the pasta was lovely” category, or rather how the Novus Ordo Rite was born.
Link at RC here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/09/original-sins-eucharistic-prayer-ii.html
They thought is was the work of the Holy Ghost, but it turned out to be just a bout of indigestion. 😉
PS Keep this post in mind from now on, when you are “experiencing” the N.O. mass. 😉 😉
There seems to be a mysterious veil that is blinding Bp Schneider from seeing the truth about the man occupying the chair of Peter. Despite the fact that Bp Schneider is an orthodox cleric clearly concerned about the state of the church, let us not forget that he celebrates the protestant inspired novus ordo missae (as far as I’m aware) exclusively, hence in a certain way a collaborator (even if an unwitting one) in the abuses against the eucharist he so rightly laments. One can only speculate, but I would guess the corrupting influence of the novus ordo might be partly to blame for his blindness on Francis.
Francis’ heterodox statements are in every possible papal medium of communication – off the cuff homilies, “official” homilies, scripted homilies, the apostolic exhortation “Evangelii Gaudium”, interviews, the letter to atheist Eugenio Scalfari, the cold call to the Argentinian adulteress encouraging her to sacrilegiously take communion in the state of mortal sin etc etc
There is no excuse whatsoever for Bp Schneider to be claiming that Francis is teaching beautiful catholic doctrine.
PS The above comment was directed to Indignus Famulus
… and this. A daily meditation from Mundbor.
He knocks this one out of the proverbial ballpark:
Meditation quote of the day:
“Therefore, my dear atheist, abandon this emotional and childish nonsense of the “memorial garden” [cemetery for atheists]. It is, in your perspective, as senseless as everything else. Reflect, rather, on your own utter nothingness: an absurd joke of coincidence living among other jokes of coincidence, and living a short existence towards the pure nothing as they search some small comfort, and try to reproduce for reasons they actually can’t fathom (which is why they, in fact, contracept massively).
PS Just in case Francis needs a tutor…….
In addition, it is not entirely clear that the bishop is clear as to the magnitude of the crisis that we are living through right now, THE great apostasy prophesied in scripture. These are some more of his words towards the end of the interview:
“if you look at the history of the Church, the deepest crisis was in the fourth century, that was Arianism.”
So, according to Bp Schneider, there have been worse crises in the church than the one we are experiencing right now, an idea that I entirely disagree with. Even during the Arian crisis man did not try to put himself in the place of God, as man is now attempting to do. In my estimation, man putting himself in the place of God is the essence of the Anti-Christ:
“…the son of perdition, who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God.”
2 Thessalonians 2:3-4
I often wonder, reading some of the comments on this site and other traditionalist ones, if any of you even researched Ratzinger’s published work one bit, past what has been allowed to transpire on blogs such as this one?
Even doing a quick search around the web, you’ll find “Pope” Benedict XVI to be even possiboly more radical in its theologic stances and heresies than Bergoglio himself.
Nevermind the (mostly cosmetic) concessions to the traditionalist camp, with the Missal etc.
There are very good vids about this very topic on Youtube even..
Can you suggest one such video from YouTube? I’m never afraid of staring at the truth straight in its face.
Comon folks! If these bishops speak out clearly, they’ll be sacked. They just don’t have the MANLINESS of the late Archbishop M. L. |
I have seen Bishop Schneider up close, offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Usus Antiquior, and listening to him speak on the crisis of the Eucharist in the Church and I am 100% convinced he knows full well (more than most) the order and extent of evil in the Holy See and among bishops and priests. I can only conclude he has a good reason unknown to me for not speaking out explicitly at this time against the multitude of objective evils caused by the Pope.
Pope Benedict did seem to adopt some of the modernistic modes of analyses prevalent in the theological milieu of his place and time during his formation and early priesthood. I think part of the problem is the over-academicisation (?) of Revelation and Faith, the imposition of limited, even perverse modes of analysis that brought about the faulty-thinking schools of psychology, sociology, etc.
And now the powers that be seem to have their sights set on Cardinal Burke!
It will not be until all Catholics come to fully understand and embrace the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church that the destruction of marriage will cease. And what is this teaching one may ask? It is the teaching that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation and education of children for God’s glory and that the primary purpose can never be subordinated to or separated from it’s secondary purpose of the unity of the couple for whatever grave or noble reason one may wish to put forth.
Once we understand marriage to be a sacred mission of one man and one woman coming together for the purpose of procreation and education of children for God’s glory will we cease to thwart it’s mission to be something different than what was instituted by God. If you are worried that this teaching might appear to neglect the purpose of the couples mission to get themselves to Heaven you shouldn’t. If the couple stays true and devoted to God’s purpose for marriage trust me they will get to heaven. So there is no need to change the definition of marriage to mean that it’s primary purpose is the sanctification of the couple without the mission of procreation and education of children for God’s glory. The primary purpose of man is to love and one does not need to be married to do this. Of course we are required to love our spouse but this calling to love is not exclusive to marriage. The procreation and education of children for God’s glory is exclusive to marriage and to no other human relationship. This lofty mission of procreation and education of children for God’s glory found in marriage alone requires that it reflects Christ and His one exclusive Bride our Holy mother Church. In the name of God’s justice does marriage require fidelity and permanency so that the sanctification and protection of the children, the wife and the husband will be safeguarded.
from the neglect of Thine inspirations, Jesus deliver us
If concupiscence and impurity seem to be insurmountable don’t loose faith
Just read the end of that article where the Brazilian Cardinals says, that the CHURCH HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN FAVOR OF STABLE HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS!
The good Bishop does say the Latin Mass. In fact he just this summer ordained several priests for the Priestly Society of St. Peter.
There is such a thing as caution! I’ve heard him very gently suggest we are in a Great Crisis, akin to the Arian business. I want to say I think he’s keeping his head down so as not to be marginalized and so unhearable. Hope I’m right!
Sorry folks but I just can’t help myself……
The Mass of All Ages is competing against a protestantesque litergy written on the back of a napkin late at night in an Roman trattoria. :0
Folks, you just can’t make this up.
Once again, link over at RC here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/09/original-sins-eucharistic-prayer-ii.html
No wonder Summorum Pontificum elicited a reaction amongst modernists similar to that of a vampire faced with a clove of garlic. Or better yet, with a crucifix.
I am still chuckling and it’s 14 hours later…..:) 🙂 🙂
Over at RC:Francis not happy with Cardinals book supporting Catholicism.
Link at RC here:
“Cardinal Kasper, who has not yet received the new book, tells La Croix that he assured the Pope of not “taking part in a quarrel among cardinals.” At the end of the consistory of last February, Pope Francis had asked for the unity of the Cardinals.”
Oh well. There goes the “strength in diversity” platitude out the window.
And the Jesuit on Jesuit crime angle is also quite juicy. 😉
Here’s a link to an article on Bishop Schneider that might make his position more clear:
And the “follow the money” category must read: Who stands behind the attacks on Catholicism.
Oh, just the usual suspects.
Unity among cardinals? Please! Who are you going to believe, Cardinal Kasper or Our Lady of Akita?
God bless you for your commitment to purity and chastity within marriage.
There is actually a pretty good article on NFP from the CMRI website (*GASP*, yes from those *evil* sedes ; ) which I’d recommend as it includes various pronouncements from the holy see on this subject from over 100 years ago.
PS I’m not a sede. According to sedes, Bishop Athanasius Schneider is a layman. I believe no such thing. Having said that, I do think there are plenty of sedes who do faithfully follow the church’s doctrinal and moral teaching, such as the above article amply demonstrates.
Dear In Hoc,
We can’t agree that the N.O. participation is likely to have blinded him–not when he sees so clearly on all those other issues. It’s more likely the diabolical disorientation we’ve seen so often, or a choice like Lyda said, not to “rock the boat”. We don’t know his history, but it’s not unusual these days for Bishops to back down when confronted with Vatican politics and pressures. This one is odd though-because of his forthrightness in this interview. It’s possible he has dismissed a lot of the press as unreliable, in which case, he really wouldn’t have all the facts.
Sadly, LifeSite is confirming the news about Burke.
We’ve been quoting his recent interview as one of the rare refutations of the prevailing “Church of non-judgment” in which he said :
… “All day long we make judgments with regards to certain acts; this is what the natural law is: to choose good and to avoid evil.”
“. while we can judge acts as gravely sinful we can’t say that a particular person is in grave sin, … “but the acts themselves we have to judge, we couldn’t live a good and moral life otherwise,” .
and On same-sex attraction versus sexual sins:
” there is much misunderstanding about the matter today “and sadly it leads to a lot of good people not doing what they should do, to help someone who is suffering in this condition.” …“I have great compassion for them but that compassion means that I want them to know the truth to avoid sinful acts for the sake of their own good for their own salvation and so you try to help the person” . “Now that today isn’t well received by an aggressive homosexual agenda but that doesn’t mean that it’s not the right approach to take.” ” Should we remain silent due to pressure from the aggressive homosexual agenda, we would be “presiding over the destruction of our society.”
Any bets this was the final straw?
Dear In Hoc Signo Vinces,
Thank you for your encouraging comment however this link on NFP promotes the separation of the primary purpose of procreation and education of children for God’s glory from its secondary purpose of unity when it says that one can exclusively have conjugal relations during the infertile period in order to avoid conception while having conjugal relations. NFP contradicts Pius XI ‘s Casti Conubii when it says that one can never do this for whatever grave or noble reason one wishes to put forth in their defense of using NFP. One can not do an evil, and to calculate in thought ,word or deed to separate the primary purpose from its secondary purpose is an evil and is a sin no matter what infallible private letters during the roaring twenties wish to say. These responses contradict the final say in Apostolicae Sedes when asked if one can separate or at least put the secondary purpose of marriage on the same level as the primary purpose it officially said no to this that one can never separate the primary purpose from its secondary purpose let alone put it at the same level as the secondary purpose. This link conveniently makes no reference to this statement Apostolicae Sedes which carries far more weight than the references he gave. Like I said before, until people see that NFP is sinful when used to separate the primary purpose from its secondary purpose we will get nowhere in preserving the sacrament of marriage as instituted by our Lord
Jesus Christ. We have abstinence, confession, prayer and all of the sacraments to help us in are lifelong battle for purity. NFP contradicts purity and truth.
Dear In Hoc Signo Vinces,
I meant to say “fallible private letters”and not infallible. Serious mistake on my part. Sorry for the mistake.
Despite his responses about Pope Francis, he does still seem to get what’s happening ending with:
“: “Little ones in the Church have been let down and neglected,” he said. “[But] they have kept the purity of their faith and they represent the true power of the Church in the eyes of God and not those who are in administration. ”
…. So I am confident and hopeful also in respect of this crisis in the Church. The Holy Ghost will win this crisis with this little army.” He added: “I am not worried about the future. The Church is Christ’s Church and He is the real head of the Church, the Pope is only the vicar of Christ. The soul of the Church is the Holy Spirit and He is powerful.”
Spot on analysis.
Team Argentina/P.Francis hit a grand slam home run this weekend against traditional marriage.
The press release from the Vatican announcing these weddings was written to titillate boldly proclaiming the sins without mentioning any remedies.
The brides were not coached or chose not follow the dress code for St. Peter’s.
And then from out of left field in Argentina this same weekend a Catholic priest blesses a same sex union in a Catholic church and another priest in Argentina baptizes the child of two transsexuals (the biological mother dresses as a man/the biological father wears pumps and lipstick)
I refuse to believe these things happening on the same weekend and all tied to P.Francis/Argentina are a “coincidence”.
Francesco & Berto, Yes & Yes. Way back it was the best plausible reason I could imagine (I called it the anti-freeze treatment) where Benedict remained Pope while thinking he resigned with full will & knowledge. I did wonder if the first change Francis made was the cook. Regarding Benedict’s liberal history, I think The Group wasn’t happy with how slow he was moving to entrench VII and his desire for the good ol’ time religion while trying to bring back the SSPX. The Group wasn’t getting any older and Benedict
seemed to be hanging on too long, in their mind.
…sorry. I meant to say The Group wasn’t getting any younger… 😉
Yes, it has all been showcased for a cynical. diabolic purpose.
This is the diabolical message many bishops and priests are delivering. Lord grant us the fortitude not to acquiesce to, or cooperate with, intrinsic evil as bass become so very common.
Dear In Hoc Vignos, looking at your comment again wherein you say that Bishop Schneider offers Mass in the NO exclusively, it’s clear that you have another Bishop Schneider or some other bishop mistakenly in mind. Bishop Schneider is well-known for his use of the traditional rite and his promotion of same.
See here, his description of the Five Wounds of the Liturgical Mystical Body of Christ: http://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/bishop-schneider-on-the-traditional-mass-and-the-new-evangelisation/
Fr Joaquin Nunez recently met with Francis in Rome (10 September) and confirms (well, did we really need confirmation at this stage?) Francis’ desire to sacrilegiously give communion to public adulterers living in a state of mortal sin:
“Y me dijo: también, sigamos para adelante” (And he [Francis] told me: also, let us go forward with this [plan to give communion to remarried divorcees]) (1:55)
Will there be a schism in the Church during the Bergoglian Oktober revolution, at the end of which they will have the temerity to “beatify” Paul VI of most infelicitious memory? Isn’t the “beatification” of this man another sign that the apostasy is nearing a climax?
BH – horde wedding ceremonies – seems to miss the whole point, no? Smacks of all sorts of creepy ideologies. There’s no need to ‘read the tea leaves’, peeps, just wake up and smell the antichrist coffee.
As for ‘the privilege of having the “?!pope?!” witness their marriages’ – they didn’t so, no probs. I guess it won’t be long before ‘pope’ means little more to both ‘catholics’ and the rest of the world alike, than a liberal politician who lives in or around the vatican and may have something to do with shiva, possibly still wearing in a white cassock.
Montini was a crypto-infidel. Like Wojtyla. If one was being kind one would say, ‘they couldn’t help it’ – they are still waiting for their messiah/antichrist…is it really their fault if they thought pretending to be pope would be the loyal thing to do? Intentions, intentions!
As an aside, there is one very important thing about the two ‘catholicisms’ that seem to be residing with us – that is the crypto-infidel-catholicism and the true Catholicism. There is, in esoteric speak, a thing called an ‘egregore’. A so-called ‘watcher’ (equivalent to the Nephilim spoken of in the OT so some say). Certainly dealt with in book of Enoch which is referenced by the Apostles in the New Testament. Freemasonry and its new age affliate ‘schools’ depend greatly on these ‘things’ called ‘watcher’s’; in short they are spirits that ‘oversee’ the workings of ‘organisations’ – in a pyramidical sense they are just above the capstone. In a proper spiritual sense they are devils – not presiding angels. Here’s a theory. The Novus Ordo church does not have Christ as its head – it officially and publicly ‘abdicated’ Our Lord before all the world decades ago. What it has is an ‘egregore’ – an infernal ‘councilar’, more or less. A disincarnate ‘infidel’, sucking up the minds, money and souls of the wanton or clueless.
PS Here is the link to the article about the meeting between Fr Joaquin Nunez and Bergoglio:
“El Papa le dijo al cura Joaquín que le de “para adelante” con los cambios en la Iglesia”
(“The pope told father Joaquin that he should “go forward” with the changes in the Church”)
Horrific but in keeping with all the pope has been saying and doing, not to mention Cardinal Bergoglio before that. Lord, have mercy! Reparation!
We can officially call this papacy the “Bergoglian reign of terror”.
Peronisimo Bergoglio….yea, that has a nice ring to it. Besides, wouldn’t want to insult the former caudillisimo’s now would we? Anyways…..
This over at RC:http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/09/caudillismo-tosatti-bishops-who-agree.html#more
“Bishops who Agree to Incardinate Friars who Want to Leave the Franciscans of the Immaculate Blacklisted?”
“If, as Tosatti clearly implies it is, this information is true (which would not be shocking considering the evolution of current events), the situation of the former Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate is even more suffocating as before, on a level never before seen in the Church in recent centuries (for instance, there certainly was no blacklist of dioceses incardinating as secular priests the former Jesuits after the suppression of the order in the 18th century, and in similar cases). These poor priest-friars will simply remain with no way out, other than completely abandoning the priesthood, if even the bishops willing to welcome those who want to leave the modified order are blacklisted by the highest levels in the Vatican.”
Now it’s not all that bad. Let’s do the math. The SSPX has about 160 priests in the US and 600 world wide. The SSPX has approximately 140 chapels in the US and I would venture a guess that another 350 chapels worldwide. In other words, the SSPX is “always looking for a few good men”.
Actually, I’ve seen a couple of Capucin’s at mass this past week 😉
Franciscans, you always will have a home. 🙂
wake me up when this bishop of rome leaves the scene. I have had it.
God help us all.
FATHER BLAKE “UNLEASHED”
Best summary that I have read yet:
“Ratzinger might well have appointed his enemies to key positions, so long as they could hold an intellectual position together but things are different now, broken corpses are now on display in the city squares. It is not necessary for the Prince to say anything, or even to know his policies, it is actions that are important and being part of his party. It is not the law but the style of interpreting it that matters. The signs of the times are more important than spoken words, the nuance than what is actually said. The straight bat of Burke was hardly going to survive for long in that environment. Machiavelli, some clerics bedside reading, calls for examples to made, for occasional acts of cruelty, for signs of the Princes ruthless power.”
Pure, unadulterated and institutionalized THUGGERY!
…and by the way… I’m still chuckling. N.O. canon written in a Roman trattoria to meet the deadline. :0
“It was Bouyer who had to fix in extremis a horrible formula of the new Second Eucharistic Prayer, from which Bugnini wished to expunge even the “Sanctus”. And one evening, on the table of a trattoria in Trastevere, he had to rewrite the next of the new canon which is read today at Mass, together with the Benedictine liturgist Bernard Botte, with the added worry of having to deliver the whole thing by the following morning.”
Link here: http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/09/fr-louis-bouyer-on-liturgical-reform.html#.VBrnZFfDWZM
But then again, what better place for one sit down in order to write a prayer for a ‘”commemorative meal” than at a restaurant.
Pass the crostini,Frank. 😉
Oh yes, the pureful profane atmosphere in a trattoria, with people sitting around eating away at their bowls of pasta, “spaghetti a la carbonara”, pizzas, and other such delicious food, must have been the excellent background and inspiration to write a prayerful, devout, and sacred canon of the mass .
Waiter: “Oh sir, I see you have been doodling something in your napkin! Do you want me to throw that away for you?”
Bouyer: “Oh no no, excuse me, how dare you! This “doodle” is what you will hear in a few weeks in mass my friend! Actually, while you’re at it: bring me another one if you can… I’m running out of space on the current one…Oh, and bring me some more antipasti if you can… All this “holy meal” business is making me tremendously hungry! Ho ho, those preconciliar catholics, they thought the mass was a sacrifice! Well, we’ll see who was right after this trattoria-liturgy-in-the-making event.”
The waiter leaves.
Waiter: “Boss, I think we have to call an ambulance, we have a dangerous lunatic in our restaurant.”
Boss: “Oh, don’t worry. That’s Bouyer, he’s a regular customer around here. He called in advance to reserve a table saying he had some liturgy improvisation business he needed to do ASAP, but I didn’t have a clue what he was on about.”
We’ve all seen and heard of clown masses.
Has anybody heard or experienced a “pizza” mass yet? ; )
Speaking of unlikely “coincidences” If these schedules don’t get changed, this coming Sunday (September 21st):
–there’s a Black Mass on the agenda in Okalahoma City’s entertainment center;
–a Shadowy meeting in Rome between Cardinal Muller and Bishop Fellay to discuss the SSPX; and
–a Dark warning being ignored as the Pope leaves Rome for an 11-hour visit to Albania.
The Pope plans to address Albanian authorities; hold an interreligious gathering; and celebrate Mass in Mother Theresa’s Square.
Despite “Albanian law enforcement flagging Interpol with concerns Muslim militants who trained in Iraq and Syria had returned and might pose a threat to him” , Rev.Lombardi, said Monday -Francis would “use the same open-topped vehicle he uses in St. Peter’s Square when he greets crowds”, and “Vatican security officials are “calm”.
In Hoc Signo Vinces,
I’m reluctant to directly link any video or website, mostly out of respect for Harvesting the Fruit, because they’re almost entirely from Sedevacantist organisations.
However, if you search into Bing or Youtube “Benedict heresies” you’ll see dozens of results pop up.
It is utterly amazing what the man has said through the years, masqueraded by his sophisticated theological facade.
I sincerely hope he privately abjured most, hopefully all, of the obscenities he dared to utter.
He virtually reject(ed) more doctrinal points I could even hope to bring up if I were to make a list of what I personally know about the Catholic Faith.
PS: while checking for you, I stumbled upon a nice tidy list called “101 Heresies of Antipope Benedict XVI” you should also check that out.
Reading it, you might think the author made those up or heavily twisted Benedict’s wording to fit his views, however I had already checked some of the sources, and at least in some cases, it is unfortunately what he was actually saying.
who/what is “The Group”?
Do you mean the masonic and jewish elements present in the Vatican II Church?
Over at RC blog: ++Kasper: “Bergoglio made me do it”
“This idea about public adulterers receiving communion is Francis’s idea”
Link here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-game-is-up-on-synod-and-communion.html
IM: We return to the danger of a doctrinal war in the Synod.
KASPER: “I certainly don’t want it. They [the Cardinals who criticize him] perhaps want it. I think of a pastoral Synod.”
IM: Is that what the Pope also wants?
KASPER: “Certainly. Also the Pope wants a pastoral Synod.”
IM: Did you expect this controversy regarding your address to the Consistory?
KASPER: “I’m not naïve. I knew that there are other positions, but I didn’t think that the debate would become, and now is shown to be also, without manners. Not one of my fellow Cardinals ever spoke to me. I, intead, [spoke] twice with the Holy Father. I agreed upon everything with him. He was in agreement. What can a cardinal do, if not being with Pope? I am not the target, the target is another one.”
IM: Is it Pope Francis?
KASPER: “Probably yes.”
IM: What else do you say, finally, to your opponents?
KASPER: “They know that I have not done these things by myself. I agreed with the Pope, I spoke twice with him. He showed himself content [with it]. Now, they create this controversy. A Cardinal must be close to the Pope, by his side. The Cardinals are the Pope’s cooperators.”
And there you have it from the horses…. make that asses mouth. It’s Francis’s idea. And even if it’s bad theology, it’s not like we are talking dogma here. It’s only pastoral. I say pastoral. Francis says pastoral. So what’s your beef?
Frankly, this looks like it’s more than just a few cardinal against Francis and the hippies. Kasper is really running for the hills. And he’s dropping the dime on Francis.
This could also explain the terror campaign recently waged by Francis. He is afraid of loosing his grip. And as Fr. B so eloquently pointed out: “Machiavelli, some clerics bedside reading, calls for examples to made, for occasional acts of cruelty, for signs of the Princes ruthless power.”
And we see the bodies popping up everywhere. 🙂
You write “pizza mass”? Never heard of one of those.
The closest that I came, was seeing a water fountain with fish next to the “commemoration meal “table.
I dubbed it the “Flipper mass”.
And here is Fr. Z’s take on the Francis/Kasper business.
Link here”: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/09/card-kasper-accused-other-cardinals-of-attacking-the-pope/
But what I don’t get is why is Francis allowing Kasper to hide behind his cassock?
In other words, don’t see Kasper’s body swimming with the fishes.
.. scratch “food fight” and let’s call this a “caged death match”.
More books coming out on the side of the good guys. Link here: http://www.amazon.com/The-Gospel-Family-Re-Marriage-Communion/dp/1586179942/ref=as_sl_pc_qf_sp_asin_til?tag=whatdoesthepr-20&linkCode=w00&linkId=5ADEZDCNGSVYK3QM&creativeASIN=1586179942
This is the one that got the bishop of Rome all bent out of shape.
Trying not to scream: as Bishop Tobin (of Rhode I.) demonstrates how to misuse Sacred Scriptures to attack the Eucharist, Marriage, and Church…..”___
Bishop Tobin: “In my personal reflection on this dilemma, I turn to… Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” (Mk 2:23-28)
In other words, while not denying the validity of the law, our Lord clearly placed it in a “pastoral context,” exempting its enforcement due to the human needs of the moment…Could we not say, by way of analogy, that “matrimony is made for man, not man for matrimony?”
And Praising God for good Canon Lawyers with the Faith and Common Sense to refute such ignorance and evil…___
Dr. Peters: “..when proponents of controversial positions take a Scripture passage and invoke it talismanically..I always wonder, why were not other equally relevant passages noted, say, verses about not one jot or tittle of the law being abolished or about the need for disciples to be faithful in all things great or small, not to mention passages describing spouses who divorce and marry others as adulterers? At the same time, one wonders if this verse or that supports disregard of a given law, might it also support disregard of other laws? Does Mark II let us disregard, say, the Fourth Commandment or the Eighth? If not, why not?..”
p.s. Above two sources are from Mundabor’s current blog: “The Rape of the Gospel” in which he writes: “Dr Peters has already written a rebuttal of the many points in which the Bishop piddles out of the WC and leaves a mess all around.” http://mundabor.wordpress.com/
Berto, just the cabal of secretive conspirators, (probably with an SJ after their name), pulling the strings for the pope in 2068, (see– they’re still serving the pope), allowing the Luciferian machinations to come to fruition. They’ll probably stay nameless this side of the sod.
It appears that Bishop Tobin is bucking for Cardinal Burke’s ticket to the Synod, ( if it’s not in hand already). ;While reading his column the BP and indigestion seemed to surge together. At the second last paragraph I found the statement which we can all agree with (including Dr. Peters well done response).
— B. Tobin: I don’t know what the answer is, I really don’t. There are many other Church leaders, including our Pope and bishops and theologians, who are a whole lot smarter and holier than I am, wrestling with this issue.
— Can I hear an AMEN!?
In Hoc – I’m surprised. Have you seen the EP II? Hole in the script — Calling for a second napkin? It’s so short he could wipe up the splashed marinara and still have the other side to clean his silverware.
It’s like Louie said above: “There is but one reason that answers to these simple questions haven’t been forthcoming from Rome; we live under a pontificate that is determined to “make a mess,” and it’s succeeding wildly.”
Let’s not be naïve; Pope Francis and the men who elected him have long since had an outcome in mind for the Synod; one that I suspect lies somewhere between the status quo and the Kasperian solution.”
“(I have already gone on record as predicting that it will involve affording national bishops’ conferences unprecedented autonomy in regulating Holy Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried, among other things, such that they will be free to implement a “discipline” modeled after the schismatic Orthodox approach.”
These Bishops just keep providing more and more evidence of the truth of these words.
I do wonder what appeal the Novus Ordo Sect has for so many professed ‘catholics’ (and everyone proclaiming Bergoglio as a faithful servant of God belong, without question, to the Novus Ordo Sect). Does Burke’s demotion change the ‘catholic’ landscape? No at all. The sect and its proponents (of which Burke is one) move on unobstructed.
To settle with belial is to throw off Christ. The Novus Ordo Sect and its messieurs belong to belial and so do those who support/pay homage in any way to those messieurs. To settle with belial is to throw off Christ. If more people clothed themselves in Christ again and threw off belial, things might get better; the eclipse of the true Church and her True sons might just come to an end.
If only we were God it would be that simple. But it seems your idea of “throwing off belial” would require each Catholic to personally judge the soul of their anointed superiors-including the Pope- as being “with” belial ( 5%? 55%? 100%?) and then make the further individual decision to throw them off, which also presumes the person in authority hasn’t repented in the meantime; made a good confession, and changed. What happens when and if they do that? Do you personally reinstate them and contact all the people you advised to throw them off, reversing your advice and reinstating them? And who get’s to decide when and if that happens?
The problem as we see it, is that some individual behaviors and attitudes and reported expressions are definitely bad, but others are definitely good. Our Lord’s own advice to His followers regarding their anointed leaders, was not to imitate the bad, but obey them in what was good. According to your plan, they should have ignored Jesus and declared their Jewish leaders “with belial” (as Jesus had done) but refusing to obey His instructions to leave them in place as their leaders.
One for “The future… NOT” category.
Bishop on bishop crime.
Link on RC here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/09/oster-responds-to-bonny.html
“Bishop Bonny, following the official Installment Ceremony of two Parish Assistants. Not a single priest was ordained for Antwerp in 2012, 2013, or 2014”
We pray for these deluded shepherds, and thank God for “The new bishop of Passau in Germany, H.E. Stefan Oster, [who] posted a response to Bishop Bonny on Factebook” ..including this important truth about selectively misusing verses of Sacred Scripture to:
“.. . twist Jesus until he is so nice that he doesn’t threaten those situations that the Scriptures continue to call sin….. [S]alvation is not automatic, and the constant witness of scripture is that we cannot be saved without conversion.
“As far as I can see, Bishop Bonny doesn’t even mention conversion anymore. “
Fr. Z often times strikes me as the Catholic Baghdad Bob when it comes to some things.
It seems obvious to me that given everything Pope Francis has said and done of his own accord until now that I’m inclined to believe Kasper when he says the Pope is behind him.
Ditto when it comes to the news of Cardinal Burke’s demotion, and when Michael Voris asked him to discuss the Gay Mafia in Rome. When it comes to issues that directly put the Pope and Vatican in a bad light Fr. Z is optimistic to a fault. Methinks that he likewise has his limits and feels threatened were he to actually speak out ,much like I suspect Mr. Voris; who at least doesn’t attempt to ridiculously spin things with optimistic musings when he can simply remain silent with regards to Pope Francis.
There is too much smoke wafting out from this Papacy.
This shows the diabolic disorientation, the lack of basic discernment available to any Catholic of average intelligence in a state of grace. There is no issue to
wrestle with!!! The relevant fundamental truths and principle are unchangeable. It is clear such prelates do not want to teach people the truth as is their grave duty.
It just occurred to me to ask: Where are we going with this? I mean we agree that the Church is in a terrible mess. Not just a bad Bishop here, or a heretic Bishop there. Apparently our Church is rotten from the top to the bottom.
So now what? I don’t know if I want to spend the remaining years of my life reading all the bad news on blogs like this – news that just goes from bad to worse. Should we write to the Nuncio? Should we write to the Pope? Do we concentrate on our own Bishops?
I am asking because I want some discussion on this, not to provoke. Yes, of course we pray the Rosary and offer our Masses. But what do we pray for? Do I ask Our Lady to take the Pope “away?” Do I pray for his conversion? What would that look like?
There is NO place for revolution for faithful Catholics. But if not revolution, what? Do we work up from individual parishes? Do we congregate in those parishes that have remained faithful? Do we only attend Pius X Masses or Fraternity Masses? and leave the rest to rot?
I agree that education is very important but how many CINOs are reading blogs like this one. Do you all go around ‘teaching’ and ‘preaching’ that the Church is in dire straits? If you do what do you suggest the man in the pew actually do?
Please let’s lay out some ideas here. (thanks for listening to this rant, but I like to keep things concrete)
Very good question Barbara, and one I reckon most do ask themselves at one point or the other in their life.
What can WE do? Nothing much. It is after all God’s will.
As I said, it seems nothing short of a (massive) miracle can save this “Church” (and that’s one reason why it cannot be the Catholic Church):
it is rotten to the core. From the humblest of layman to the Pontifex himself, only a tiny (possibly 0.5%) remains completely true to the Faith.
And, contrary to even the biggest ecclesial crisis in history, the Arian Controversy, not only apostasy is far wider, but also encompasses a wide variety of articles of faith, not one specific heresy only, so much as to making the Vatican II aka modern “Church” ‘s doctrine look like a completely different religion only retaining the most basic external semblance of Catholicism.
What I personally try to do is make others aware one conversation at the time, avoid N.O. parishes, pray for your and your loved ones’ salvation.
I try to avoid thinking about the issue too much, which can only lead to depression and even desperation, since we are all powerless and surrounded by almost equally grave worldly concerns (on the political, economic, moral and social spectra, probably part of the same demonic effort, shaping up to be truly global and ubiquitous).
Remember, keep the scale of the phenomenon always in mind:
while what we are witnessing may seem huge, immense, incredibly important.. it is a mere pebble next to the mountain of eternity and divinity.
Actually if in doubt one should avoid them and ignore them as if they were heathens.
It’s that simple. Even keeping doctrine, canon, etc. aside for a moment, does not logic dictate one should avoid the uncertain and possibly dangerous mingling with such individuals and focusing only on the unadulterated deposit of faith?
Not only it is unchanging, but it doesn’t have an expiration date.
Also, what possible benefit could one have from hearing anything at all, not only for his salvation, but also intellectually? We have 2 millennia of writings at out disposal.
And a catholic is not required to hear or follow every novelty or otherwise recent statemnt from whomever, Pope included, if he keeps true himself to the Faith.
Such was the case for most of history, and for people leaving in remote areas, where news arrived years late, if ever.
We don’t agree that “our Church is rotten from the top to the bottom.” The Church is the Body of Christ, Who will always be it’s head–THE “Top” and has promised to remain with her till the end of time. She is composed of the Triumphant in Heaven and the souls in Purgatory–none of whom are rotten, as well as the militant on earth, which we assume is what you are focussing on here. Personally, we feel blogs like this one are performing a great service to those who are less informed of what is taking place currently, by helping to expose the corruptions along with intelligent analysis of the ongoing events. It might help to keep in mind that this is Louie’s blog, and we are simply commenting on his topics; researching to give it more depth when possible, but hopefully adding to his discussion.
-Regarding other actions, we try to participate in N.O. parishes as well as attend the TLM when available. We have spoken with Bishops and priests, and continue to do what we can writing letters and encouraging others to do the same, depending on their knowlege of the Faith and the situation. But after years of efforts like those, we see the Fatima prophecies coming true right now–and not the happy ones promised once the Consecration of Russia is done, but the devastatingly disastrous ones predicted “if my requests are not heeded”, by Our Blessed Mother. She said “only I can help you” and “My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge”.
– So yes, we continue to pray the Rosary and offer Mass attendance and receptions of the Eucharist for the intention of the triumph of her Immaculate Heart. She also said to offer our daily duties, and all that God sends us each day. So our advice to everyone is do what ever you can even if it IS limited to daily work and prayer, and never underestimate the value of that. If you can do more, such as talking with clergy, by all means keep trying. We have God’s word and Our Lady’s promises that in the end this will all be miraculously turned around. When IS “In the end” ? We can only wait and see.
– But if you keep in mind the good Louie is doing here, uncovering the truth for the sake of those who are just coming to it, as well as for those of us who have been aware of it for a long time, and wish to keep informed to help others; you may see the great value of it. There are many bloggers around, but not all of them have Louie’s perception, depth of Faith, and personal values.
There’s also a wonderful Prophecy of Anne Catherine Emmerich to keep in mind
“When the Church had been for the most part destroyed by the secret sect, and when only the sanctuary and altar were still standing, I saw the wreckers enter the Church with the beast. There, they met a Woman of noble carriage who seemed to be with child because she walked slowly. At this sight, the enemies were terrorized, and the Beast could not take but another step forward. It projected its neck towards the Woman as if to devour her, but the woman turned about and bowed down toward the Altar, her head touching the ground. Thereupon, I saw the beast taking to flight towards the sea again, and the enemies were fleeing in the greatest of confusion. Then, I saw in the great distance great legion approaching. In the foreground I saw a man on a white horse. Prisoners were set free and joined them. All enemies were pursued. Then, I saw that the Church was being promptly rebuilt, and she was more magnificent than ever before. “
Ditto, what you just said, Berto.
Although I agree with your assesment that the current crisis is graver than the Arian heresy, since it deals with multiple doctrines, and a general tendency to place man in the place of God (the so called “cult of man” spoken of by Paul VI), nevertheless I’m wondering:
Why do you consider the fact that it will take a great miracle to restore “this church” as proof that “it cannot be the catholic church”?
Surely you believe that such a miracle is indeed within God’s power?
I bring you more good…… “statistics”.
Now mind you, these are “back of a napkin” numbers… kind of like the Eucharistic Prayer II that was written on the back of a napkin in a Roman trattoria one late evening…. as you all can see, I am still chuckling.
But I digressed…..
Over on the SSPX. ORG website a breakdown of the Society in the world.
Therefore, presently each priest services ONLY 1.21 chapels. If we assume that the 71 seminarians are equally spread across 5 years, each year another 14 priests will be added just in the US alone. Therefore, in 3 years time, 42 new priest will come online, which will give the SSPX more than 1 priest per chapel (71+42=113). Or if we want to use a rule of thumb that it takes one priest to service one chapel, the SSPX can add 10 new chapels in the next three years without even trying too hard. Yes?
In today’s modernist church, this is what can be called “SERIOUS excess capacity” 🙂
When looking across the the world, we have 590 priest across 175 priories.
I.e. more ‘SERIOUS excess capacity”.
But the reason that I am mentioning these figures above is to demonstrate that the 400 Franciscan Friars REALLY DO HAVE an alternative to the Peronista re-eduction camps.
Time to wake up and hop on the train headed for the BIG WIN 😉
And I have a very powerful voice in my corner. 😉
Take is away Mundabor!
One for the “neo-Scipio Africanus” category: Volpi shuts down another FFI friary.
Link here: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/09/commissar-closes-another-friary-of.html
“The decision is symbolic. In Benevento (1915-1996) a decree was signed on June 22, 1990 on the eve of the feast of the Sacred Heart, by Archbishop Carlo Minchiatti for the establishment of the Order by diocesan right. The Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus is thus the canonical founding of the Franciscans of the Immaculate . On that Sunday, in 1990 the first 30 monks professed their vows.”
“Sowing salt into the fields” of the FFI.
Just to protect a rite written on the back of a napkin late one night in a Roman trattoria.
“… you can crush us, you can bruise us… but you have to answer to, ooooh the guns of Brixton”.
More good news over at Fr. Z’s blog: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/09/hagan-lio-tlm-now-more-than-ever/
“When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun
When the law break in
How you gonna go?
Shot down on the pavement
Or waiting on death row
You can crush us
You can bruise us
But you’ll have to answer to
Oh, the guns of Brixton
The money feels good
And your life you like it well
But surely your time will come
As in heaven, as in hell
You see, he feels like Ivan
Born under the Brixton sun
His game is called survivin’
At the end of the harder they come
You know it means no mercy
They caught him with a gun
No need for the Black Maria
Goodbye to the Brixton sun
You can crush us
You can bruise us
Yes, even shoot us
But oh-the guns of Brixton
When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun
You can crush us
You can bruise us
Yes, even shoot us
But oh-the guns of Brixton
Shot down on the pavement
Waiting in death row
His game is called survivin’
As in heaven as in hell
You can crush us
You can bruise us
But you’ll have to answer to
Oh, the guns of Brixton.
14 December 1979
And this over at Brietbart:
It’s not just a Catholic thing anymore:)
Thanks again for giving me hope. I never really lost it – I just get frustrated and here’s a good place to vent because I know everyone here understands. Our Lady will triumph of course! I feel a zeal for souls now – a grace to be sure – and I pray for the dying day and night. Our Lord moves wills when He wishes and I ask Him to move the wills of the dying – as He did my will when I had been away from the Church for 30+ years. I thank Thee, my Lord and Saviour for the gift of Faith.
It is not just to protect the “eucharistic prayer” (if you can indeed call it that) improvised in a Trastevere trattoria over a bowl of “rigattoni a la carbonara” and a pint of beer.
It is much more than that – it is to protect the Vatican II religion.
Dear In Hoc:
Sorry, but I think it is just that. If the EPII goes, the entire VII contraption implodes on itself.
I think the Roman Canon is key. If you look at the destruction of the Mass and subsequently the Church, you have to start with JXXIII introducing St. Joseph into the Canon. This was nothing short of revolutionary, since the Canon was exclusively for the Martyrs.
And once they changed the Canon, they could change anything and everything. It went down hill fast after that.
Therefore, if anyone was to start restoring all things in Christ, that person has to start with the Canon.
And that is precisely why the modernists are so desperate to suppress the Summorum Pontificum. Because they dread the return of the Canon into the Mass.
And the more I think about it, I think that all Catholics should make it a point to point out that the EP that replaced the Canon was written in a Roman trattoria on the back of a napkin so as not to miss a editing deadline.
Actually, we should shout it from the roof tops so that every time the NO services is said, the priest and the congregation think about that small trattoria and Fr’s Boyer and Botte writing the exact words that they are hearing the priest say at that very moment. 🙂
PS I have been doing it for a couple of days now with the NO types, and their reaction is one of disbelief. I can’t wait til Boyer’s memoirs come out.
Your own 30+ years away, ending in your return to the True Faith, is a good witness to others as well as another encouragement to those of us with family members who have also been away for that length of time and longer, for whom we have been praying all our adult lives.
-If you don’t already have it, we recommend purchasing a set of the Liturgy of Hours–and at least reading the two daily readings–often works of the Saints and Church Fathers not usually encountered by the laity.
Today’s readings include St. Augustine with two main points. We must accept the challenge of trials and temptations that come upon every Christian, -some do with eagerness to “drink the cup” even unto death; while others begin to shake and need the reminder that they will never be tested beyond their strength. Who is telling you this? Not Augustine, not Paul, who says the words, but Christ Himself. He ends with ” God rebukes but also encourages; He brings fear and consolation; He strikes and He heals. Do not reject Him.”
God Bless you and all..
Dear S. Armaticus,
You post a LOT of good stuff- which helps us keep informed, and we’re grateful for that. But this hypothetical solution to the entire VII crisis– to remove St. Joseph’s name from the Canon of the Mass because he has no business being named with the martyrs, goes against too much that is reasonable to ring true to us.
-One of the Martyrs -St. James-, was told that he could not be guaranteed a seat next to Jesus in His Kingdom,(as his mother- Salome requested) because that place was already reserved for those His Father had chosen to sit at His right and left. Can you imagine anyone other than Mary and Joseph as designated for those seats of honor?
-St. Joseph – chosen by God from among all men because of his virtues- to be the foster father of the Incarnate Son of God, (representing God the Father) was gifted with Divine visitations and instructions which he obeyed perfectly. -Charged with the protection of Christ, and named Protector of His Universal Church, present at Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, and again- during the last vision of the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, as Our Lady looked on, holding the Christ-Child who along with St. Joseph blessed the world- which was about to embrace Atheism, -a rejection of the Fatherhood of God, which St. Joseph represents to us. St. Joseph brought the solution– a Reign of the Immaculate Heart leading to a return of the prodigal world to God the Father through Christ.
-Remove his name from the Canon of the Mass, and everything else will begin to fall into place and be rectified? If anything, he deserves a lot more honor than he has already received, and we feel sure the Martyrs would agree.
Dear Berto and Salvemur,
It’s “lessor of two evils” time. Is it better to receive the Lord in the Eucharist while learning the Faith from solid teachers of the past and rejecting novelties, or to avoid going to Mass? That’s the choice most Catholics face today. Despite the awesome efforts of the FSSP and SSPX members, there are just not enough of them for people to get to for the Sacraments.
So no, we don’t agree with you or salvemur that total avoidance is the answer. It’s buck-up and learn your Faith time. Resist all evil and falsehood, but embrace the Sacraments and Sacramentals.
Yes, it isn’t just a religious matter, it is a matter of the Natural Law, the Divine Law that applies to all persons.
Dear Barbara, sister in Christ, your words express well the anguish of the remnant who have no bishop or priest to lead them against the evil apostasy of the majority and the vicious persecution of the good, those who uphold the truth in Faith and morals – most especially by those in powerful positions in the Holy See and many other sees around the world. Diabolical disorientation is the best way to describe the situation of the leadership of the Church, from the Pope down, oriented as it is to the world, the flesh and the devil, with its back defiantly and contemptuously turned on God. Reparation. Reparation. Reparation. Lord, console us and let us seek to console You and each other.
EPII has all the hallmarks of a pagan trattoria self-worshipping ceremony. Lord have mercy. May people’s eyes be opened, may they convert and be filled with all necessary graces.
Please don’t understand me. It’s not about St. Joseph. St. Joseph figures prominently in the liturgy.
But what you have to remember is that the Canon, which was codified by Pope Gregory the Great has been unchanged for more than 1500 years. The actual prayer is traced directly back to apostolic times. It is a constant, just like the Faith that Our Lord gave to his apostles and has been passed down through the ages. It’s the foundation of the liturgy, the most perfect expression of giving praise and glory to the Triune God.
And when one understands that, and begins to reflect on exactly that aspect, and then hears the celebrant going through EPII, it has to create… a tad bit of spiritual dissonance. Or Lio as our bishop of Rome would say.
But it could be just me.
One more thing dear Indignus, or should I say Indignii.
Thanks for mentioning my posting. I post a lot (of links), because there is a lot going on. And a lot of what is going on is not apparent on the surface.
Case in point. The modernist hearsay is like no other that the Church has ever faced in Her history. It’s a large undertaking whose strategy is to overwhelm the Bride of Christ as he founded Her. There are many moving parts, and the enemies come from within and without the Church. At present, it appears that they are coordinating there attacks. Think about the situation where the US VP travels with the “Nuns on the Bus” and tells the bishop of Rome to go easy on the heretics. We have aberro-sexual activists with no affiliation with the Church what so ever, throwing a lot of dosh (English expression) at church organizations to get those organizations to put pressure on the hierarchy to break with what Our Lord handed down to us. Frankly, it could overwhelm the average person. And that is the intended purpose.
Having said the above, however, I am not disheartened. What I realize is that our side has already won the war. And that is simply because Our Lord told us that “the gates of hell will not prevail” against His Church.
So what we actually have to do, is fight the good fight. And since the war will have to be won by Our Lord’s side, we just need to find and exploit the weak link that will …. “bring the VII contraption down on itself”. And watching the modernist’s rather irrational behavior over the last year and a half, it’s obvious to me that they are telegraphing to us what their Achilles heal is. And their Achilles heal is the liturgy. And the heart of the liturgy is the Canon. It’s just that simple.
You write about the Canon of the Mass: “This was a constant, just like the Faith that Our Lord handed down through the Apostles.”
You’re thus claiming that one individual list of Saints used in the Mass is as unchangeable as the dogma of the Faith. And the change in question WAS adding the name of St. Joseph to that list, which is a tremendous way to honor a very deserving Saint. Canons are defined as lists of norms–and there are many different types of them in the Church. The pope is free to alter those lists of norms, unless that involves altering truth itself.
-We do agree with you, that many (if not most) of the alterations involved in creating the N.O. were atrocious disfigurements of the beauty and majesty of the Mass that had developed over those 1500 years- so much so that they can barely be compared. But the issue you raise is whether any part of the TLM can ever be altered by the Pope, and since not every word is Dogma, we disagree with your view that it cannot be. We know that puts us at odds with many fellow TLM lovers, but we’re looking for truth wherever it is found. It is also possible that John XXIII used this particular change knowing that it would be so hard to dispute, in order to usher in the rest.
p.s. the above was not a response to your “one more thing” comment, but the one before it.
Regarding the LOT of postings comment we made, –hope you realized it was a sincere thank-you not a criticism. God Bless.
Act II Scene 3: Ignatius Press fights back.
Take it away Fr. Joe:
“Furthermore, Fr. Fessio responded to Cardinal Kasper’s statement that his consistory remarks had not offered “a definitive solution” but rather “posed some questions and offered considerations for possible responses.”
“Well, what are you complaining about then?” Fr. Fessio asked. “You got some answers and some responses to your considerations. Or weren’t those the answers you were expecting?”
I wonder if we can get the LCWR and the Nuns on the Bus into this tag-team grudge match? 😉
Must read at the Remnant: ++Burke Unchained.
Francis might just be too clever, by half 🙂
PS “Remember the Lusitania” Burke!
It’s not a question “organic growth” that is at issue here. What you have to understand is the history of the modernist liturgical movement and the modernists schemers who were working for the better part of 50 years to undermine the Faith. A very good and entertaining source is Fr. Anthony Cekada’s Work of Human Hands. If you go on youtube, you can find his video summaries of the individual chapters. The link here is on the chapter dealing with the Canon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozuRntHB1Zc
As to you comment about my posting, I took it as a compliment.
pps. indignus will do–after all these years the two really have become one. 🙂
Dear S.Armaticus, –re your last link to Fr. Cekada’s video on the Cannon…
It’s a heartbreaking time we are living through. We agree with many of the reasons he gave for why the ancient rite was far better than the N.O., (as we always have), and that many, if not all of the “reformers” went at it with ulterior/protestant- motives. But honestly, Fr. Cekada struck us as one extremely determined to insist no changes at all be made, even if it required his grasping at straws and implying they amounted to major proofs, when they didn’t. For eg: claiming the Canon needed to be done quietly so no one else but the priest could hear it- for mystery, awe, and priestly distinction are all good things, but not necessities. Because Jesus prayed that way in His agony in the garden, sounded more compelling, until you think about it and realize his disciples heard and recorded his prayers, so they couldn’t have been so quietly said no one heard them.
– Trent anathematized “condemning” the quiet praying of the Canon–as the Protestants had loudly done, not officially changing it from being said quietly to being prayed aloud-which the Church has the authority to do.(even if for really lousy reasons) So the anathema does not apply to what the Council did, as Fr C implies.
-Regarding his main point about the “mis-translation” of the words of the Consecration which “invalidate” it. The premise Father C mocks as “goofy” : -that the original Aramaic translated more accurately to “for all” agrees with the words of Scripture (1Peter 3:18) Christ died once “for all”” (2Cor. 5:14-15) “One died for all…and He died for us all”. Father’s claim that they should have been translating the Roman rite, not the Aramiaic, therefore dismisses the intent to know what Christ really said, and makes it seem he was is only interested in keeping things the same even if it means accurately translating a possible error that -according to him, would invalidate the consecration.
-So since the N.O. words have been changed back to “for many” we may actually now have an invalid Mass? What did Christ really say in Aramic?. Fr C. cites Benedict’s push to have it changed back as “implicit” proof it was wrong. But it could be that Benedict just caved to the pressure of so many complaints, and being a modernist, ended up compromising to appease those who wouldn’t tolerate the change. Both statements are true, but we still don’t know which Jesus said, or if the translation invalidates anything.
Fr. Cekada’s reasoning didn’t help clear that up for us, it just made us more determined to trust God that things will work out in His time, and assume we are attending valid Masses, because even the experts are so confused.
Our response to the Fr. C. link (after studying it) is at #42 below.
Louie proven right — yet again:
VATICAN CITY – Pope Francis has created a commission to study how to safeguard what the church calls the everlasting bonds of marriage while streamlining annulment procedures.
Francis decided last month to establish a special commission to draft proposals on reforming church marriage law, but the Vatican only announced it on Saturday.
The timing appears linked to a major Vatican gathering of bishops next month on family issues and appeals to allow divorced Catholics who remarry to receive Communion.
The Vatican said the new commission will explore how to simplify the church’s complex annulments while safeguarding the principle that marriage is “everlasting.”
The only “reform” Church law on marriage needs is to bring it more into conformity with Divine Law. Marriage does not change, it is pre-determined – and cannot be determined by Church law.
The ‘lesser of two evils time’. That sounds like a Bergoglian solution if ever there was one.
As far as I can see, it the time to reject evil. Ask our Eternal Father in Heaven what He would have from us; then pray pray pray that He grant those authentic Apostolic sons who still have a modicum of the Faith, the Grace to cry loud and clear, ‘these creeps are not Vicars of Christ’, in order that all with a modicum of the Faith can return to the true Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, her true Faith, her true Mass, and her true Saints and Popes. Unless we pray for this, most will sink deeper into the false faith, the false worship the false ‘saints’ and the false ‘popes’ – in other words the ‘lesser’ evils will be their lot, and most probably their preference.
New Bishop for Chicago–and the press pegged this one accurately:
“Francis’ first major mark on American Catholic leadership” “Roman Catholic Bishop Blase Cupich has staked out a firm position in the middle of the road.”
“He struck a tone that reflects what Francis has emphasized for the church”. “On Saturday, Pope Francis named Cupich as the next archbishop of Chicago, sending a strong signal about the direction that the pontiff is taking the church.
-“He has spoken against same-sex marriage– and against conservative hostility toward gay rights advocates.
-“He has opposed abortion, –while urging parishioners and priests to ..not disdain- those who disagree–(who support abortion rights).”
-he criticized fellow U.S. bishops who threatened to shut down religious charities– instead of pursuing a compromise with the White House over health care policies that go against Catholic teaching..
.”These kind of scare tactics and worse-case scenario predictions are uncalled for,” he wrote in a letter to diocesan employees. “I am confident we can find a way to move forward.”
There’s an old saying:
“The middle of the road is for dead skunks and yellow stripes.”
p.s. when it comes to worshipping with belial there can be no ”lesser” evil – it is wrong, it is evil – objectively; taking one part green tea and one part arsenic doesn’t really even things out; where is the room to argue that false worship before our Eternal Father is acceptable? It wasn’t in ancient Israel (the prophets (precursors of the Vicars of Christ) had nothing to do with such – they railed against it with every fibre of their being) and it isn’t in the Church. Everyone has access to the Sacrament of Baptism. Any true priest can absolve sins – none of these is barred (although the issue of authentic Priests is very much a real problem given the new ordination rites (further, the matter used for many confirmations these days is not valid). If one has no un-adulterated mass, we live in an age where God has given us the means to, nonetheless, pray the Mass:
Unless we face up to the extent of the damage – that the doctrine of the Faith has been poisoned; the sacraments have been poisoned in matter and form, that the rites of ordination have been poisoned, that the Mass has been poisoned, and that those pouring out the poison are not Vicars of Christ, the crisis will continue to flourish, unobstructed. All that is happening by sleeping with the enemy is the beliacalisation of those who still have a sense of the Faith. The poison of lies will take its toll, however. It always does. Even the most stalwart in the faith who remain united with belial will probably lose it, becoming blind without even knowing it.
It’s the faster-track approach to annulment that’s apparently wanted here. Remember, on the plane back from Korea- he said he knows his time is short?
Indignus, Fr Cekada’s work does not insist upon a ‘changless’ liturgy. It defends organic change as authentic in order to argue that the manufactured intrusion of the 60s which insisted on amputating 1500 years of the careful work of the Holy Ghost is wrong. A sure sign that the Holy Ghost was NOT assisting because it would mean He is contradicting His own work. Impossible.
Constantinople, 428 AD, Christmas morning, the Archbishop told his flock that Our Blessed Lady is not the Mother of God. What did the flock, including clergy, do in the face of these lies? They got up and walked out of the Church. What has pretty much everyone done in the face of the liar at the pulpit since the 60s? Stayed and become heretics and worse. The purpose of the Church is not half-truths and error. Such a teaching institution is no longer ‘Church’. Novus Ordo church teaches partial truth as salvific – such a declaration all by itself is an irrefutable sign it is a false church and cannot have an authentic ‘Vicar’.
Vatican II and its ‘popes’ contradict Peter = they speak for the father of lies; they do not have the assistance of the Holy Ghost. What is the promise of the assistance of the Holy Ghost to His Church? That the faithful cannot be misled by Christ’s appointed shepherds, either through ignorance or error with regards to Faith and Morals. The consequence of the Holy Ghost’s assistence is infallibility. An enemy in a white cassock is not a consequence of the Holy Ghost’s assistance. Rather those true to the instruction on Faith and morals throughout the ages who have upheld these same things are the consequence of His assistance. To look to the error of any age as an excuse to besmirch Him and claim an enemy as His is an insult to His actions. The decrees of the Church’s true Popes and true Councils read ‘as if from the same Person’. The ‘person’ ‘assisting’ Vatican II and it’s men in skullcaps has a very different ‘voice’ and a different faith and, who can deny it, leading everyone astray on Faith and Morals.
It’s not a Bergoglian solution if by that you mean choosing to deliberately go against the will of God or His teachings.
-It’s not even choosing to do evil. It’s choosing to worship God in a situation that is not ideal, because it is better than nor worshipping Him at all.
Evil is the absence of good. We find it everywhere in this life where things are not perfect. For some reason you claim that makes it morally wrong to attend a N.O. Mass, as if that were choosing to do a morally evil act, which requires the intention to be evil. We disagree with you and with Fr. Cekada if he teaches that.
-Also, the prayers for the Pope-at least at Masses we’ve attended don’t call him “Faithful”. He is recognized as a sinner as we all are, and prayed for in Christian Charity. Calling him the Holy Father doesn’t make him holy, it’s simply his title, which we pray he lives up to..
-We believe that when you experience someone teaching error from the pulpit you have a bad pastor, not a false “Church”. They don’t have the power to change the purpose of The Church, and neither has this Pope. He and his cohorts and friends may abuse their power to whatever limit God allows, but this Church still belongs to Jesus Christ now and forever. (Obviously we disagree about the N.O. Mass and don’t believe it is sinful to attend).
–The teachings on infallibility don’t apply to everything a Pope thinks, says and does, and the Holy Spirit obviously doesn’t prevent what we see going on today, any more than He did while so many other Popes- prior to VII behaved atrociously or entertained erroneous ideas which they never promulgated.
-The fact that we were able to learn the Faith as much as we have to this point, from past teachings, is proof God preserves the truth that way.
-If it keeps worsening, or if we get the Fatima Consecration, we may soon witness what Scripture promises in Jeremiah Ch 31: …after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord…”
-If those you decry were really “leading everyone astray on Faith and Morals” then how do you explain all the folks posting here on Louie’s blog, and how clearly we all see the errors being presented by so many of them?
Sounds like Bergoglio appointed him to shepherd the Church in the USA towards surrender!
Note, that ominously, he uses the catch phrase / motto of the Democrapic party…
A way to more forward….
In Hoc Signo Vinces,
no, what I meant is it can’t be the Catholic Church because She is immaculate and impeccable. An organisation comprised up to 99.5% by heretics and apostates cannot be Her.
Also, it is my understanding that by Divine Law (and probably even Canon Law), such individuals are AUTOMATICALLY excluded by the Body, and that is how Holy Mother Church stays incorrupted for eternity.
It would take a massive Miracle, because it would constitute the biggest (re)conversion of billions of souls to the One True Faith, an event unprecedented in History on such a massive scale, also “harder” for human standards, than vs heathens, because in our case we’re dealing with a diabolical disorientation and a faux catholic Church, claiming and universally recognized as such, not external elements.
Of course this could be done by God effortlessly, but even if He were to make it clear without a shadow of a doubt, there would still be some who would reject the Truth, via their Free Will.
In my opinion most of the hierarchy, who cannot possibly ignore the truth of what they are doing and what faith really is. They must be willing servants of Satan.
from* the Body
I have several points to address in response:
1) We can’t even sure there is Real Presence in the new Eucharist for the following reasons:
a)ordination: maybe the new rite priest are not validly ordained therefore it’d be null
b)new formula (does your parish use the “many” or “all” ?)
2)We can’t even be sure the N.O. worship is Catholic.
It claims to be, but except for that, what is the difference with a Protestant service? The Language is the same, most of the liturgy is similar to Anglican etc.
You should read up on what Montini changed (for no reason at all) and why.
Evidence points to him doing everything in order to render mass, sacraments, ordination null&void, directly guided by learned demons possibly.
No amount of good intentions and wishful thinking can change that.
By your reasoning a Catholic should be allowed to go to Protestant “mass”, in an effort to “worship God”, if he were unable to attend a real one, but we know from Papal statements that is expressely forbidden and actually a mortal sin in itself.
3)Personal responsibility and truth. If one is aware of the truth, is he/she excused from correctly behaving and avoiding possible if not certain improper conduct? Where does one draw the line between self-deception and erring in good faith?
As already said, would a Catholic be excused in the eyes of the Lord for frequenting Protestant mass throughout his life, in good faith, if he was convinced it was a valid substitute, even AFTER he was made aware of the dangers by fellow Catholics?
I’m not going to judge, because as a simple mind and ignorant individual I do not hold all the answers, but all signs point to the correct behaviour being AVOIDING everything unorthodox altogether.
While there is good hope in theology about God forgiving inaction (regarding the Sacraments), there seem to be much less consensus about willful disobedience.
Your comments are clear and very well said.
the words of Consecration have been recorded in Matthew 26:28 by Matthew himself, Council of Trent by Pope Eugene IV and in De Defectibus Formae by Pope St. Pius V.
Mat 26:28 in the Vulgate reads:
“hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti qui pro MULTIS effunditur in remissionem peccatorum”
in the greek:
” τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ *πολλῶν* ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν”
The notion that our understanding of Scripture should change (or evolve) in light of new discoveries (be it in the field of philology, archeology, science, etc) is actually a condemned error.. by Pius X in Lamentabili Sane.
All this talk about Aramaic I hear from left to right (messianic Jews, protestants, satanists) is just another modernist diabolical instrument of destruction.
And it is clear as day to me the “for all” was changed for twofold reasons:
a)strenghten the universal salvation and religious indifferentism heresies
b)invalidate the formula
Abuse of, subversion of, marriage. And this abuse and subversion is a direct attack on all marriages, all families based on those marriages, and all society based on those families. It is a full-frontal attack on marriage; and what constitutes mortal sin, causing widespread scandal. Permitting the reception of the Blessed Sacrament by those in a notorious state of mortal sin is to formalise sacrilege of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ and formal apostasy.
I think you miss my point. What I was pointing out had nothing to do with whether the NO mass is valid or not, nor is it a question of whether there is a pope or not (of course there is a pope – albeit the worst one evah…..).
My point is this: we are living during the greatest heresy that has ever engulfed the Church that Our Lord gave humanity as the only means of salvation. We know that “the gates of hell” will not prevail. But we are still required to engage in this battle for no other reason than the obligatory spiritual works of mercy that we are required to perform in order to work out our salvation. Therefore, how are we to approach this situation?
From where I sit, it would appear to me that we need to study how the modernists approached the subversion of the Church in the first place. And looking at the history of the modernist heresy, one thing stands out: it was done on the liturgical level. And if we looks at the sequence of events leading up to the complete destruction that took place after 1970, we see that it started with a “pastoral” council that introduced novelty. But that council ended in 1965. But the Concilium introduced the N.O. mass only in 1969. One could say that the “spirit of VII” didn’t have the fire power by itself. That novelty could have been dealt with, a la reform of the reform, if it was contained. But what really let the “smoke of Satan” into the Church was the destruction of the mass. By destroying the mass, it deprived the Church of the “basis”of it’s Faith (propitiatory vs assembly theology) , and deprived the Church of the point of reference for “properly” deciphering those texts and placing them into context (priest as alter Christ vs where more than one gather, priest as presider etc.). If the mass was not destroyed, it would have been easy to produce a “syllabus of errors” and the modernists would have eventually been thwarted. However, since the basis of the faith was subverted through the “method of worship”, it is hard now to even consider a syllabus of errors since we have nothing to reference these errors against. Think Francis’s complete hatred for “Pelagians and their liturgical certainty.
So the above is my jumping off point. What needs to be done is bring back the “liturgical certainty”. We can’t expect that one day the modernists will experience an epiphany, convert to the ONE TRUE FAITH and return to the Mass of All Ages. But what we can do is try to return the proper nature to whatever form of mass is being “celebrated” at the time. The place to start is with the Canon. If the Roman Canon can return as the central point of our liturgy, than both the faithful and the clergy will be able to discern the true nature of the “un-bloody sacrifice” that is playing itself out before their very eyes. And from what can be read in different parts of the blogosphere, once the priest and faithful are re-introduced to the proper mass, it is an eyeopening experience.
And with the publication of Bouyer’s memoirs, and the confirmation of the “theological background to EP II) I think we have received a Godsend. And I think that hammering away at the artificial, arbitrary and quite frankly fraudulant manner of how the N.O. mass came into existence should open up debate about why the Canon was completely abrogated from the NO liturgy in the first place. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, our goal should be to spread the “origins of the EP II” as far and wide as possible. What we need is pewsitters and clerics to be cognizant of the fact that when they enter into the consecration part of the mass, they are reciting words that were written by a couple of tipsy clerics on a napkin at a late night dinner in a Roman trattoria, hurrying to meet a deadline the next morning. To be perfectly honest, nobody want to be a made into a “SUCKER”.
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi.
Background to how Cupich got Chicago.
“Cupich’s promotion to this particularly important position, that usually entails the elevation to the cardinalatial red, was a personal decision of Pope Francis himself. More precisely, the Pope imposed his candidate on Cardinal Ouellet and the Congregation for Bishops, under the desperate suggestion of the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Abp. Carlo Maria Viganò. We know well that those men who are particularly authoritarian, such as Francis, also are, in many cases, easily manipulated by those who learn how to read them. Moreover, it is enough to waggle before the eyes of the Pope the scarecrow called Cardinal Burke to lead him in one direction or another, because he has kept against the Prefect of the Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura an extremely strong rancor after the 2013 conclave, in which the American Cardinal was one of those who tried to thwart his path to the pontificate.”
The Francis papacy is turning out to be nothing short of a Latin American telenovela.
1) We continue studying the issues you raise here, but have so far found the arguments against valid ordination unconvincing and thus do not doubt attending N.O. Masses provides us with Real Presence. We have been blessed to find several priests who appear sincere and devout, limiting added-on abuses so often reported elsewhere; though we personally prefer the TLM when available, considering it a much better alternative.
– Re: the words of the Consecration- after studying Fr.Cekada’s video, we commented below [at #42] on the issue of the Aramaic translation of Jesus’ word “all” versus the deliberate “mistranslation” of the Roman rite’s intended “many” (pro multis rather than omnibus) into “all”. Our area of the country switched back to using “many” under Benedicts directives, and the TLM uses it exclusively, but as we point out below, we have lingering questions. Both words are Scripturally correct, – which one did Jesus use? These things seem beyond our ability to discern for ourselves, as so many of these areas you mention appear to be, leaving us trusting God’s Word and His promises to care for His Church. What you suggest is that He suddenly liturgically abandoned billions of Catholics in the 1960’s, expecting them all to stop attending the new Mass. That seems unreasonable to us, even now, after using our best judgments to review the available information through our “rightly formed consciences” (if God gifted us with those) and the sensus fidelium for which our lifestyles seem to qualify us.
2) The N.O. was obviously intended to be a rite that diminished the differences between Protestant services like the Anglican and ours, which many consider wrong to do. . But your suggesting attending Protestant services would be no different than N.O. doesn not follow logically, as Protestant sects themselves don’t consider that to be true, and the remaining differences prevents them, from reuniting with the Roman Church, making it sinful for Catholics to substitute their services for our Mass.
3)Regarding “personal responsibility”-we search for truth continually, and believe sedevacantists and rejecters of the N.O. are mistaken in thinking they’ve found it and everyone else must think and act as they do- under pain of being condemned as sinners by virtue of “deliberate” self-deception– by them and God by for Whom they apparently believe they speak.
-Perhaps they deceive themselves instead, wishing to be spared the uncomfortable/ aggravating need to attend a weekly Mass said by someone whose homilies and personal attitudes they so greatly disrespect and/or need to correct.
– But rather than point fingers that may end up being false accusations, we prefer to accept the fact that reasonable people do seriously disagree on these very complicated matters at present, and deserve the benefit of the doublt as to their motives and intentions to do God’s will.
It does seem true that the Holy Spirit protected the Church from error in this important matter, via the words used in Scripture and the pronouncements Council of Trent etc, as you list above. What we know of the Council Fathers and those that influenced them and the writers of the new Mass, strongly suggests at the very least an eagerness to accept novel ideas to smooth the way or remove what they saw as roadblocks to reunification with the sects.
Dear S. Armaticus,
Sorry we missed your point, and thanks for your patience with us-we have many years of experiences but not as much information as many others here, and are doing our best to catch up or at least keep up with it all. .
You wrote (and we agree whole heartedly with this:
“My point is this: we are living during the greatest heresy that has ever engulfed the Church that Our Lord gave humanity as the only means of salvation. We know that “the gates of hell” will not prevail. But we are still required to engage in this battle for no other reason than the obligatory spiritual works of mercy that we are required to perform in order to work out our salvation.”
Therefore, how are we to approach this situation?
From there on is where it gets really complicated for the average lay person, and we have to question whether God really expects us all to be able to uncover all the roots and intentions of those in the hierarchy, and how involved they were with the diabolic and how much of what they did was intentional, etc.
–Despite a few areas where we may disagree with you, your suggestion that ” What needs to be done is bring back the “liturgical certainty” is one we second heartily.
Berto, How far back and in what obscure corner did you find it written that the Catholic Church is “immaculate and impeccable”?! And there you go throwing around percentages plucked from thin air. As far as I can tell 100% of the Church Militant are sinners. In fact, barring 3 humans, 100% have sinned. Yes, heretics, schismatics and apostates are automatically excommunicated, but does that make the Church impeccable? Incidental heretical thoughts do not make one a heretic.
—“Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
– Just to note, regarding schism, it does NOT say “obstinate refusal of submission”. It seems to me that leaves a very high hurdle to overcome to claim that 99.5% are outside the Church.
Salvemur, there’s much to agree within your description of what has happened to the Church since the Council (and even before that, really). But no one has the legitimate authority (except for a future Pope) to declare that the Popes who have endorsed the Council and its errors are not true Popes. I’m sure you know this already. Fr. Cekada does not have the authority to claim that there have been no Popes since the Council. Though I’m sympathetic to many of the views of the SV’s, the thing that I find most disturbing about their claims is that those claims make Jesus out to be a liar. Also, it is a grave sin to knowingly take Catholics away from the Catholic Church. Of course you can claim that it’s not the Catholic Church, but a counterfeit Church. But again, that would mean that Our Lord is a liar. Which He most certainly wasn’t.
the “obscure corner I found” such a crazy idea is Mystici Corporis Christi (1943, not 43 a.D.).
Maybe you should give that a read to clear up what the Church actually is and isn’t…
Re.- the validity of the Eucharist – 2nd point. There are 8 words necessary for valid Consecration, “This Is My Body, This Is My Blood.” The word All or Many does not affect the outcome. To quote from The Catechism of the Council of Trent: “… while they are not necessary to the consecration of the Sacrament, they are by all means to be pronounced by the priest, as is the conjunction -for- in the consecration of the body and blood. BUT THEY ARE NOT NECESSARY, (emph. mine), to the validity of the Sacrament.” (pg. 224; copy.1982 Tan Books ppb.)
To your 1st point on ordination. This, to me, is tiresome. With all these well-intentioned, highly educated, intelligent scholars and theologians standing around pointing fingers saying T’is – T’isn’t – T’is – T’isn’t- Oh Yeah?! It seems that we’re dealing with outcome based argumentation.
— If you’re concerned with a sinful/heretical priest, the Church agrees with the following:
– St. Agustine re. an improperly disposed minister, “As for the proud minister, he is to be ranked with the devil. Christ’s gift is not thereby profaned: what flows through him keeps its purity, and what passes through him remains clear and reaches the fertile earth. … The spiritual power of the sacrament is indeed comparable to light: those to be enlightened receive it in its purity, and if it should pass through defiled beings, it is not itself defiled.” (In Ioannis evangelium tractatus, 5, 15).
– St. Thomas said, ” “The sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God” (Summa Theologiae, III, 68, 8).
Dear Indignus Famulus,
indeed. We had a complete 180° from Unity via proselythism if not destruction of the sects to the Catholic Chuch imitating them in their despicable errors in order to facilitate a future “merger”.
PS- I am curious, you mentioned Aramaic and the alleged possible real words of Christ regarding the many vs all formula, where did you find such information?
Again I keep hearing about alleged aramaic N.T. versions or passages but do they even exist? Is it not mere speculation 2,000 years after the fact based on what could be a correct or incorrect human understanding of history and the aramaic language?
This sounds all very dangerous..
the Catechism of Trent is not infallible. In fact it contains errors.
I don’t know why you are bringing it up.
Moreover, I fail to see why you keep bringing up SIN and MORALITY as analogies (strawmen?) to serious matter of valid ordination and/or heresy…
PS: paradoxically, a heretic and/or excommunicated priest could produce valid sacraments, while a non validly ordained, authority-less one could not.
In fact, as I already brought up, a good piece of circumstantial evidence for N.O. priest not being validly ordained is their problems with the Authoritative Roman Rite of exorcism.
Incredibly, I read of cases where they rely mostly on “prayer groups” for “deliverance prayers” than their own apostolic authority.
Those words irk Bergoglio, perhaps for a personal reason. I have found this a good test, simply state the truth about the wickedness of a vice, and you find out immediately whether the listener is beholden to it….makes them get red mad and let lose their fake faces of piety…
heh,heh, true,my friend.
Except when I enjoy a good Latin American telenovela while sipping my Puerto Rican coffee, it’s never even nearly as utterly boring as His Humildad.
Oh I see, maybe you’re trying to pull a “argumentum ad Alexandrem VI”?
The one heavily relying on the confusion between immorality and doctrinal errors.. very popular in some circles, but deeply flawed.
dear Indignus famulus,
Your last question is a loaded one, to which any Catholic such as myself who holds the SedeVacante/Privation position would want to respond–but, If I may, I’ve another question-isn’t this topic to be discussed within the forums, or has the particular posting guideline changed? Please clarify.
Berto, Sorry, I don’t get it. Granted; the Church is the Body of Christ, and granted, Jesus Christ is immaculate an impeccable, but nowhere in the encyclical does that transfer to the members of the Church. Where, in the penumbra of Mystici Corporis Christi, did you find that, or am I completely misreading your statement, “She, (the Catholic Church), is immaculate and impeccable”? While it states that the Church is a perfect Society, it also states that it will attain its perfection in Heaven. While on earth, it stands that its members are far from immaculate and imminently “peccable'[, this being confirmed by Puis XII saying in PP18, “In the Sacrament of Penance a saving medicine is offered for the members of the Church who have fallen into sin…”
the shame. Reparation! The language used is that of relativism and atheism.
1. Regarding Trent’s Catechism; you’re the one with the strawman. You’re not addressing the point made: the word All or Many is not needed to make the consecration valid. Whether there are errors elsewhere in the book does not dismiss the argument. What remains is the understanding of the 8 essential words.
2. Re. the morality argument, I was just trying to head off your responding with it. I apologize for thinking you would counter with such an old, worn retort. Mea culpa.
3. Citing circumstantial evidence of priest neglecting the rite of exorcism using anecdotal hearsay evidence is frivolous on your part. There could be numerous reasons not the least of which could be bad formation in their training, give a placebo type treatment prior to psychiatric evaluation, being in a charismatic prayer meeting where everyone gets to “lay hands”. None of these would be from an invalid ordination, just misguided learning/teaching.
I appreciate your comments, Denise. I’ve never come across a sedevacantist claiming ecclesial authority to rush in and oust the usurpers in Rome. They recognise and utterly reject (not ‘resist’ – which more or less amounts to assisting) the false heirarchy that has usurped the nominal offices of the ‘Catholic Church’ since the 60s. If a Catholic recognises an enemy of the Faith (words and deeds (fruits) attest – we don’t need to know their motives as Bishop Williamson continues to demand regarding how we are permitted to act based on the obvious), and that, most especially, an enemy of the faith cannot be its Vicar, so-called sedevacantists most definitely claim the God-given right to point out that these people are enemies of the faith and, further, to avoid the Newchurch. This avoidance is seen as a moral obligation since Newchurch is an aberrant creation – being not of the True Church since it represents a substantial divergence from the True Faith, in Her Doctrine, Disciplines and Worship. If one understands that Newchurch simply isn’t the Catholic Church, anymore than Luther’s religion or Calvins etc. (and its teachings on religious indifference and its ‘popes’ consistently committing public sin against the first commandment, amongst a plethora of other errors taught and exalted by them attests) one has a moral obligation not to assist.
Cardinal Pie warned a century ago that the true Church may be reduced to ‘individual and domestic proportions’. Not ideal, but simply being much smaller doesn’t require us to believe that God has somehow failed in His promises.
St John teaches us very clearly that Christ is not to be ‘dissolved’, that is His truth admixtured with falsehood in any way: 1jn.4.3 “And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world.” Newchurch undeniably seeks to ‘dissolve Christ’, into false faiths and false worship – this is its entire purpose.
I came across this quote from J.R.R. Tolkien: ‘Only a crisis, or serious thought without a crisis (which is rare), will serve to disentangle the [two] elements [that being the conflation of moral obligation with the obligation of ‘manners’ or code of conduct].’
It occurs to me that those who hold to the worship which includes lies are elevating the obligation to attend (Catholic manners you might say(or perhaps the fright of feeling excluded from that sphere of ‘conduct’, however poisonous, which has become second nature)), over the obligation to abstain, which belongs to Catholic morals. We have a crisis, and yet it has caused few people to examine the difference between a true moral obligation to give God only true worship by assisting only at an unadulterated Mass (however humbly or poorly celebrated), as opposed to cleaving to adulterated worship under the ‘obligation’ not to break with a ‘code’ of conduct.
Here’s an article that is really clear about the ‘bad popes’ argument that might be of interest:
How do I explain it – this way, which I mentioned below, but may as well put in again:
‘Only a crisis, or serious thought without a crisis (which is rare), will serve to disentangle the [two] elements [that being the conflation of moral obligation with the obligation of ‘manners’ or code of conduct].’
It occurs to me that those who hold to the worship which includes lies are elevating the obligation to attend (Catholic manners you might say(or perhaps the fright of feeling excluded from that sphere of ‘conduct’, however poisonous, which has become second nature)), over the obligation to abstain, which belongs to Catholic morals. We have a crisis, and yet it has caused few people to examine the difference between a true moral obligation to give God only true worship by assisting only at an unadulterated Mass (however humbly or poorly celebrated), as opposed to cleaving to adulterated worship under the ‘obligation’ not to break with a ‘code’ of conduct – that is to. If one understands that the Faith has enemies and that these enemies are currently trading on the ‘currency’ of white cassocks and catholic heirarchical claims, the obligation doesn’t lie in choosing to keep with the code, but with moral obligation.
But as the Tolkien quote above points out, usually the level of crisis experienced or understood determines the degree to which we are able to disentangle a real obligation from an habitual one.
p.s. ‘Scuse me, the ‘how do I explain it’, was in response to Indignus’ question.
Hey de Maria! Check out the poll: “What will you do if the October Synod in Rome effectively allows people in illegitimate “marriages” to receive the Novus Ordo sacraments?”
p.s. and regarding ecclesial authority, to quote St Bellarmine: a heretic has ‘ipso facto’ lost all his authority in Christ.
Therefore the current ‘legal’ heirarchy have no authority to speak or teach in Christ’s name, any more than the current president of the United States or the Vice-Chancellor of Germany.
Folks, I can tell you all quality restaurants in Italy use cloth napkins. If they wrote on a paper napkin, it was a really SEEDY place….!
I find it very amusing that someone who claims not to believe in Christ and not to be a non-Jew is arguing here about Catholic Theology. Either convert and profess the faith, or stop pretending to be a non-Christian Jew….
And if you are not jewish, it is very improper to pretend to be….
Dear de Maria,
You’re quite right, we’ve all apparently gotten off track for a while here.
Thanks for the reminder.
1,200 Catholics in action:
Protesters far outnumbered attendees of a Satanic ‘black mass’ held in Oklahoma City Sunday. – between 40 and 50 people attended the ritual. Satanist-Daniels told the “Tulsa World “prior to the ceremony that he would include a ritual denouncing Jesus Christ and stomp and spit on a wafer representing the Communion host. He added that private rituals conducted by his group featured sex, urine, and nudity.
–Meanwhile, about 1,200 Roman Catholics crowded into St. Francis of Assisi Church- for a holy hour prayer service led by Archbishop Paul S. Coakely. Those who couldn’t get in -filled an adjacent gym and cafeteria area, while approximately 400 others gathered outside to hear the service piped through speakers.
-Coakley told attendees in his homily that Oklahoma City had been targeted by “dark forces,” but noted that as Christians “we know that Christ conquered Satan. The war has been won, Christ has conquered, though skirmishes will continue until Christ comes to reign forever.”
-The service was followed by a procession to the Civic Center, where protesters from around the region had gathered to demonstrate against the Satanic ritual. Security had been stepped up for the event and Oklahoma City Police told KOKH-TV that someone had called in a bomb threat during the service. – one woman was arrested after she knelt in front of one of the entrances to the Civic Center and refused to leave.
Sign of the times?
Isis butchers fear only one thing–death at the hand of a woman:
Terrified of Losing 72 Heavenly Virgins, Islamic State Fighters Reportedly ‘Run Away’ from a Certain Type of Soldier
It’s clearly brings us all back to the same old arguments about who can declare someone a heretic. Been there…done that…
One for the “brick by brick” category: Eye candy from Poland
For your viewing pleasure: http://arscelebrandi.pl/galeria/
“Time is on our side… oh yes it is!”
While reading the below article, I immediately thought of you and several of our exchanges above.
The Benedictine-Jesuit controversy.
The irony of the situation is that everyone now realizes that the Benedictines were correct all along.
Well, almost everyone, with the small exception of a certain bishop in a rather small metropolis in the Lazio region of Italy. 😉
One for the “please meet the new boss, just like …. not the old boss… but the one before him”.
Chicago appointment not pretty.
Link here: http://the-american-catholic.com/2014/09/22/popewatch-bernardin-ii/
And they call that progress…..
… and one for the “don’t believe anything you hear and only half of what you see” category, ….
this from Magister: “Cardinals who have spoken out against Kasper’s ideas and in defense of the traditional doctrine and practice are numerous and prominent”
If I told you once, I will tell you a thousand times, it ain’t what it looks like. 😉
The link to Magister is here: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350876
Everyone ought to have knelt – let them try arresting them all. Public premises are provided to persons in the name of the people; such foul behaviour ought not to be facilitated on behalf of the people, thus the people are indirectly cooperating with this objective evil.
The irony is, neither would the sedevacantist post VII “bishops” like Sanborn have authority. Because they’d be in violation of canon 335. So your hero Cekada would be following an imposter claiming to be a bishop.
Fr Cekada? A hero? Huh; I never thought of it that way, but, yes, the Apostolic Sons willing to be villified and hated by 99% of all self-professed Catholics for the sake of not comprimising the Faith (if Christianity is comprimised it is no longer Christianity) are actually heroes of the Faith.
p.s. Are you referring to wojtyla’s canon? A link would be helpful.
I understand the ‘been there done that’, feeling Indignus. Then I realised that with things so crucial, there can’t ever be a ‘been there done that’ – at least that is how I see it.
1- since Trent Catechism is not infallible, and you use that as proof of what you say, what the heck are you even talking about?
2-I don’t understand this part, maybe you could be clearer? Thanks
Do you mean the basic distinction between morality etc. and valid ordination and/or heretical status as “old trite argument”?
Why is it old and trite?
3-It is circumstantial evidence, as I myself said. Not proof. You sound very irritated and show to have an agenda, while I’m simply exploring the possibilities…
no doubt you need your worldview to be absolutely true and irrefutable for personal reasons.. while I don’t, so I’m free to free think and look truly for the truth “unbound”. It’s not a competition.
Also, no, I’m talking of cases where evidence points to the priest being UNABLE to use authoritative rites effectively.
what is your problem? Are you intellectively unable or unwilling to understand what I spent a very long time trying to explain to you?
Your behaviour is unexcusable, except if due to mental problems, honestly.
you already conceded that heretics, schismatics and apostates are automatically excluded from the Church, we know from M.C.C. that “…..Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity,  she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors. ….”
Are you taking offense on the use of the word “impeccable”? I know that ethimologically it very much implies Sin and sinning, coming from the latin “peccare” and “peccatus”, also present in the formula “a peccatis tuis” in the Absolution etc, but I meant in the sense of devoid of doctrinal imperfections, not that her members are unable to sin or sin would exclude them from the Body automatically.
I also need to point out how you once again shifted the focus on sin and sinners, for some reason, am I missing something?